The United States is in the midst of a once in a generation effort to rebuild its transportation and mobility systems. Through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021, hundreds of billions of dollars of new investments are flowing into American highway, rail, transit, aviation, port, pipeline, and active transportation projects.

This transportation infrastructure will be tested by new and emerging threats ranging from increased risk of flooding and heatwaves to supply chain disruptions and cyberattacks. Citizens are also rightly demanding more from the transportation sector—enhanced safety, faster project delivery, lower costs, increased sustainability, efficiency, resiliency, and a more equitable system for all users.

Meeting this moment will require bold investments in new and emerging transportation technologies—new materials, construction techniques, operations systems, planning tools, advanced sensing, computation, and beyond. Authorized in the IIJA, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Infrastructure (ARPA-I), a new agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), is poised to catalyze the transportation innovation ecosystem and accelerate and commercialize essential technologies that solve persistent infrastructure problems.

To inform its research agenda, ARPA-I embarked on a National Listening Tour from September 2023 through June 2024 to gather insights from a wide range of stakeholders from across the transportation ecosystem. With convenings held in the Pacific Northwest, Southeast, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic, the tour provided several opportunities for ARPA-I to engage with 280 leading transportation experts. The goal was to ensure that ARPA-I heard both the priorities and capabilities of a broad range of transportation and infrastructure stakeholders from across the ecosystem. Of the 280 participants, 99 (35%) were from academia; 58 (21%) were from private corporations; 42 (15%) were from policy and nonprofit organizations; 38 (14%) were from federal, state, and local transportation agencies; 37 (13%) were from startups; and 6 (2%) were financial investors. The ideas shared by these participants will help shape ARPA-I’s future research agenda and will provide a framework for the Agency’s ambitions that will be achieved in part with the participation of and input from this broad ecosystem of stakeholders.

Purpose and Organization of this Report

This report summarizes the insights collected over the course of the ARPA-I National Listening Tour in 2023 and 2024 and the inaugural ARPA-I expert community convening in Washington, DC in December 2022. Insights were gathered from 280 participants in the form of written worksheets and transcribed notes from discussions during the Workshops. The insights summarized in sections 4-7 of this report are intended to inform potential areas for future innovative advanced research and development (R&D) programs to be funded and managed by ARPA–I.

This report is organized into the following sections:

2. Laying the Groundwork for ARPA-I
3. ARPA-I National Listening Tour Overview
4. Promising Ideas for Future ARPA-I R&D Programs
5. Challenges Facing U.S. Transportation Infrastructure
6. Opportunities to Solve U.S. Transportation Infrastructure Challenges
7. Predictions for U.S. Transportation Infrastructure in 10-20 Years
8. Conclusion
9. Acknowledgements

Laying the Groundwork for ARPA-I

In November 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), allocating $550 billion in new funding for various programs within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), including the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I). Modeled after highly successful agencies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), ARPA-I aims to address significant transportation infrastructure challenges through innovative technology solutions.

ARPA-I’s mission involves funding high-risk, high-reward next-generation innovative technologies with the potential to revolutionize U.S. transportation infrastructure. The agency aims to develop innovative solutions that reduce long-term infrastructure costs, minimize environmental impacts, enhance the safe and efficient movement of goods and people, and improve infrastructure resilience against physical and cyber threats.

To achieve its goals, ARPA-I will support projects that advance early-stage novel research with practical applications, translate conceptual technologies to prototype and testing stages, develop advanced manufacturing processes, and accelerate technological advancements in areas where industry may not invest due to technical and financial uncertainties.

ARPA-I continues a legacy of ARPAs that have delivered breakthrough innovations in a number of sectors. DARPA, established in 1958 in response to the Soviet Sputnik launch, has led to significant technological advances, including the internet, GPS, and mRNA vaccines. Inspired by DARPA’s success, the government created similar agencies for other critical sectors, including the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), ARPA-E, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health (ARPA-H). ARPA-I will adopt many of the core cultural traits and rigorous ideation processes honed by prior ARPAs to seek similar breakthroughs for the transportation infrastructure sector.

To lay the groundwork for ARPA-I’s future, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and DOT hosted an inaugural ARPA-I Summit in June 2023 during which a series of announcements were made on future ARPA-I activities. These announcements included:

• Supercharging Infrastructure R&D Made Possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Programs: ARPA-I announced plans to work with DOT program offices to develop an innovative research agenda that complements flagship investment areas in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including the $5 billion Safe Streets and Roads for All program, the $8.7 billion PROTECT resilient infrastructure program, and the $7.5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program. This research agenda will identify technical chokepoints in each domain that could be overcome through a focused R&D initiative. 

• Partnering with Communities Across the Nation: ARPA-I is launching a national listening tour with leading researchers, entrepreneurs, companies, and transportation advocates to ensure that ARPA-I reflects the priorities and capabilities of transportation and infrastructure R&D stakeholders across the ecosystem. The listening tour will begin in the Pacific Northwest and will feature locations across the country.

• Request for Information (RFI): ARPA-I invites the public and experts across a variety of modes, sectors and disciplines to provide their ideas and input on high-potential areas for ARPA-I to explore.

• Advancing the Intersection Safety Challenge: ARPA-I is highlighting the USDOT Intersection Safety Challenge, a multi-phased challenge that began with a $6 million prize competition that leveraged machine vision, sensor fusion, and real-time decision making to create safer conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers at intersections. The first phase of the Intersection Safety Challenge was initiated in 2023. It featured a number of characteristics that have been successful aspects of other ARPA program, including performance-based procurement, stage-gated programs, cross-disciplinary teams and expertise, high-impact domains and open innovation ecosystems.

Building upon the initiatives announced in June 2023, DOT has since undertaken additional efforts related to key transportation infrastructure areas. In January 2024, DOT announced the winners of the first phase of the U.S. DOT Intersection Safety Challenge, a call for opportunities “to transform roadway intersection safety by incentivizing new and emerging technologies that identify and address unsafe conditions involving vehicles, and vulnerable road users at intersections.” In February 2024, DOT announced an RFI about opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in transportation, along with the $15 million Complete Streets AI Initiative–a new opportunity for American small businesses to leverage advancements in AI to improve transportation. 

Since its authorization, ARPA-I has made steady progress to gather insights from across our country’s transportation infrastructure experts and is prepared for future ARPA-I projects that will be both appropriately ambitious and focused on our largest transportation problems.

ARPA-I National Listening Tour Overview

The ARPA-I National Listening Tour was the continuation and expansion of an inaugural ARPA-I expert community convening held at DOT headquarters in Washington, DC in December 2022 titled Transportation, Mobility, and the Future of Infrastructure. The National Listening Tour stops included:

• Pacific Northwest (hosted by the University of Washington in Seattle, WA) – September 2023
• Southeast (hosted by the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, GA) – February 2024
• Midwest (hosted by Newlab in Detroit, MI) – March 2024
• Mid-Atlantic (hosted by Cornell Tech in New York, NY) – June 2024

The purpose of the ARPA-I National Listening Tour was to convene leading researchers, entrepreneurs, companies, and other transportation innovators and initiate a dialogue to ensure that ARPA-I reflects the priorities and capabilities of transportation and infrastructure R&D stakeholders across the ecosystem. 

Each Workshop followed a consistent format of plenary presentations from DOT leadership highlighting the opportunity and imperative of this community’s involvement, along with providing background on the unique cultural and structural components that set ARPA agencies up to seed breakthrough innovations, how ARPAs ideate advanced research program designs, and crucial roles that partners outside of government can participate in ARPA-I programs. 

Beyond the plenary presentations, the bulk of each Workshop consisted of breakout activities and discussions that focused on some combination of ideal future visions for what U.S. transportation infrastructure could look like in 10-20 years, the biggest problems facing U.S. transportation infrastructure, and novel technological breakthroughs and opportunities that have the potential to solve those fundamental problems.

In total, 280 transportation infrastructure experts participated in the four Workshops and the inaugural convening in Washington, DC. These experts included representatives from academia; corporations; policy and nonprofit organizations; federal, state, and local departments of transportation; venture capital (VC) and other investment firms; and startups.

Promising Ideas for Future ARPA-I R&D Programs

While the DOT continues to engage in strategy development and seek expert inputs to help shape ARPA-I’s initial set of research priorities once fully resourced, several promising ideas were uncovered during the ARPA-I National Listening Tour. Those ideas are described below in no particular order, along with the potential impact they could have on U.S. transportation infrastructure systems at scale. These ideas are not meant to serve as a current representation of priorities or research agendas of ARPA-I, but instead as a showcase of the creative and transformative solutions that the U.S. transportation infrastructure expert community is capable of envisioning.

AI-enabled efficiency throughout the infrastructure lifecycle

One of the most pervasive challenges in U.S. transportation infrastructure is the inefficiency of current project planning, design, and construction processes. Traditional methods often involve lengthy timelines, costly overruns, and frequent delays due to a lack of coordination and integration between stakeholders, planners, and contractors. These inefficiencies contribute to significant cost burdens on public funds and delay the delivery of much-needed transportation maintenance and improvements.

To address this challenge, one concept raised during the Workshops was that of a fully integrated, AI-enhanced project planning, design, scheduling, and construction schema. This idea leverages advancements in AI and “digital twin” technologies to streamline the entire lifecycle of transportation infrastructure projects—from conception to completion. By incorporating digital twins at all scales (geographic, structural, and temporal), the solution provides a powerful opportunity.

Implementing this AI-enhanced system would significantly accelerate the delivery of transportation infrastructure projects across the U.S., reducing both project completion times and overall costs. By enabling predictive analysis and continuous optimization, it would also lead to better resource allocation, reducing material waste and minimizing environmental impact. The result would be more efficient, resilient infrastructure systems that can adapt to future demands more effectively.

Priming physical road infrastructure for a digital future 

The rigidity of traditional road infrastructure design remains a key issue contributing to inefficient traffic management, safety concerns, and costly, timely physical infrastructure adaptations. Physical road infrastructure like bike lanes, vehicle lanes, and curbs are static and not reflective of the fluid nature of transportation needs, particularly in urban environments. A suite of technologies such as AI, drones, automated systems, and sensor-equipped barriers could be used to create smart lanes and barriers that adjust according to live traffic data, weather conditions, or sudden hazards, by rerouting traffic or narrowing lanes to optimize for current conditions.

If the U.S. could develop systems like this that have been piloted in other countries (e.g., Spain), the impact on transportation infrastructure would be transformative. City planners would have the ability to program infrastructure dynamically, creating safer, more adaptive environments for cyclists and other road users. The result would be fewer accidents, better traffic management, and more efficient use of space, with the additional benefit of reducing emissions by promoting cycling over car travel. The flexible nature of this infrastructure could also support emerging technologies such as connected vehicles and autonomous driving systems and allow the U.S. to design more sustainable, future-proof cities that prioritize adaptability, safety, and user-centric design.

