Advanced Research Priorities in Transportation

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) has identified several domains in the transportation and infrastructure space that retain a plethora of unsolved opportunities ripe for breakthrough innovation.

Transportation is not traditionally viewed as a research- and development-led field, with less than 0.7% of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) annual budget dedicated to R&D activities. The majority of DOT’s R&D funds are disbursed by modal operating administrators mandated to execute on distinct funding priorities rather than a collective, integrated vision of transforming the nation’s infrastructure across 50 states and localities. 

Historically, a small percentage of these R&D funds have supported and developed promising, cross-cutting initiatives, such as the Federal Highway Administration’s Exploratory Advanced Research programs deploying artificial intelligence to better understand driver behavior and applying novel data integration techniques to enhance freight logistics. Yet, the scope of these programs has not been designed to scale discoveries into broad deployment, limiting the impact of innovation and technology in transforming transportation and infrastructure in the United States. 

As a result, transportation and infrastructure retain a plethora of unaddressed opportunities – from reducing the 40,000 annual vehicle-related fatalities, to improving freight logistics through ports, highways, and rail, to achieving a net zero carbon transportation system, to building infrastructure resilient to the impacts of climate change and severe weather. The reasons for these persistent challenges are numerous: low levels of federal R&D spending, fragmentation across state and local government, risk-averse procurement practices, sluggish commercial markets, and more. When innovations do emerge in this field, they suffer from two valleys of death: one to bring new ideas out of the lab into commercialization, and the second to bring successful deployments of those technologies to scale.

The United States needs a concerted national innovation pipeline designed to fill this gap, exploring early-stage, moonshot research while nurturing  breakthroughs from concept to deployment. An Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure would deliver on this mission. Modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I) will operate nimbly and with rigorous program management and deep technical expertise to tackle the biggest infrastructure  challenges and overcome entrenched market failures. Solutions would cut across traditional transportation modes (e.g. highways, rail, aviation, maritime, pipelines etc) and would include innovative new infrastructure technologies, materials, systems, capabilities, or processes. 

The list of domain areas below reflects priorities for DOT as well as areas where there is significant opportunity for breakthrough innovation:

Key Domain Areas

Metropolitan Safety

Despite progress made since 1975, dramatic reductions in roadway fatalities remain a core, persistent challenge. In 2021, an estimated 42,915 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, with an estimated 31,785 people killed in the first nine months of 2022. The magnitude of this challenge is articulated in DOT’s most recent National Roadway Safety Strategy, a document that begins with a statement from Secretary Buttigieg: “The status quo is unacceptable, and it is preventable… Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths and serious injuries on our roadways.” 

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: urban roadway safety; advanced vehicle driver assistance systems; driver alcohol detection systems; vehicle design; street design; speeding and speed limits; and V2X (vehicle-to-everything) communications and networking technology.

Key Questions for Consideration:

Rural Safety

Rural communities possess their own unique safety challenges stemming from road design and signage, speed limits, and other factors; and data from the Federal Highway Administration shows that “while only 19% of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, 43% of all roadway fatalities occur on rural roads, and the fatality rate on rural roads is almost 2 times higher than on urban roads.”

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: improved information collection and management systems; design and evaluation tools for two-lane highways and other geometric design decisions; augmented visibility; mitigating or anti-rollover crash solutions; and enhanced emergency response. 

Key Questions for Consideration:

Resilient & Climate Prepared Infrastructure

Modern roads, bridges, and transportation are designed to withstand storms that, at the time of their construction, had a probability of occurring once in 100 years; today, climate change has made extreme weather events commonplace. In 2020 alone, the U.S. suffered 22 high-impact weather disasters that each cost over $1 billion in damages. When Hurricane Sandy hit New York City and New Jersey subways with a 14-foot storm surge, millions were left without their primary mode of transportation for a week. Meanwhile, rising sea levels are likely to impact both marine and air transportation, as 13 of the 47 largest U.S. airports have at least one runway within 12 feet of the current sea level. Additionally, the persistent presence of wildfires–which are burning an average of 7 million acres annually across the United States, more than double the average in the 1990s–dramatically reshapes the transportation network in acute ways and causes downstream damage through landslides, flooding, and other natural events.

These trends are likely to continue as climate change exacerbates the intensity and scope of these events. The Department of Transportation is well-positioned to introduce systems-level improvements to the resilience of our nation’s infrastructure.

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: High-performance long-life, advanced materials that increase resiliency and reduce maintenance and reconstruction needs, especially materials for roads, rail, and ports; nature-based protective strategies such as constructed marshes; novel designs for multi-modal hubs or other logistics/supply chain redundancy; efficient and dynamic mechanisms to optimize the relocation of transportation assets; intensive maintenance, preservation, prediction, and degradation analysis methods; and intelligent disaster-resilient infrastructure countermeasures. 