Automated maintenance and on-site manufacturing

ARPA-I National Listening Tour Workshop participants repeatedly raised concerns around transportation construction and repair challenges, including labor shortages, inconsistent funding, slow project timelines, inefficiencies in traditional construction methods, and high carbon emissions to these methods.

Technologies including AI, robotics, and large-scale additive manufacturing, were noted for their potential to solve these challenges when applied at scale. AI-powered systems can monitor roads and bridges in real-time, predicting failures and enabling proactive repairs. Once detected, autonomous drones and robots can perform immediate repairs, reducing downtime and keeping workers safe by eliminating the need for human intervention in unsafe environments. Simultaneously, on-site manufacturing, using 3D printing and generative design, can produce infrastructure components directly at construction sites, reducing the need for long-distance transportation and reducing carbon emissions.

These solutions, especially if applied in tandem with one another, have the potential to make infrastructure maintenance autonomous, continuous, safer, and more cost-effective. On-site manufacturing would speed up construction projects and minimize logistical challenges while reducing the substantial impact the transportation sector currently has on carbon emissions.

New and emerging alternative PNT technologies

Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) services are essential to the nation’s critical infrastructure, enabling the safe, secure, and efficient operation of transportation systems for federal, state, commercial, and private entities across the U.S., including tribal lands and territories. These services provide crucial data that supports air and maritime supply chains, freight logistics, efficient roadway operations, crash prevention, and shared road use among vehicles and pedestrians. PNT services also ensure the safety and efficiency of aviation operations. For decades, the Global Positioning System (GPS) has been the backbone of PNT, continually evolving to improve accuracy, integrity, and security while expanding its applications.

However, despite the emergence of technologies like inertial navigation systems and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) to improve the reliability of PNT data, these tools still have limitations. GPS, for example, relies on satellites, making it vulnerable to space weather disturbances and adversarial actions. Additionally, GPS systems can be compromised by threats such as jamming and spoofing.

Quantum sensors offer a promising solution, providing navigation capabilities in areas where GPS signals are weak or unavailable. These sensors use the principles of quantum mechanics to measure physical properties like time, acceleration, and magnetic fields with unprecedented accuracy. Quantum clocks, for instance, provide exceptional timekeeping precision, critical for synchronizing networks and systems. Quantum inertial sensors deliver highly accurate position and velocity measurements, making them invaluable during extended periods where GPS is unavailable. Meanwhile, quantum gravimeters and quantum magnetometers, which are passive systems, can operate under all weather conditions, at any time, and in featureless terrains such as oceans. These sensors enable gravitational anomaly-aided navigation (GravNav) and magnetic anomaly-aided navigation (MagNav). They collectively offer pathways to make our PNT systems more precise, more reliable and resilient.

Repurposing transportation rights-of-way for infrastructure of the future

Another critical challenge raised throughout the Workshops was that of meeting the growing demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and the integration of modern, sustainable technologies at scale. The current network, designed for traditional internal combustion engines, lacks the infrastructure to support widespread EV adoption and smart technologies like connected and autonomous vehicles. 

One solution posed during Workshops (and as part of the White House’s Net-Zero Game Changers Initiative) is to repurpose existing transportation rights-of-way (ROWs) along highways and railroads for dual use, enabling the development of EV charging infrastructure and clean energy transmission without the need for costly land acquisition or major structural changes. With 48,000 miles of interstate highways and 140,000 miles of freight railroads, the U.S. has a vast network of ROWs that can be leveraged for new infrastructure. These ROWs can host charging stations, and in some cases, technologies like inductive charging embedded within roadways, allowing vehicles to recharge as they drive. This would make long-distance EV travel more feasible, eliminating range anxiety and encouraging broader adoption of electric vehicles. 

Technological innovations like high-voltage underground cables and modular interconnection power electronics would help ensure grid stability while integrating energy and transportation infrastructure. These tools would allow the grid to balance the energy demands of electric vehicles in real time, creating a smarter, more resilient transportation network.

Challenges Facing U.S. Transportation Infrastructure

A portion of each Workshop breakout discussion focused on identifying the fundamental problems and challenges facing U.S. transportation infrastructure. Throughout these discussions, 353 individual responses were gathered. Themes that emerged consisted of problems related to safety, aging infrastructure and maintenance, data access and other data issues, environmental sustainability and resilience, financial constraints, operational inefficiencies related to existing structures and processes, equity and accessibility, technology adoption and scaling, energy and electrification, and community and planning challenges. Each of these broad themes that arose is broken down in further detail below.

Categories of Transportation Infrastructure Challenges 

Safety (66 mentions): Safety remains a paramount issue with transportation-related fatalities once again topping 40,000 in the U.S. during 2023. Factors raised by participants as contributing to safety risks include impaired driving, driver distractions, excessive speeds, and inadequate infrastructure accommodations for vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists. Unsafe street and intersection designs were also a critical concern, described as “the majority of intersections outside of urban centers are not designed to accommodate pedestrians safely.” The rise in the size and weight of vehicles, along with the general car-centric nature of much of U.S. transportation infrastructure, were frequently noted as an impediment to pedestrian safety. Multiple participants noted that current infrastructure prioritizes vehicle speed and efficiency over driver, pedestrian, and cyclist safety.

Aging Infrastructure (56 mentions): Aging physical infrastructure continues to be a top concern for many experts. Challenges participants pointed to included failing bridges, deteriorating road conditions, and corrosion of materials, resulting in considerable maintenance backlogs. Participants also frequently pointed to outdated designs that do not accommodate modern transportation needs and struggle to adapt to contemporary demands, including electrification needs and the ability to withstand climate-related events.

Data Inadequacies (42 mentions): Many participants made reference to a significant lack of real-time and comprehensive data for the transportation planning the U.S. needs. For instance, data on pedestrian and bike activities to analyze crash risks effectively is often historic, segmented, inaccurate, and inaccessible. Data collection on vehicle collisions takes up to a year, delaying critical safety decisions. Digital infrastructure gaps were a frequent concern, noting “many areas lack the necessary digital infrastructure for modern transportation systems.” The need for better people-oriented data was also emphasized, referring specifically to data on pedestrian and cyclist movements to improve safety. 

Environmental Sustainability and Resilience (37 mentions): The transportation sector is the largest contributor (28%) to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, participants called out these emissions rates, the environmental impact of larger vehicles, the carbon intensive materials and processes currently used in infrastructure construction, and the need for influencing travel behavior towards low carbon trips. Alongside sustainability concerns, infrastructure resilience was another common challenge raised.

Financial Constraints (34 mentions): According to participants, high costs associated with constructing, repairing, and maintaining transportation infrastructure limit the scope and speed of improvements. Public agencies face difficulties in efficient procurement and funding allocation, exacerbated by a backlog in maintenance and capital improvements. There were also mentions of profit-driven interests in car infrastructure, limited revenue from fares, and the need for funding catalysts and public-private collaborations.

Operational Inefficiencies (34 mentions): Operational inefficiencies were a recurring theme among discussions, specifically fragmented management with comments like “the lack of coordination between agencies results in redundant efforts.” Inefficiencies in resource utilization were highlighted along with a lack of coordination across transportation modes.

Equity and Accessibility (25 mentions): Disparities in access to transportation infrastructure affect low-income and rural communities, as well as vulnerable populations. Car-centric infrastructure impacts and social inequities are major concerns. There are also challenges related to accessibility for people with disabilities, rural area connectivity, and access to reliable wireless connectivity for digital infrastructure advancements.

Technological Integration (21 mentions): Slow adoption of new technologies and integration with legacy systems are major hurdles, with participants asserting that there is resistance to adopting new technologies in the transportation sector. Challenges with autonomous vehicle integration, maritime and port digital integration, and procurement of new technologies are significant. There is also a need for improved cybersecurity alongside digital infrastructure buildout. 

Energy and Electrification (20 mentions): Grid limitations in rural areas and the need for improved electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure were common among discussions around our largest transportation infrastructure challenges. Specifically, there pointing to a mismatch between the transportation sector and the electric grid, as the current grid is not designed to handle the demands of electric transportation. 

Community and Planning Issues (18 mentions): Slow community engagement processes and the need for adaptable project designs were frequently cited issues. Encouraging transit ridership and the need for inclusive transportation planning are also mentioned.

Opportunities to Solve U.S. Transportation Infrastructure Challenges

Building upon ARPA-I National Listening Tour breakout discussion on U.S. transportation infrastructure’s biggest challenges, Workshop participants shifted their attention to solving these problems. In order to do so, they brainstormed and discussed current and coming opportunities upon which we must capitalize in order to solve our most pressing challenges highlighted in the section above. 

Throughout these discussions, 415 individual responses were gathered. Participant insights included policy suggestions, stakeholder engagement strategies, and infrastructure improvements, but the primary focus of these discussions–given ARPA-I’s scope–was on technological opportunities (accounting for 334 of the 415 responses). Key themes raised include the integration of cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) AI, sensor technology, internet of things (IoT), digital twins, and edge computing to enhance data collection, processing, and real-time decision-making. Participants also emphasized the need for interoperable systems, standardization of data, and the creation of national repositories to streamline information sharing and improve infrastructure planning.

Technology Opportunities

Given ARPA-I’s focus on technology solutions, the primary opportunity types identified throughout National Listening Tour Workshops were cross-cutting technologies, described in detail below.