Key Questions for Consideration:

Digital Infrastructure

Advancing the systems, tools, and capabilities for digital infrastructure to reflect and manage the built environment has the power to enable improved asset maintenance and operations across all levels of government, at scale. Advancements in this field would make using our infrastructure more seamless for transit, freight, pedestrians, and more. Increased data collection from or about vehicle movements, for example, enables user-friendly and demand-responsive traffic management, dynamic curb management for personal vehicles, transit and delivery transportation modes, congestion pricing, safety mapping and targeted interventions, and rail and port logistics. When data is accessible by local departments of transportation and municipalities, it can be harnessed to improve transportation operations and public safety through crash detection as well as to develop Smart Cities and Communities that utilize user-focused mobility services; connected and automated vehicles; electrification across transportation modes, and intelligent, sensor-based infrastructure to measure and manage age-old problems like potholes, air pollution, traffic, parking, and safety.

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: traffic management; curb management; congestion pricing; accessibility; mapping for safety; rail management; port logistics; and transportation system/electric grid coordination.

Key Questions for Consideration:

Expediting and Upgrading Construction Methods

Infrastructure projects are fraught with expensive delays and overrun budgets. In the United States, fewer than 1 in 3 contractors report finishing projects on time and within budgets, with 70% citing coordination at the site of construction as the primary reason. In the words of one industry executive, “all [of the nation’s] major projects have cost and schedule issues … the truth is these are very high-risk and difficult projects. Conditions change. It is impossible to estimate it accurately.” But can process improvements and other innovations make construction cheaper, better, faster, and easier?

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: augmented forecasting and modeling techniques; prefabricated or advanced robotic fabrication, modular, and adaptable structures and systems such as bridge sub- and superstructures; real-time quality control and assurance technologies for accelerated construction, materials innovation; new pavement technologies; bioretention; tunneling; underground infrastructure mapping; novel methods for bridge engineering, building information modeling (BIM), coastal, wind, and offshore engineering; stormwater systems; and computational methods in structural engineering, structural sensing, control, and asset management. 

Key Questions for Consideration:

Logistics

Our national economic strength and quality of life depend on the safe and efficient movement of goods throughout our nation’s borders and beyond. Logistic systems—the interconnected webs of businesses, workers, infrastructure processes, and practices that underlie the sorting, transportation, and distribution of goods must operate with efficiency and resilience. . When logistics systems are disrupted by events such as public health crises, extreme weather, workforce challenges, or cyberattacks, goods are delayed, costs increase, and Americans’ daily lives are affected. The Biden Administration issued Executive Order 14017 calling for a review of the transportation and logistics industrial base. DOT released the Freight and Logistics Supply Chain Assessment in February 2022, spotlighting a range of actions that DOT envisions to support a resilient 21st-century freight and logistics supply chain for America.

Topical areas include but are not limited to: freight infrastructure, including ports, roads, airports, and railroads; data and research; rules and regulations; coordination across public and private sectors; and supply chain electrification and intersections with resilient infrastructure. 

Key Questions for Consideration:

ARPA-I: Get Involved

FAS is seeking to engage experts from across the transportation infrastructure community who are the right kind of big thinkers to get involved in developing solutions to transportation moonshots.

Widespread engagement of this diverse network is critical to ensuring ARPA-I’s success. So whether you are an academic researcher, startup CEO, safe streets activist, or have experience with federal R&D programs–we are looking for your insights and expertise.

To be considered for opportunities to support future efforts around transportation infrastructure moonshots, please fill out this form and a member of our team will be in touch as opportunities to get involved arise.

ARPA-I: Share an Idea

Do you have ideas that could inform an ambitious Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I) portfolio at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)? We’re looking for your boldest infrastructure moonshots.

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is seeking to engage experts across the transportation policy space who can leverage their expertise to help FAS identify a set of grand solutions around transportation infrastructure challenges and advanced research priorities for DOT to consider. Priority topic areas include but are not limited to metropolitan safety, rural safety, resilient and climate-prepared infrastructure, digital infrastructure, expediting “mega projects,” and logistics. You can read more about these topic areas in depth here.

What We’re Looking For and How to Submit

We are looking for experts to develop and submit an initial program design in the form of a wireframe that could inform a future advanced research portfolio at DOT. A wireframe is an outline of a potential program that captures key components that need to be considered in order to assess the program’s fit and potential impact. The template below reflects the components of a program wireframe. Wireframes can be submitted by email here. Please include all four sections of the wireframe shown in the template below in the body of your email submission.

Program Design Wireframe

When writing your wireframe, we ask you aim to avoid the following common challenges to ensure that ideas are properly scoped, appropriately ambitious, and are in line with the agency’s goals:

For a more detailed primer on ARPA program ideation, please read our publication, “Applying ARPA-I: A Proven Model for Transportation.”

Sample Idea

Informed by input from non-federal subject matter experts

Problem

Urban and suburban environments are complex, with competing uses for public space across modes and functions – drivers, transit users, cyclists, pedestrians, diners, etc.    Humans are prone to erratic, unpredictable, and distracted driving behavior, and when coupled with speed, vehicle size, and infrastructure design, such behaviors can cause injury, death, property damage, and transportation system disruption. A decade-old study from NHTSA – at a time when roadway fatalities were approximately 25% lower than current levels – found that the total value of societal harm from crashes in 2010 was $836 billion. 