Sensors and Sensor-related Technologies (71 mentions): Sensors were the most frequently cited technology opportunity to address transportation infrastructure problems including real-time detection of hazards, infrastructure wear and tear, and the need for accurate, continuous data collection. Examples of specific sensor technologies or applications included:

• Multiple sensors on new vehicles to increase accessible and real-time data
• High tech cameras to detect pedestrians and reduce the risk of accidents in urban areas
• Low-cost sensors for infrastructure condition assessment to identify early signs of infrastructure failure and reduce the risk of catastrophic failures
• Sensor systems on bridges and within technology like geosynthetics

AI and Machine Learning (AI/ML) (50 mentions): AI and ML were mentioned throughout the National Listening Tour Workshops as necessary pieces to solve complex problems related to traffic management, predictive maintenance, and autonomous vehicle operations. AI and ML can improve the accuracy of predictions, optimize system performance, and automate decision-making processes. Examples of specific types and applications include:

• AI that can model and predict behavior
• Generative AI to address the issue of unforeseen scenarios in autonomous vehicle operations by generating solutions in real-time
• AI/ML to accelerate new materials and structures
• Physics-informed AI to accurately model infrastructure impacts

Data Standardization and Management (32 mentions): One opportunity that may not have one specific technology tool to point to, but is inherently a technological opportunity, is data standardization and management. This would tackle the issue of fragmented data systems, ensuring consistency and interoperability across various modes, networks, and stakeholders. This would facilitate better decision-making and more efficient infrastructure management. Examples of specific standardizations and management tools include:

• Standardized data formats
• National data repositories to create centralized databases
• Federated data change management
• Data version control

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) (28 mentions): Participants pointed to advancement and widespread rollout of AV technology as perhaps the biggest transformation to come in U.S. transportation systems. Achieving this maturation and scale could address the problem of human error in driving, which is a leading cause of crashes. AVs could optimize traffic flow and reduce congestion, making transportation systems both safer and more efficient. Examples of AV applications and associated technologies include:

• Dedicated AV lanes between major transportation centers
• AV-ready road network
• Fully capable and scalable AV technology

Internet of Things (IoT) (27 mentions): IoT technology can help solve the problem of disconnected systems by enabling communication between various elements of the transportation network. Participants assert it as a way to achieve real-time monitoring, improve safety, and increase efficiency. Examples of IoT applications include:

• IoT and AI integration reducing the need for hardware devices
• Leveraging IoT to reduce urban congestion by creating connected spaces that optimize mobility

Digital Twins (23 mentions): Digital twins have the potential to address inefficient planning and maintenance by providing accurate virtual representations of physical infrastructure. This would allow for better simulation, monitoring, and optimization, leading to more informed decision-making. Examples of applications from Workshop participants include:

• Digital twin immersive testing to identify potential unexpected failures before physical implementation
• Digital twins of infrastructure and traffic models to improve traffic management by simulating real-world conditions and enabling proactive responses to potential issues

Edge Computing (19 mentions): According to many participants, edge computing could completely fix the issue of latency in data processing, which is critical for applications requiring immediate responses, such as AVs and real-time traffic management systems. Examples of edge computing applications include:

• Real-time processing and decision-making
• Onboard and edge computing capabilities to enable vehicle and infrastructure to operate autonomously

Electric Vehicles (EVs) (19 mentions): Participants pointed to the readily apparent opportunity that EVs represent if the technology, costs, and infrastructure can be achieved at scale. To get to scale, it was widely acknowledged that we need more efficient EV charging experience, with infrastructure that allows for rapid charging along service areas. Another challenge for EV adoption is the need to build a widespread, reliable charging network that can meet the demands of all users, including long-haul trucks.

Modeling-related Technologies(17 mentions): Modeling technologies are essential for predicting infrastructure performance, traffic patterns, and the impact of various interventions. Examples of modeling-related technologies raised by participants were:

• Predictive modeling to optimize safety planning and real-time traffic management
• Behavioral modeling to improve AV prediction and safety

5G/6G Communication (15 mentions): Advanced communication technologies like 5G and 6G were mentioned as crucial for enabling real-time data exchange between vehicles, infrastructure, and central systems. An example is the deployment of 6G to support point-to-point communications in vehicle-to-everything (V2X) systems. Examples  of applications include:

• 6G integrated sensing and communication to provide ultra-low latency necessary for AV operations and other critical applications
• 6G support for point-to-point communications in vehicle-to-everything (V2X) systems
• Pervasive broadband and level of service

Carbon Capture Technologies (10 mentions): Carbon capture technologies are critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the transportation sector. Example mentioned by participants include: 

• Carbon capture methods such as amine-based technology, solid pellets, portable units, and direct air capture
• Use renewable hydrogen to decarbonize steel production
• Apply carbon capture, utilization and storage to cement

Drones and Related Technologies (10 mentions): Workshop discussions around drones noted that they offer innovative solutions for infrastructure monitoring, logistics, and transportation management. 

• 3D mobility enhancement through drones for last-mile delivery
• Swarms of drones used for large-scale infrastructure inspection

Low Carbon-related Innovations (9 mentions): Similar to carbon capture technologies, low carbon-related innovations will be important in reducing carbon emissions. Example of technologies raised during breakout discussions include:

• Low carbon materials to reduce the carbon footprint of physical infrastructure like roads and bridges
• Energy-storing materials (multifunctional concrete)

Quantum Computing (4 mentions): Quantum computing was raised a few times throughout discussions as a means for quantum material sensor development and also quantum sensing for unprecedented precision in infrastructure monitoring.

Non-technology Opportunities

Policy suggestions: Policy-related opportunities focused on creating a supportive regulatory framework, aligning financial investments with long-term infrastructure goals, and ensuring that policies are inclusive and equitable. These policies were intended to address challenges in planning, funding, and implementing large-scale infrastructure projects. Specifically, participants discussed opportunities to craft policies to ensure that transportation investments prioritize underserved communities, addressing the problem of unequal access to transportation resources. 

Stakeholder engagement strategies: Participants emphasized the opportunity presented by involving diverse groups, particularly those traditionally underserved or impacted by infrastructure projects to raise the voices of all community members so that infrastructure development is responsive to their needs. 

Physical infrastructure improvements: Non-technology-specific infrastructure improvements highlighted throughout the Workshops included enhancing the physical aspects of transportation systems, such as road design and public transit accessibility. 

For instance, increasing the use of roundabouts can help solve the problem of high accident rates at traditional intersections. Additionally, developing complete streets infrastructure that supports all users, including pedestrians and cyclists, addresses the problem of limited accessibility and safety on roads designed primarily for vehicles.

Financial and economic strategies: Opportunities raised  centered on creating sustainable funding mechanisms for transportation infrastructure projects. These strategies address the challenges of securing adequate, long-term financing for both new projects and the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Ideas included alternative funding mechanisms such as value capture or tolling.

Predictions for U.S. Transportation Infrastructure in 10-20 Years

One of the key criteria for any good ARPA project is that it is appropriately ambitious. To set that level of ambition, ARPA-I National Listening Tour participants were asked to make a prediction for U.S. transportation infrastructure 10-20 years from now, taking an ambitious perspective and focusing on what could be. Throughout these discussions, 291 individual predictions were gathered. Despite the wide ranging and sometimes narrowly focused predictions, continuous themes emerged to help reveal a shared vision for what participants want to see in the transportation systems of tomorrow. 

Participants frequently emphasized the importance of widespread adoption and integration of advanced technologies such as autonomous vehicles, AI-driven traffic management, and real-time data communication to create a connected and efficient transportation network. Sustainability also emerged as a central theme, with many predicting a shift toward carbon-neutral transportation systems powered by renewable energy sources. Ideas included dynamic wireless charging for electric vehicles, infrastructure embedded with carbon sequestration capabilities, and the widespread adoption of alternative fuels like hydrogen. The focus on sustainability also extended to construction practices, with participants envisioning the use of self-healing and recyclable materials to build resilient infrastructure that can adapt to climate challenges.

Equity and accessibility were also frequently mentioned, with a strong emphasis on creating a transportation system that serves everyone, regardless of location or socioeconomic status. Visions included universal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, free public transportation, and the development of equity-based planning tools to ensure that investments benefit all communities. The overarching ambition is to build a transportation network that is not only technologically advanced and environmentally sustainable but also inclusive and equitable, providing reliable access to mobility for all.

Categories of Predictions for U.S. Transportation Infrastructure in 10-20 years

Automation and Autonomy (36 mentions): Participants imagined a future dominated by autonomous systems, including self-driving cars, autonomous shuttles, and urban air mobility. These systems would be interconnected, allowing for seamless operation and enhanced efficiency. Ideas included autonomous vehicle fleets, virtual “rails” for guiding autonomous vehicles, and the deployment of autonomous drones for transport. The overarching vision was a transportation ecosystem where human error is minimized, and transportation becomes more efficient and safer.

Connectivity (31 mentions): Connectivity was seen as the backbone of transportation infrastructure in the future, with participants envisioning a fully interconnected system where vehicles, infrastructure, and personal devices communicate seamlessly. Advanced technologies such as quantum sensing, AI-driven traffic management, and universal communication standards were proposed to create a hyperconnected network. This would enable real-time traffic management, reduce congestion, and optimize the flow of goods and people.

Sustainability and Environmental Impact (29 mentions): Participants proposed a wide range of ideas aimed at reducing the environmental impact of transportation in the future. These included self-healing materials that extend infrastructure life and reduced emissions associated with frequent maintenance and construction, carbon sequestration integrated into construction materials, and the development of energy-generating infrastructure such as smart trails to generate energy for electric bikes. Participants also discussed the potential of dynamic wireless charging for electric vehicles and the large-scale adoption of alternative fuels, ensuring that the transportation system is not only sustainable but actively contributes to environmental restoration.

Safety (28 mentions): Safety innovations were a frequent theme, with participants proposing strategies to achieve a near-zero fatality transportation system. Ideas included expanding Vision Zero strategies, integrating AI for real-time risk detection, and deploying automated enforcement systems to prevent unsafe driving behaviors. The reimagining of urban spaces to prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety was also highlighted, with infrastructure designed to protect the most vulnerable road users.

Climate Resilience (25 mentions): Participants emphasized the importance of building infrastructure that can withstand and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Ideas included the use of self-healing and self-sensing materials, modular designs for easier repairs and upgrades, and infrastructure that is resilient to extreme weather events. The vision was for transportation infrastructure that is not only durable but also adaptable to future climate challenges, contributing to overall climate resilience.

Equity and Accessibility (24 mentions): Ensuring equity and accessibility was a priority for participants when thinking about the future, with ideas like universal ADA compliance, free public transportation, and the development of equity-based asset management tools. The goal was to create a transportation system that serves all communities, including those that are traditionally underserved, such as rural areas and marginalized populations. 

Public Transit (22 mentions): Public transit was envisioned as a fully integrated, multimodal system that is easy to use and highly efficient. Participants proposed the elimination of car-centric roadways in urban areas, replacing them with dedicated lanes for public transit, cycling, and walking. High-speed rail development, particularly in key regions, and the expansion of micro-mobility options were also highlighted as ways to enhance last-mile connectivity and reduce reliance on personal vehicles.

Innovation and Technology Adoption (18 mentions): Participants predicted a future where technologies like AI, quantum computing, and digital twins have been adopted at scale to optimize infrastructure performance and maintenance. These technologies at scale would allow for real-time monitoring, predictive maintenance, and dynamic system adjustments, and contribute to transportation systems being more efficient, resilient, and future-proofed.

Data-driven Planning (17 mentions): Participants envisioned the use of AI for real-time data analysis, along with the establishment of national data standards to ensure seamless integration across different modes, organizations, and stakeholders. 

Policies and Partnerships (13 mentions): Despite not being the focus of ARPA-I policy and governance were mentioned as enablers for many of the ambitious future visions. Participants proposed establishing public-private partnerships to fund and manage infrastructure projects and allow for more flexible and innovative financing models. They also envisioned equity-based asset management tools and policies, increased cross-jurisdictional collaboration, and policies to set national guidelines for climate adaptation in infrastructure design and construction. 

Multimodal Mobility (11 mentions): The collective vision for mobility included creating a seamless multimodal transportation system that allows users to easily switch between different modes such as bikes, trains, and buses. Participants hope for the development of unified payment systems to enhance the user experience and reduce reliance on personal vehicles. 

Energy (10 mentions): Energy integration predictions centered on using renewable energy sources, bidirectional EV charging for grid stability, and dynamic load management systems. Overall, participants want a future where transportation systems are tightly integrated with energy networks, ensuring reliability while reducing the carbon footprint of the transportation sector.

Urban Planning (10 mentions): Urban planning-related visions included the removal of highways in cities, replacing them with green spaces, light rail, and pedestrian-friendly streets. Participants also predicted the development of high-speed rail corridors connecting major cities, reducing the need for air travel and long car journeys, and integrating land use with transportation planning for more sustainable urban growth.

Materials and Construction (10 mentions): Participants want to see increased use of self-healing and self-sensing materials to extend infrastructure lifespans by centuries. Modular construction techniques and adopting low-carbon materials were also noted as ways to reduce construction times, costs, and environmental impact.

Community and Health Impacts (7 mentions): Transportation infrastructure was envisioned by some as a tool for improving community health and well-being in the future. Ideas included designing infrastructure that supports physical and mental health, reducing the “pink tax” on transportation for women and families, and creating transportation systems that enhance social cohesion and community safety.

Conclusion

As ARPA-I continues its mission to revolutionize transportation infrastructure, it is essential to sustain and expand the support of the transportation expert community and stakeholders across the country. ARPA-I’s success will depend on the collective effort of researchers, innovators, policymakers, and industry leaders who recognize the agency’s potential to drive breakthrough solutions. To truly tackle our biggest transportation infrastructure challenges, we must deepen our commitment to collaboration, align resources strategically, and remain focused on innovative, high-impact outcomes. The expert community should continue to engage with DOT and ARPA-I, push the boundaries of what is possible in their own work, and seek to build the support necessary to turn ARPA-I’s ambitions into reality.

For a full list of organizers, facilitators, and participant organizations, please see the full PDF-version of the report here.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has long supported innovative scientific research through grant programs. Among these, the EAGER (Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research) and RAPID (Rapid Response Research) grants are crucial in fostering early-stage questions and ideas. This memo proposes expanding and improving these programs by addressing their current limitations and leveraging the successful aspects of their predecessor program, the Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) program, and other innovative funding models like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Current Challenges and Opportunities

The landscape of scientific funding has always been a balancing act between supporting established research and nurturing new ideas. Over the years, the NSF has played a pivotal role in maintaining this balance through various grant programs. One way they support new ideas is through small, fast grants. The SGER program, active from 1990 to 2006, provided nearly 5,000 grants, with an average size of about $54,000. This program laid the groundwork for the current EAGER and RAPID grants, which took SGER’s place and were designed to support exploratory and urgent research, respectively. Using the historical data, researchers analyzed the effectiveness of the SGER program and found it wildly effective, with “transformative research results tied to more than 10% of projects.” The paper also found that the program was underutilized by NSF program officers, leaving open questions about how such an effective and relatively inexpensive mechanism was being overlooked.

Did the NSF learn anything from the paper? Probably not enough, according to the data.

In 2013, the year the SGER paper was published, roughly 2% of total NSF grant funding went towards EAGER and RAPID grants (which translated to more than 4% of the total NSF-funded projects that year). Except for a spike in RAPID grants in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a steady decline in the volume, amount, and percentage of EAGER and RAPID grants over the ensuing decade. Over the past few years, EAGER and RAPID have barely exceeded 1% of the award budget. Despite the proven effectiveness of these funding mechanisms and their relative affordability, the rate of small, fast grantmaking has stagnated over the past decade.

There is a pressing need to support more high-risk, high-reward research through more flexible and efficient funding mechanisms. Increasing the small, fast grant capacity of the national research programs is an obvious place to improve, given the results of the SGER study and the fact that small grants are easier on the budget.

The current EAGER and RAPID grant programs, while effective, face administrative and cultural challenges that limit their scalability and impact. The reasons for their underuse remain poorly understood, but anecdotal insights from NSF program officers offer clues. The most plausible explanation is also the simplest: It’s difficult to prioritize small grants while juggling larger ones that carry higher stakes and greater visibility. While deeper, formal studies could further pinpoint the barriers, the lack of such research should not hinder the pursuit of bold, alternative strategies—especially when small grant programs offer a rare blend of impact and affordability.

Drawing inspiration from the ARPA model, which empowers program managers with funding discretion and contracting authority, there is an opportunity to revolutionize how small grants are administered. The ARPA approach, characterized by high degrees of autonomy and focus on high-risk, high-reward projects, has already inspired successful initiatives beyond its initial form in the Department of Defense (DARPA), like ARPA-E for energy and ARPA-H for health. A similar “Micro-ARPA” approach — in which dedicated, empowered personnel manage these funds — could be transformative for ensuring that small grant programs within NSF reach their full potential. 

Plan of Action

To enhance the volume, impact, and efficiency of small, fast grant programs, we propose the following:

1. Establish a Micro-ARPA program with dedicated funding for small, flexible grants: The NSF should allocate 50% of the typical yearly funding for EAGER/RAPID grants — roughly $50–100 million per year — to a separate dedicated fund. This fund would use the existing EAGER/RAPID mechanisms for disbursing awards but be implemented through a programmatically distinct Micro-ARPA model that empowers dedicated project managers with more discretion and reduces the inherent tension between use of these streamlined mechanisms and traditional applications.
   1. By allocating approximately 50% of the current spend to this fund and using the existing EAGER/RAPID mechanisms within it, this fund would be unlikely to pull resources from other programs. It would instead set a floor for the use of these flexible frameworks while continuing to allow for their use in the traditional program-level manner when desired.
2. Establish a Micro-ARPA program manager (PM) role: As compared to the current model, in which the allocation of EAGER/RAPID grants is a small subset of broader NSF program director responsibilities, Micro-ARPA PMs (who could be lovingly nicknamed “Micro-Managers”) should be hired or assigned within each directorate to manage the dedicated Micro-ARPA budgets. Allocating these small, fast grants should be their only job in the directorate, though it can and should be a part-time position per the needs of the directorate.
   1. Given the diversity of awards and domains that this officer may consider, they should be empowered to seek the advice of program-specific staff within their directorate as well as external reviewers when they see fit, but should not be required to make funding decisions in alignment with programmatic feedback. 
   2. Applications to the Micro-ARPA PM role should be competitive and open to scientists and researchers at all career levels. Based on our experience managing these programs at the Experiment Foundation, there is every reason to suspect that early-career researchers, community-based researchers, or other innovators from nontraditional backgrounds could be as good or better than experienced program officers. Given the relatively low cost of the program, the NSF should open this role to a wide variety of participants to learn and study the outcomes.
3. Evaluate: The agency should work with academic partners to design and implement clear metrics—similar to those used in the paper that evaluated the SGER program—to assess the programs’ decision-making and impacts. Findings should be regularly compiled and circulated to PMs to facilitate rapid learning and improvement. Based on evaluation of this program, and comparison to the existing approach to allocating EAGER/RAPID grants, relative funding quantities between the two can be reallocated to maximize scientific and social impact. 

Benefits

The proposed enhancements to the small grant programs will yield several key benefits:

1. Increased innovation: By funding more early-stage, high-risk projects, we can accelerate scientific breakthroughs and technological advancements, addressing global challenges more effectively.
2. Support for early-career scientists: Expanded grant opportunities will empower more early-career researchers to pursue innovative ideas, fostering a new generation of scientific leaders.
3. Experience opportunity for program managers: Running Micro-ARPAs will provide an opportunity for new and emerging program manager talent to train and develop their skills with relatively smaller amounts of money.
4. Platform for metascience research: The high volume of new Micro-ARPA PMs will create an opportunity to study the effective characteristics of program managers and translate them into insights for larger ARPA programs.
5. Administrative efficiency: A streamlined, decentralized approach will reduce the administrative burden on both applicants and program officers, making the grant process more agile and responsive. Speedier grants could also help the NSF achieve its stated dwell time goal of 75% (response rate within six months), which they have failed to do consistently in recent years.

Conclusion

Small, fast grant programs are vital to supporting transformative research. By adopting a more flexible, decentralized model, we can significantly enhance their impact. The proposed changes will foster a more dynamic and innovative scientific ecosystem, ultimately driving progress and addressing urgent global challenges.

This action-ready policy memo is part of Day One 2025 — our effort to bring forward bold policy ideas, grounded in science and evidence, that can tackle the country’s biggest challenges and bring us closer to the prosperous, equitable and safe future that we all hope for whoever takes office in 2025 and beyond.

PLEASE NOTE (February 2025): Since publication several government websites have been taken offline. We apologize for any broken links to once accessible public data.

Summary

America faces a host of daunting problems that demand forward-looking solutions. Addressing these challenges will require us to unleash the full potential of our research and development community, leveraging new approaches to innovation that break through both technical and institutional barriers and initiate wholly new capabilities. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) model has resulted in exactly this kind of high-impact innovation in defense, intelligence, and energy. This model can be applied to other critical societal challenges such as climate, labor, or health. But an ARPA must have the right core elements if it is to create the fresh solutions the country needs.

The ARPA model is distinctly different from other federal agencies in mission, operations, and culture. ARPA organizations are part of a much broader ecosystem that spans from research to implementation. Their role is to create breakthrough, paradigm-shifting solutions and capabilities. In order to position a new ARPA for success, Congress, the Administration, and the agency’s founding leaders must understand the unique properties of an ARPA and the process by which ARPAs approach and manage risk to develop game-changing advances.

To establish a strong foundation for a new ARPA to do this work, Congress and the Administration will need to address four factors:

• Purpose: Clearly and succinctly define the vital national purpose for the new ARPA.
• Operations: Set the agency up to function autonomously, with its own budget, staff, and operating practices.
• Authorities: Give the new ARPA flexible hiring and contracting authorities to draw new and extraordinary talent to the nation’s challenges.
• Leadership: Appoint an exceptional leadership team, hold them to a high standard for impact, and create room for them to deliver on the full potential of the ARPA model.

Over the course of a few years, a new ARPA can grow into a powerfully effective organization with people, practices, and culture honed to create breakthroughs. If well implemented, new ARPAs can be extraordinary additions to our R&D ecosystem, providing unimagined new capabilities to help us meet our most essential societal challenges.

Challenge and Opportunity

America faces some daunting problems today. Many millions of Americans are unable to access our nation’s rich opportunities, leaving all of us poorer without their contributions. Dozens of other countries have longer life spans and lower infant mortality rates, although we spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country. We are not yet on track to contain the damages of a changing climate or to manage its impacts. Global competition has resulted in more and more U.S. research advances being used to create jobs elsewhere. R&D alone won’t solve any of these problems. But every one of these challenges demands creative new solutions.

However, America’s phenomenally productive R&D ecosystem—with its half a trillion dollars spent annually by the public and private sectors—is not aimed at these large, society-wide challenges. How do we create a generational shift in our innovation ecosystem so that it contributes as much to meeting this century’s challenges as it did for those of the last century? What can we learn from our successful R&D history, and what approaches can we adapt to address the problems that we now face?

One part of the answer lies in the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) model for innovation. This kind of innovation knocks down both technical and institutional barriers to create transformational new capabilities. ARPA organizations are part of a much broader ecosystem, spanning from research to implementation, in which their role is to create breakthrough solutions and capabilities that fundamentally change what we define as possible. In pursuit of revolutionary advances, they accept and manage a level of risk for which companies and other government agencies have no incentive.

The first ARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was launched in 1958 at the height of the Cold War. DARPA shifted military capabilities from mass bombing to precision strike with GPS, stealth technologies, and integrated combat systems. These innovations recast defense systems, changed military outcomes, and shaped geopolitics over decades. Meanwhile, DARPA’s programs in enabling technologies also seeded artificial intelligence, developed advanced microelectronics, and started the internet. In recent years, DARPA programs have built the first ship able to navigate from the pier and cross oceans without a single sailor on board,¹ created a radical new approach to reconfigurable military capabilities to outpace global adversaries,² developed the first systems—now in operation by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey—for cities to continuously monitor for dangerous nuclear and radiological materials,³ and created a rapid-response mRNA vaccine platform⁴ that enabled the astonishingly fast development⁵ of today’s mRNA vaccines for COVID-19.

We are also starting to show that the ARPA model can be successfully adapted to other national purposes. In 2006, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) was formed to serve the intelligence community. One of IARPA’s programs has developed methods to overcome individual cognitive biases by weighting and synthesizing the judgments of many analysts. This approach provides important gains in prediction and is a new paradigm for forecasting events in a complex world. In 2009, the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) launched in the Department of Energy. Its programs have created new power semiconductors, new battery technologies, and new methods to improve appliance efficiency, making vital contributions to our clean energy future. Both ARPAs have invigorated R&D communities by connecting them to hard, important problems and giving them a pathway to drive impact.

Implementing the ARPA model to meet other critical challenges could have enormous impact. Indeed, President Biden has already proposed ARPAs for health and climate,⁶ and others have advanced visions for ARPAs for agriculture,⁷ labor⁸ and education. In addition, the Endless Frontier Act⁹ takes inspiration from the ARPA model in its vision for an expanded technology function at NSF to address economic competitiveness.

Behind each call for an “ARPA for X” is a yearning for R&D that throws open new doors to radically better solutions. But the ARPA model is very different from other federal agencies and unlocking its potential will require much more than affixing the name. The starting point is an understanding of how ARPAs generate their outsized advances.

Though specifics vary according to the mission of a new ARPA, the essential operating model is based on these elements:

• An ARPA designs and conducts programs that run for limited periods, typically 3-5 years. Each ARPA program sets out to achieve a specific, bold goal that may seem impossible but that, if demonstrated, can initiate a major advance. Each ARPA program contracts with companies, universities, and other organizations to execute R&D efforts. It also engages the parties who can implement and scale successful program results.
• An ARPA requires exceptionally talented program managers with a rare combination of expertise, vision, and the ability to execute and deliver results.
• ARPA leadership approves a series of individual programs, constructing and overseeing a full and diversified portfolio.

ARPA Programs

An ARPA generates major advances through intelligently managed risk-taking. The fundamental unit of work for an ARPA is a solutions-oriented R&D program that aims at achieving a previously unimaginable goal. Each program has a fixed term, typically 3-5 years, and each is designed, executed, and transitioned by an ARPA program manager.

Design

The program manager designs the program to achieve a bold goal—one that may seem impossible but that, if demonstrated, could catalyze a major advance. They build a rigorous plan to achieve the goal. A set of questions known as the Heilmeier Catechism¹⁰ (from an iconic DARPA director in the 1970s) guides program development:

• What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
• How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
• What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
• Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make?
• What are the risks?
• How much will it cost?
• How long will it take?
• What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success?

These questions are easy—even obvious—to ask, but surprisingly difficult to answer well. Program managers typically grapple with them over 6-12 months to design a strong program, and agency leaders use them to guide their judgement about the potential of a new program for approval. The questions also guide program execution.

Execution

Once a program is launched, the program manager contracts with whichever organizations are needed to achieve the program’s goal. That typically means companies, universities, nonprofits, other parts of government, and other organizations with the talent and capacity to conduct the necessary R&D. Contracting this work has the obvious benefit that the ARPA doesn’t have to hire staff and provide facilities for this R&D. But even more important is the fact that this approach mobilizes individuals and organizations. Over the course of the program, these participants become a community that not only delivers the program vision but can help drive it forward beyond the term of the ARPA program.

The work of the program is to weave the threads of research from multiple domains together with lessons from the reality of use and practice in order to develop and demonstrate prototype systems or capabilities. The program rigorously evaluates how well its innovation works, how it works in specific environments, and how it can be scaled. 

An ARPA program often draws on basic research and often generates fresh research, but research is an input rather than the objective. Unlike the management of basic research, these programs drive to a specific goal. They may sometimes resemble product development, but for a prototype product that serves a public purpose rather than a visible market opportunity. Often, they require a much higher degree of risk than product development because they reach for a barely feasible goal. 

An ARPA program aims to demonstrate that a powerful new approach can work despite the risk inherent in trying something radically different. This requires actively managing the multiple efforts within the ARPA program. An ARPA program manager accelerates lines of work that show great promise and redirects or stops work that is not yielding results. They nimbly reallocate resources to keep wringing out risk and driving to the program’s objective.  

Transition

In parallel, the program manager engages the decision makers who can advance, adopt, implement, and fully scale the results of the program. If the breakthrough will require commercialization, that could include additional companies, investors, and entrepreneurs. If full-scale implementation requires changes in policies and practices, that means engaging regulators, policy makers, and community organizations. Understanding the needs and realities of implementers is important from the early stages of program design. It is sometimes the case that these implementers are skeptical about the program’s bold goal at the start. As the program unfolds, they are invited to program reviews and demonstrations. The program strives to address their concerns and may even provide support for their internal analyses, evaluations, and trials. When these engagements work well, the ARPA program manager is able to bring implementers along on the journey from wild dream to demonstrated reality. Successful transition starts when they change their minds about what’s possible. And the ultimate societal impact of the ARPA program comes when these implementers have fully scaled the ARPA breakthrough. 

A fully successful program ends with a convincing demonstration of a new capability; a community that can carry it forward; and decision makers who are ready to support and fund implementation in products, services, policies, and practices.

ARPA program managers

None of this can happen without exceptionally capable program managers. An ARPA organization hires program managers on fixed terms to design, manage, and transition these high-impact programs. ARPA leadership coaches program managers, helps build partnerships and remove obstacles, and approves and oversees all programs. But it puts enormous responsibility and authority on the shoulders of program managers. 

ARPA program managers come from backgrounds in companies, universities, nonprofits, and other parts of government, and they serve at different times in their careers. They bring a “head in the stars, feet on the ground” blend of these key characteristics: 

• The program manager is an expert in a relevant area. 
• They see the big picture and navigate easily from details to strategic outcomes. 
• They are driven to achieve a major impact. Sometimes this is manifested as a constructive impatience with the limitations of conventional organizations and approaches. 
• They are able to project a vision. 
• They are able to build and lead a community to accomplish goals. 
• They have a sound ethical core. 

ARPA portfolios

ARPA leadership approves a series of individual programs, constructing and managing a full portfolio that is diversified to maximize total impact despite the risk inherent in each program. Every program learns, not all succeed, and failure is accepted as integral to the mission.

Plan of Action 

Based on these core elements of a successful ARPA model, we offer four recommendations for policy makers as they establish new ARPA organizations. 

Purpose

Clearly and succinctly define the vital national purpose for the new ARPA. An ARPA exists to create breakthroughs for an important public need. For DARPA, this is national security. For ARPA-E, it is economic and energy security, and for IARPA, it is national intelligence. 

Operations

Set up the agency to function autonomously, with its own budget, staff and organization, and operating practices. An ARPA is a deliberate counterpoint to work already underway, originating from a recognition that something more and different is needed to achieve our national goals. An ARPA will not succeed if it is tightly integrated into its parent organization. Ironically, it may be more difficult to start a successful new ARPA in an area that already has robust federal research, because of the inclination to fit the square-peg ARPA into round-hole traditional research methods. The ARPA model is completely different than our well-honed approach to sponsoring fundamental research. The ARPA solutions-driven approach would not work well for greatly needed and highly valued basic research, and conversely, funding methods for fundamental research will not lead to ARPA-scale breakthroughs for our societal problems. This work is different, and it will require different people, different practices, and a different culture to succeed. 

Independent funding is also necessary. To develop a portfolio of programs with the potential for high impact, an ARPA requires funding that is sufficient to achieve its programs’ objectives. ARPA programs are sized not just to generate a new result, but to convincingly demonstrate a new approach, often across a variety of circumstances, in order to prove that the method can succeed and scale. 

The agency’s chain of command and Congressional authorizers and appropriators provide important oversight. However, the ARPA organization itself must bear the responsibility for designing, selecting, managing, and transitioning its programs. A new ARPA should report directly to the cabinet secretary to maintain independence and secure the support needed to achieve its mission. 

Authorities

Give the new ARPA flexible hiring and contracting authorities to draw new and extraordinary talent to the nation’s challenges. Flexible hiring mechanisms have proven to be very valuable in allowing ARPAs to attract the rare combination of expertise, vision, and execution required in great program managers. In addition, program managers must be able to contract with exceptional people and teams in companies, universities, nonprofits, and other government entities to achieve their aggressive program goals. ARPAs have used flexible contracting mechanisms to move fast and work effectively with all kinds of organizations, not just those already designed to work with government.

Flexible hiring and contracting authorities are extremely helpful tools for an ARPA organization. It’s worth noting, though, that flexible authorities by themselves do not an ARPA make. 

Leadership

Appoint an exceptional leadership team, hold them to a high standard for impact, and create room for them to deliver on the full potential of the ARPA model. A new ARPA’s director will be responsible for building an organization with people, practices, and culture honed for the mission of creating breakthroughs. This person must bring fresh and creative ways of looking at seemingly impossible problems, a rigorous approach to managing risk, a drive to achieve outsized impact, and an ability to lead people. A strong ethical orientation is also essential for a role that will grapple with the implications of powerful new capabilities for our society. 

The person to whom the ARPA director reports also plays an essential role. This individual must actively prevent others from trying to set the agenda for the ARPA. They enable the ARPA organization to hire program managers who don’t look like other department staff, undertake programs that conventional wisdom decries, manage programs actively, and develop a culture that celebrates bold risk-taking in pursuit of a great national purpose. They hold the ARPA organization accountable for the mission of creating breakthroughs and create room for the unconventional methods needed to realize that mission. 

Note that these four recommendations about purpose, independence, authorities, and leadership are interconnected. All are necessary to build the foundation for a successful new ARPA, and cherry-picking the easy ones will not work. 

Conclusion

A total of 87 years of experience across three different ARPA organizations have provided many lessons about how to build and run an organization that creates breakthroughs for an important national purpose. In establishing any new ARPA, both Congress and the Administration must create the space and allocate the resources that will allow it to flourish and realize its mission. 

Like its programs, a new ARPA will itself be a high-risk, high-reward experiment. If our challenges were modest, or if our current innovation methods were sufficient, there would be no need to try these kinds of experiments. But the problems we face today demand powerful new approaches. Adapting the ARPA model and aiming it at the most critical challenges ahead can create breakthroughs that redefine what is possible for our future. Let’s do everything possible to start new ARPAs on the right track/

To help catalyze innovation in the health and biomedical sciences, research and development (R&D) paradigms with a track record of producing ‘moonshot’-scale breakthroughs – such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) model – stand at the ready. The Biden Administration has recognized this, proposing the establishment of an ARPA for health (ARPA-H) as part of its fiscal year 2022 budget request. Done right, ARPA-H would be created in the image of existing ARPAs – DARPA (defense), ARPA-E (energy), and IARPA (intelligence) – and be capable of mobilizing federal, state, local, private sector, academic, and nonprofit resources to directly address the country’s most urgent health challenges, such as the high cost of therapies for diseases like cancer, or antimicrobial resistance. During a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Chairwoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) raised the Administration’s proposal for ARPA-H with Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra, expressing her interest in exploring how to best position a potential ARPA-H for success.

Keys to the ARPA model

The success of the ARPA model is attributed in part to the high level of autonomy with which its program leaders select R&D projects (compared to those at traditional federal research agencies), a strong sense of agency mission, and a culture of risk-taking with a tolerance for failure, resulting in a great degree of flexibility to pursue bold agendas and adapt to urgent needs. Policymakers have debated situating a potential ARPA-H within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or outside of NIH, elsewhere under the umbrella of HHS. Regardless, it is essential that ARPA-H retain an independent and innovative culture.

The first ARPA – DARPA – was established in 1958, the year after Sputnik was launched, and is credited with developing GPS, the stealth fighter, and computer networking. DARPA continues to serve its customer – the Department of Defense – by developing groundbreaking defense technologies and data analysis techniques. Nevertheless, DARPA operates separately from its parent organization. This is also true of ARPA-E, which was launched in 2007 based on a recommendation from a National Academies consensus study report which called for implementing the DARPA model to drive “transformational research that could lead to new ways of fueling the nation and its economy,” and IARPA, created in 2006, to foster advances in intelligence collection, research, and analysis.

If ARPA-H is organized within NIH, it is essential that it maintain the innovative spirit and independence characteristic of established ARPAs. NIH already has some experience overseeing a partially independent entity: the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Compared to other NIH institutes, NCI’s unique authorities include:

• Direct access to the president;
• A requirement to submit a completely separate budget proposal to the president each year without getting approval from NIH or HHS; and
• The ability of the NCI director to form new cancer centers and training programs, establish advisory committees, and independently collaborate with other federal, state, and local entities.

This level of independence has contributed to NCI achieving a number of significant milestones in cancer treatment, including developing a chemotherapy treatment to cure choriocarcinoma (a rare type of cancer that starts in the womb), publishing the now-widely-used Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Model, and creating an anticancer drug for ovarian cancer that was unresponsive to other treatments.

If the NCI model were to be used as the foundation for the launch of ARPA-H, insulation from political considerations, whether those of Congress or the Executive Branch, would be critical. With DARPA-like autonomy, a potential ARPA-H could help push the boundaries of enrichments to human health.

Antimicrobial resistance as a case study for an ARPA-H

An example of a grand challenge that an ARPA-H could take on is addressing antimicrobial resistance, a worsening situation that, without intervention, will lead to a significant public health crisis. Antimicrobial resistance occurs when “bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites change over time and no longer respond to medicines, making infections harder to treat and increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness, and death.” Microbes have the potential to gain resistance to drugs when not all of the pathogens or parasites are killed by a treatment, either because the treatment was the not correct option for the illness (like using antibiotics for viruses), or refraining from completing a prescribed course of an antimicrobial drug. The organisms that are not killed, presumably because they harbor genetic factors that confer resistance, then reproduce and pass along those genes, which make it harder for the treatments to kill them.

The most immediate concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance come from bacteria and fungi. The CDC considers some of the biggest threats to be Acinetobacter, Candida auris, and C. difficile, which are often present in healthcare and hospital settings and mainly threaten the lives of those with already weakened immune systems. Every year in the U.S., almost 3 million people are infected with antimicrobial-resistant bacteria or fungi, and as a result, more than 35,000 people die. While the toll of antibiotic resistance in the U.S. is devastating, the global outlook is perhaps even more concerning: in 2019, the United Nations warned that if no action is taken, antimicrobial resistance could cause 10 million deaths per year worldwide by 2050.

Developing new and effective antibiotics can help counter antimicrobial resistance; however, progress has been extremely slow. The last completely new class of antibiotics was discovered in the late 1980s, and developing new antibiotics is often not profitable for pharmaceutical companies. It is estimated that it takes $1.5 billion to create a new antibiotic, while the average revenue is about $46 million per year. In addition, while pharmaceutical companies receive an exclusivity period during which competitors cannot manufacture a generic version of their drug, the period is only five to ten years, which is too short to recoup the cost of research and development. Furthermore, doctors are often hesitant to prescribe new antibiotics in hopes of delaying the development of newly drug-resistant microbes, which also contributes to driving down the amount pharmaceutical companies earn for antibiotics.

Early last year, the World Health Organization reported that out of 60 antibiotics in development, there would be very little additional benefit over existing treatments, and few targeted the most resistant bacteria. Moreover, the ones that appeared promising will take years to get to the market. This year, Pew Research conducted a study on the current antibiotic development landscape and found that out of 43 antibiotics under development, at least 19 have the potential to treat the most resistant bacteria. However, the likelihood of all, or even some of these products making it to patients is low: over 95 percent of the products in development are being studied by small companies, and more than 70 percent of these companies do not have any other products on the market.

There is both a dire need for new innovations in the space, such as using cocktails of different viruses that attack bacteria to treat infections, and a gap between the research into and commercialization of new antibiotics – a perfect opportunity for a potential ARPA-H to make an impact. With this new agency, experimental treatments could be supported through the technology transfer process and matured to the point that the private sector is able to take the baton and move a new antimicrobial to market. This would be revolutionary for public health, and, combined with improved messaging around best practices for the use of antibiotics, save many lives.

Moving forward

The need for, structure, and possible priorities of a potential ARPA-H will continue to be discussed over the course of the congressional appropriations process, with consultation between the Legislative and Executive Branches. We encourage the CSPI community to serve as a resource for Members of Congress and their staffs to ensure that the new agency will be properly positioned to contribute to significant advances in human health and biomedical technologies.

To create fresh and powerful new approaches to the complex challenges that America’s workers face, Congress and the Biden-Harris Administration should invest $100 million per year for 5 years to launch an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Labor (ARPA-L). ARPA-L’s mission will be to conduct high-impact R&D programs that create breakthroughs to meet America’s workforce challenges.

The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply exacerbated longstanding problems for America’s workers. Mismatches between workers’ skills and employers’ needs alongside persistent racial and gender inequities have long undercut opportunity. Moreover, work has continued to change due to technology and automation, globalization, and shifting relationships between workers and employers. Even before the COVID-19 crisis, many millions of Americans were not earning enough to support themselves and their families. These Americans are missing out on gainful work, while our economy and our society are missing out on their full contribution.

With current advances in information technology, data science, applied social sciences, and learning science, this moment calls for an ambitious initiative to tackle the longstanding challenges for America’s workers. The Federal Government should launch an ARPA-L to research, develop, and test breakthrough approaches that boost workers’ skills and harness data to open new opportunities. By drawing from the operating model of prior ARPA organizations and adapting it to these challenges, ARPA-L’s programs can make it possible to ameliorate underemployment and unemployment and transform the future of work.

To initiate ARPA-L, Congress should provide a budget of $100 million per year over a five-year period. The Biden-Harris Administration and the Secretary of Labor should appoint a highly qualified director and provide that individual with the support needed to succeed. By creating this independent agency at the Department of Labor (DOL), Congress, the White House, and DOL can create opportunity for the U.S. workforce for decades to come.

The Challenge

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and deepened labor market problems that had already been compounding over decades.

A mismatch between workers’ education, skills, and training and the shifting needs of employers has led to shortages in high-demand occupations. The demand for digital skills has increased. In addition, local and regional economies across the country are experiencing shortages of workers in emerging and evolving trades vital to economic activity — such as clean energy and manufacturing — that increasingly require new technical capacities. And in some cases, a worker has the skill to succeed in a job but doesn’t have the credentials that the company has tied to that position. Without intervention, the skills gap will continue to grow larger within the labor market. For millions of Americans displaced from traditionally high-employment sectors such as light manufacturing and data processing, the need for reskilling and relocation to emerging sectors requires rethinking traditional models and experimenting with new approaches. To break the cycle of long-term unemployment and underemployment, new approaches to skills training, education, and credentialing are needed.

Although existing policies and practices have made progress in addressing inequity, these problems continue to plague the U.S. workforce, precluding many from gainful, meaningful employment. Today, women still earn less than men on average, while Black and Latina women experience even greater disparities. Men without college degrees, and especially men of color, have been disproportionately impacted by decades of shifts in the labor market compared to men with college degrees. Challenges in traditional education reinforce barriers to obtaining well-paying jobs with upward mobility for young people of color and those from low-income backgrounds. Inequities only persist as workers age, adding pressure when rapid upskilling and retraining is needed and leaving displaced workers even further behind. These communities of workers cannot continue to be left behind.

The term “future of work” encapsulates the anticipated disruption to jobs and the workforce from emerging technologies, global economic change, and the changing relationship between employer and worker. In reality, this disruption is already occurring, and U.S. workers in every sector of economy are feeling its effects. To save on labor costs, employers continue to outsource jobs to overseas workers and automate any task that a machine can handle. As computing technology and artificial intelligence proliferate and mature, this disruption will spread to more and more different types of jobs. Non-traditional workers, such as rideshare and delivery drivers, now form a significant percentage of the workforce, but antiquated labor practices and policies do not address the uncertainty of their work lives. As more and more Americans participate in the gig economy, we must change our approach to solving workforce issues and diversify how we craft solutions to solve them.

The COVID-19 pandemic has both illuminated and exacerbated these challenges. Service sector industries such as retail, tourism, restaurants, and hotels have been decimated by the pandemic, and many of these jobs will be slow to return. Other jobs can be done remotely, but many workers lack the digital skills to thrive while working from home. Furthermore, barriers to the digital economy stand tall: across America, too many workers lack reliable broadband or even a personal computer. Already at a disadvantage, underserved communities are falling further behind in their education and career development, undermining their opportunities in the years to come.

So where has all this left us? A failure to address long-standing labor problems has led to job instability and prolonged underemployment and unemployment that can be seen in the labor market today. Efforts to improve worker outcomes have met with only limited success. To address today’s pressing labor issues, the Federal Government must invest in the capacity to create powerful new solutions that can scale to reach the broad population of workers.

The Opportunity

Today, advances in information technology, data science, and the behavioral and social sciences provide new hope for these kinds of hard problems. Further, numerous regional and pilot projects are showing results from new approaches to training, certification, and matching workers to jobs. These are promising signs, but we are not turning the tide of national-scale labor problems. The purpose of an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Labor (ARPA-L) is to weave research advances together with lessons from the real world to create fresh, potent, broadly scalable new approaches for our workers’ challenges.

ARPA-L would be fully responsible for identifying promising opportunities and then designing and executing its programs. These are some examples of the types of high-impact programs it could undertake.

Next-generation Skills Assessment and Training

An ARPA-L would take a creative, experimental approach to closing the skills gaps. For example, ARPA-L programs could:

• Develop and validate diagnostic systems to improve skills assessment and enable workers to better understand how their skillset matches with the needs of employers.
• Demonstrate accelerated skill development that uses information about an individual— e.g., age, initial skill level, and prior experience—to devise an optimized training regimen that best fits them.
• Explore and evaluate new ways to personalize and accelerate the training process by building on advances in learning science and neuroscience.
• Advance and test the effectiveness of emerging innovations like human-computer interaction and mixed reality for training for complex tasks.
• Experiment with and assess alternative certifications and micro-credentialing programs to train and upskill youth and displaced adult workers around the country and connect participants directly to employers.

Such advancements would not only improve the effectiveness of training and skills assessment. They can also dramatically reduce the time and cost for workers to gain new skills and connect to good jobs, directly addressing major barriers to scale.

Information to Illuminate Better Decision Making

Today, all kinds of data about workers and jobs is everywhere: rigorously collected labor statistics, employee ratings of employers on crowdsourced websites, internal company data about employment, the records of community colleges and other service providers, and administrative data such as tax and census records. We have barely begun to use this data tsunami to address workforce challenges. ARPA-L could transform data into clear information that allows workers, employers, training providers, and policymakers to find new pathways and make better decisions.

For example, ARPA-L programs could:

• Experiment with and test data tools personalized for each worker, combining information on local job postings, wages, and training requirements with information about available credentialing and training services—giving workers the most meaningful and actionable information for their career goals in real time.
• Assemble data from public and private sources on regional labor trends and test its effectiveness in enabling employers to make more impactful, targeted, and timely investments in workforce development opportunities in their area.
• Collect and analyze diverse datasets to identify targeted, effective leverage points for innovative labor policy interventions.
• Develop and validate data analysis tools for policymakers to directly assess the progress of pilot workforce policy initiatives, tailor them to different regional and demographic needs, and then scale the initiatives to meet the needs of workers across the country.

Armed with a data-driven and experimental mindset, an ARPA-L would develop prototypes, conduct demonstrations, and rigorously evaluate their effectiveness, resulting in breakthrough methods targeted at solving workforce problems. The agency will perform this work by contracting with companies, universities, nonprofits, and other government organizations to harness and integrate their different capabilities. ARPA-L will also engage with a broad community of actors so that these solutions are ultimately implemented and scaled by a combination of commercialization by the private sector, policies created by federal state and local actors, and new practices adopted by other stakeholders such as employers and community colleges.

Plan of Action 

The Biden-Harris Administration should work with Congress to establish ARPA-L as an independent agency in the Department of Labor. To institute ARPA-L, Congress should appropriate an initial investment of $100M per year for the first five fiscal years. ARPA-L’s mission will be to conduct high-impact R&D programs that create breakthroughs to meet America’s workforce challenges. To this end, ARPA-L will adopt and adapt the core elements of the ARPA model.

To succeed in its unique mission, ARPA-L should be led by a Senate-confirmed Director who reports to the Secretary of Labor as well as a career civil servant Deputy Director. Within DOL, ARPA-L would need to be an independent organization. ARPA-L would collaborate with other parts of DOL, as well as federal, state, and local agencies. ARPA-L would draw on their expertise and that of other labor market ecosystem actors to understand workforce issues and current practices. These organizations will often be ideal partners to fully implement and scale successful ARPA-L program results.

Conclusion

An ARPA-L at DOL would conduct solutions-oriented R&D to create fresh, powerful approaches to the pressing workforce problems of today and tomorrow, such as market disruption, unemployment, and worker reskilling/upskilling. With the support of Congress, the White House, and the Department of Labor, this new organization can deliver bold advances that ultimately change what’s possible for America’s workers.

Summary

The federal government can directly address the massive market failures at the center of our healthcare enterprise by establishing a new Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA)¹ modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)—the agency the Department of Defense uses to build new capabilities for national defense.

The need for HARPA is twofold. First, developing treatments for disease is difficult and time consuming. HARPA will provide the sustained drive needed to push through challenges and achieve medical breakthroughs by building new platform technologies. Second, the U.S. healthcare system largely relies on the private sector to leverage national investments in basic research and develop commercially available treatments and cures. This model means that diseases for which investments are risky or downstream profit potential is low are often ignored. HARPA will step in where private companies do not, addressing market failures with direct investments that ensure that all patients have hope for a brighter future.

HARPA will leverage existing basic science research programs supported by taxpayer dollars, as well as the efforts of the private sector, to develop new capabilities for disease prevention, detection, and treatment and overcome the bottlenecks that have historically limited progress. To do this, we have to think and act differently about how we address human health challenges. HARPA would support research that directly affirms, refutes, or otherwise changes current clinical practice. It would do this using milestone-driven, time-limited contracts as the central mechanism for driving innovation. This will ensure efficiency, transparency, and optimize success.

Challenge and Opportunity

Every year, the United States spends more than $3.4 trillion on healthcare and tens of billions of dollars on biomedical research. Yet we only have treatments for around 500 of the approximately 10,000 known human diseases.² 30 million people in the United States—half of whom are children—suffer from a rare disease for which no treatment has yet been developed.³ There are no ongoing efforts to develop treatments or cures for the overwhelming majority of these diseases. That massive market failure is the big secret of the biomedical research enterprise and is simply unacceptable. We need bold action to correct this massive market failure and revolutionize how we attack disease.

In 1958, the United States created the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) at the Department of Defense. This new government agency was designed to make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security and directly address market failures that were impeding innovation. The establishment of DARPA launched a new era in defense innovation that led to countless innovations, including the Internet, stealth aircraft, GPS-based precision navigation, night vision, autonomous vehicles, speech recognition, and robotic prostheses.

We need to take the same aggressive entrepreneurial approach to health innovation as we have in protecting our nation from foreign threats. Creating a new Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA) would fundamentally transform the way the United States approaches treating the majority of human diseases, and would directly address many of the shortcomings of our healthcare and biomedical research systems.

Imagine being able to predict and intervene before someone has a mental health crisis; diagnose cancers at their earliest stages when treatments are most effective; end deaths from antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; and provide treatments for rare genetic diseases. That is the promise of HARPA.

By applying the same tools that DARPA uses to develop new capabilities for defense (Section 3), HARPA would be engineered to close the gap between basic research and real-world needs. HARPA initiatives would target the diseases that affect millions of Americans but are going unaddressed because of risk aversion and short-term, perverse incentives in academia and the private sector. These initiatives would be funded through large milestone-driven timeline limited contracts needed to take on transformational projects, and would be led by top experts recruited for focused stints at the agency. The result will be an institution designed from the ground up to finally solve the most pressing healthcare issues of our time: skyrocketing drug prices, the tragic shortcomings of our mental-health support systems, the opioid crisis, unconscionable waiting lists for organ donations, medical errors, and many more. DARPA enabled the United States to lead the world when it comes to defense innovation. HARPA will do the same for healthcare.

Function

Federal funding for medical research is primarily allocated though the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Through its $41 billion annual budget, NIH funds basic science and clinical research through grants. Grants are typically awarded to individual projects at academic institutions. Collectively, these projects form the bedrock of our knowledge about biology, health, medicine, and disease.

Importantly, NIH is not designed to develop marketable disease treatments or cures or to develop new platform technologies that are intended to revolutionize medicine. NIH funding is used to support therapeutic and technology development, but not in a way that prioritizes quick, efficient commercialization of new discoveries. Moreover, NIH does not include a mechanism for ensuring commercialization. SBIR grants flail at the challenge of commercializing innovations with woefully inadequate funding. Simply put, the current path from NIH-funded basic science to applied research to viable commercial product is too slow, and it does not address massive market failures that define health research and development today, leaving many human diseases without dedicated efforts to uncover solutions. Funds for basic science and clinical research through grants—awarded to academic institutions that pursue particular, individual interests in discovery—are great for uncovering truths about biology, but are an extremely inefficient way to drive toward therapies that make their way into the clinic.

Private companies, on the other hand, only scale up and market economically viable therapies. Therapies that are potentially effective but have a limited market remain inaccessible to the public at large or come with astronomical price tags that patients simply cannot afford.

Effectively bringing new innovations to the market requires alternative approaches to the bottom-up grant funding common to NIH programs. Again, this is not to say that the NIH dollars are poorly spent. The dollars spent on research are essential to understanding health and disease. But an alternative model is needed to advance research toward the development of necessary technologies and treatments to cure disease.

HARPA would close these gaps. Just as NIH brings federal resources to bear on basic science and early-stage research, HARPA would bring federal resources to bear on applied science and later-stage development and deployment. HARPA would have three guiding functions:

1. Launch and manage large-scale health-research initiatives. Although multiple federal entities⁴ work on health research, there is little coordination among these entities regarding research priorities, activities, or progress. HARPA would work with these entities—as well as with the private sector, academia, and states and localities—to launch and carry out targeted, multi-stakeholder research initiatives aimed at our most pressing underserved health challenges. Using milestone driven and timeline limited funding contracts, HARPA will be able to ensure rapid continuous progress. These initiatives would integrate the diverse capabilities of participating institutions to make real progress on persistent and pressing health problems.
2. Invest in transformational platform technologies. HARPA’s focus will be on projects that have direct impact on clinical care. Basic science tends to advance methodologically and incrementally. This partly reflects the nature of the field (one set of experiments informs the next) and partly reflects the nature of incentives in academia (moving too far and too fast away from an established knowledge base decreases the likelihood of publishable findings). By contrast, HARPA will only support transformative research that will substantially improve clinical practice and this is how potential impacts will be evaluated. Pushing for such platform technology breakthroughs is a high-risk, high-reward enterprise. HARPA will focus on the uncertain but potentially transformational medical technologies and therapies that tend to go underfunded today.
3. Support development of treatments and cures for all diseases. All taxpayers contribute to federally funded medical research. But not all taxpayers reap the benefits. Relying on the private sector to bridge the gap between basic research and commercially available products means that those with rare or difficult-to- treat diseases are often ignored. HARPA will correct this market failure by supporting development of treatments and cures for all diseases—especially those that are being neglected by the existing healthcare ecosystem.

Structure

HARPA would be modeled on DARPA. DARPA is considered the “gold standard” for innovation and accountability within the federal government. DARPA is also distinct from other federal agencies that fund research and development in that it is focused on building capabilities rather than simply advancing knowledge. This unique mission requires DARPA to have a unique set of attributes and operating principles, including the following:

• Contracts large enough to provide a critical mass of funding. While most federal grants for academic research are on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, DARPA funds projects at $1–$5 million per year. These large contracts enable DARPA affiliates to pursue goals that would simply be out of reach at lower funding levels.
• Minimal bureaucracy. DARPA’s entire staff consists of about 220 government employees. This includes DARPA’s ~100 program managers (PMs), who collectively oversee about 250 research & development projects funded at total of about $3 billion per year. All actual research and development activities are conducted by public, private, and academic affiliates. DARPA’s small staff size and flat organizational hierarchy makes the agency effective and nimble, able to move quickly on priority issues in a limited amount of time. Moreover, the fact that DARPA is not organized around disciplines allows PMs to pursue unconventional but productive cross-disciplinary collaborations.
• No entitled constituencies. While funding from other federal grant programs may only be accessible to certain recipient classes (e.g., academic institutions), DARPA does not predetermine which types of institutions are eligible for funding. Funding projects at a wide variety of institutions—including universities, national labs, public and private companies, state and local government agencies— enables DARPA to access the full breadth of talent, expertise, ideas, and resources that the nation has to offer. For example, DARPA funding in the start- up community has yielded advances that may have been difficult or impossible to achieve in other sectors. DARPA uses flexible procurement tools like “Other Transaction Authority” to make it easy for small businesses and nontraditional defense contractors to participate in the agency’s initiatives.
• “Portfolio approach” to high-risk, high-reward efforts. DARPA understands and accepts that frequent failure is the price of success when it comes to achieving transformational breakthroughs. DARPA PMs have the resources and authority to invest in multiple approaches to a given goal. DARPA proposals are openly competed, but PMs can strategically select the winners in a way that creates a diversified, risk-mitigating project portfolio.
• Government control of contracts. DARPA negotiates contracts that enable control over performance. Contracts specify milestones and “go/no-go” decision points to ensure that scientific progress is made in an efficient and timely manner. This enables PMs to better manage funded projects and to cut funding if a project is not yielding desired results.
• Top-notch talent. DARPA attracts world-class PMs recruited from academia, industry, and government agencies. DARPA benefits from expedited direct hiring authority for science and engineering experts.
• High turnover. PMs are hired for limited stints (generally 3–5 years), and there are no career PMs. This approach keeps DARPA talent fresh—ensuring that the agency is scientifically current and flexible to new avenues of investigation—and fuels an urgency for PMs to “achieve success in less time than might be considered reasonable in a conventional setting.”⁵

Many, if not all, of these characteristics could be carried over to HARPA. HARPA could also adopt DARPA’s funding-management model. Under this model, all funding allocations would be left to the discretion of the HARPA Director while all funding oversight would be entrusted to HARPA PMs. Funds would be awarded as milestone- driven contracts that give PMs the capacity for early termination if a particular project is not yielding desired results. This almost never happens with traditional federal grants for research and development.

Because HARPA will differ in structure and function from traditional research-funding agencies, it is sensible for HARPA to have a reporting chain of command separate from NIH. We believe that HARPA would be best situated directly under the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) or under the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) provides precedent for placement directly under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.⁶

Path to Establishment

HARPA could be established under existing authorities, but, ideally, would be established through authorizing legislation and new appropriations. There are several steps the federal policymakers could take to kick-start the establishment process. First, the president could issue a Memorandum or Executive Order directing the HHS Secretary to develop a blueprint for HARPA’s establishment as well as a strategic plan for HARPA’s activities. These documents would include identification of priorities and goals; analysis of global markets, policies and production capabilities; structure and accountability; and initial funding recommendations. Ideally, they would be developed by a short-term Federal Advisory Committee (FAC)—comprised of top physicians, health researchers, and innovative thought leaders. It is important that the FAC include avenues for external input, including providing and promoting a public comments period and convening stakeholder for a across the country. After these documents are developed, the president could urge Congress to deliver a bill establishing HARPA.

Alternatively, the President could include funds for HARPA in an annual budget proposal under the Assistant Secretary for Health or Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. (If Congress appropriates those dollars, HARPA could be established without authorizing legislation.⁷) We believe that a minimum budget of $100 million for HARPA in its first year and $300 million in its second year would be sufficient to get the agency started and to establish high-impact programs, but to be truly transformational, the agency should ramp up to several billion in research expenditures annually. Throughout this process, the president should use high-profile speeches and events to publicly explain the need for HARPA, and to advocate for its creation.

Vision

With a DARPA-inspired structure, HARPA would achieve rapid translation of biomedical discoveries into patient-care capabilities. HARPA’s mission and activities would be synergistic—not duplicative or competitive—with existing federal research efforts. In particular, HARPA would use fundamental scientific understanding developed with NIH support as a foundation for developing breakthrough medical advances.

HARPA would operate in a health ecosystem that includes biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and healthcare companies, venture capital and philanthropy, academic institutions, and government and regulatory agencies. HARPA would address two of the most prominent shortcomings of this ecosystem: (1) the aversion to failure that limits the willingness of academics and the private sector to pursue high-risk, high-reward projects, and (2) profit incentives that limit the willingness of the private sector to develop therapies for rare or difficult-to-treat diseases. HARPA would provide the capital and supportive, focused research environment needed for experts from all sectors to demonstrate “proof of principle” for various medical innovations. In doing so, HARPA will drive explosive growth in the number of technologies, treatments, and cures that cross the so-called “valley of death” separating lab-scale insights from commercially available products.

HARPA would focus on developing transformational technologies that fundamentally change the way we do health research and deliver care. By focusing on the development of tools and technologies to transform the way we approach diseases, HARPA can establish mechanisms that ensure wellness and curing disease are prioritized, while correcting the perverse incentives in the market that limit the country’s ability to receive treatment.

There is a rich history of under-funding the development of such technologies even though they are often quickly engrained into the healthcare enterprise, making it difficult to imagine life without them. They enable breakthroughs that even inventors did not anticipate, create entire new fields of research, and often result in Nobel Prizes. They establish jumping-off points and serve as accelerants for progress. Such work is typically high-risk, high-reward and aims to build transformative capabilities rather than incremental discovery-based research that is commonly funded by the NIH. While NIH does a tremendous job of funding basic science and clinical research, HARPA will build new capabilities on the foundation that agencies like NIH and the Department of Veterans Affairs establish through their funding.

For instance, HARPA could drive the following:

• Technologies that allow clinicians to identify and quantify every protein in a drop of blood, completely transforming disease diagnosis, health monitoring, and care.
• A next-generation diagnostic imaging machine that makes it possible to detect a myriad of diseases at much earlier stages that is substantially cheaper, higher-resolution, and more portable than current MRI machines enabling broader use.
• A cortical eye prosthesis that communicates directly with the brain, making it possible to restore sight to the 7 million individuals (including 160,000 veterans)living with a visual disability in the United States.
• New classes of antibiotics to fight the enormous international public-health andeconomic threat posed by antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• A series of clinical trials for the most expensive marketed drugs, aimed atdeveloping alternative treatment regimens to improve outcomes by reducing toxicities while dramatically reducing treatment costs. Such de-escalation studies of marketed oncology drugs have been shown to improve outcomes and dramatically reduce costs to save billions of dollars.
• A massive effort to repurpose already approved drugs for new applications. There have only been about 2,400 drugs ever been approved for use in humans. Exploring new applications of drugs that are already known to be safe and effective—instead of only focusing on creation of new drugs—could save billions of dollars on research and development and uncover novel uses for drugs that are already known to be safe and effective for other indications.

Beyond Health

It has not escaped our notice that the same market and institutional failures that created the valley of death and need for DARPA and HARPA exist in other areas of research and development. Our nation is facing unprecedented challenges associated with climate change and the need to provide a better world for all. We feel strongly that the federal government should establish additional Advanced Research Projects Agencies (ARPAs) to complement the efforts of other federal agencies and the private sector. Doing so would enable the government to take a leadership position in tackling monumental challenges.

We believe that, in addition to HARPA, the nation needs to establish capabilities in agriculture (AgARPA), the environment (EnARPA), and transportation/infrastructure (TARPA). Fleshing out the details for establishing each of these entities should fall upon the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and the leadership of the appropriate federal agencies. Creating these new capabilities will kickstart new industries, create the jobs of the future, and improve our ability to be better stewards of the Earth. Without them, the nation risks continuing its piecemeal approach to addressing our most pressing challenges, while slipping further behind other nations investing heavily in innovations aimed at solving these global challenges. Establishing ARPA capabilities across the federal government would create a network of forward-thinking agencies prepared to address intractable challenges, while building an extraordinary, lasting legacy.