Opportunity

What if the relationships between the driver, the environment (including pedestrians), and the vehicle could be personalized?

Program Objective 

Future 

Digital transportation networks can communicate personalized information with drivers through their cars in a uniform medium and with a goal of augmenting safety in each of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas.

USDOT Workshop: Transportation, Mobility, and the Future of Infrastructure

On December 8th, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation hosted a workshop, “Transportation, Mobility, and the Future of Infrastructure,” in collaboration with the Federation of American Scientists. 

The goal for this event was to bring together innovative thinkers from various sectors of infrastructure and transportation to scope ideas where research, technology, and innovation could drive meaningful change for the Department of Transportation’s strategic priorities.

To provide framing for the day, participants heard from Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology Robert Hampshire, who both underscored the potential for a new agency – The Advanced Research Projects Agency – Infrastructure (ARPA-I) to accelerate transformative solutions for the transportation sector. Then, a panel featuring Kei Koizumi, Jennifer Gerbi, and Erwin Gianchandani focused on Federal Research and Development (R&D) explored federal advanced research models that drive innovation in complex sectors and explored how such approaches may accelerate solutions to key priorities in the transportation system.

Workshop participants listening to remarks from U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Participants then participated in separate breakout sessions organized around: 1) safety; 2) digitalization; and 3) climate and resilience. During the breakouts sessions, participants were asked to build on pre-work they had completed before the Workshop by brainstorming future vision statements and using them as the foundation to come up with innovative federal R&D program designs. Participants then regrouped and ended the day by discussing the most promising ideas from their respective breakout sessions, and where their ideas could go next.

The Workshop inspired participants to dig deep to surface meaningful challenges and innovative solutions for USDOT to tackle, whether through ARPA-I or other federal R&D mechanisms, and represents an initial step of a broader process to identify topics and domains in which stakeholders can drive transformational progress for our infrastructure and transportation system. Such an effort will require continued engagement and buy-in from a diverse community of experts.

As such, FAS is seeking to engage experts from across the transportation infrastructure community who are willing to “think big” and creatively about solutions to transportation moonshots. If you’re interested in supporting future efforts around transportation infrastructure moonshots, please visit our “Get Involved” page; if you’re ready to submit an initial program design in the form of a wireframe that could inform a future advanced research portfolio at DOT, please visit our “Share an Idea” page.

Building Momentum for Equity in Medical Devices

Just over a year ago, I found myself pausing during a research lab meeting. “Why were all the subjects in our studies of wearable devices white? And what were the consequences of exclusion?”

This question stuck with me long after the meeting. Digging into the evidence, I was alarmed to find paper after paper signaling embedded biases in key medical technologies. 

One device stuck out amongst the rest – the pulse oximeter. Because of its crucial role in diagnosing COVID-19, it had caught the attention of a diverse group of stakeholders: clinicians looking to understand the impacts on patient care, engineers working to build more equitable devices, social scientists tracing the history of device and examining colorism in pulse oximetry, policymakers seeking solutions for their constituents, and the FDA, which was examining racial bias in medical technologies for the first time. But what I found as I scoped out this policy area is that these stakeholders weren’t talking to one another, at the expense of coordinated progress towards equity in pulse oximetry. 

With all eyes directed towards the FDA’s Advisory Committee meeting on November 1st, 2022, FAS convened a half-day session of stakeholders on November 2nd to chart a research and policy agenda for near-term mitigation of inequities in pulse oximetry and other medical technologies. Eight experts from medicine, engineering, sociology, and anthropology shared insights with an audience of 60 participants from academia, the private sector, and federal government. Collectively, we developed several key insights for future progress on this issue and outlined a path forward for achieving equity now. You can access the full readout here. We’ll dive into the key highlights below:

Key Insights

Through discussions with experts during the forum, three key themes rose to the surface:

Resolving the problem of bias in pulse oximeter devices will likely take several years. But in the meantime, this issue will continue negatively impacting patients. Our participants urged that we need to think about actions that can be initiated this next year that will advance more equitable care with existing pulse oximeters. 

In-person stakeholders convening a focused conversation on next steps

Motivating Action for Equity Now

While a daunting problem, a collaborative, multi-stakeholder effort can bring us closer to solutions. We can work together to advance equity in standards of care by:

Mapping out a plan of action towards equity

Looking Ahead

This won’t be easy, but it’s 30 years overdue. We believe correcting the bias will pioneer a model that can be readily applied to combatting biases across the medical device ecosystem, something already underway in the United Kingdom with their Equity in Medical Devices Independent Review. Through a systematic approach, stakeholders can work to close racial disparities in the near-term and advance health equity.

An Overdue Fix: Racial Bias and Pulse Oximeters

The invention of pulse oximeters in the 1980s reshaped healthcare. While tracking blood oxygen content (commonly recognized as the “fifth vital sign”) once required a painful blood draw and time-delayed analysis, pulse oximeters deliver nearly instantaneous data by simply sending a pulse of light through the skin. Today, pulse oximeters today are ubiquitous: built into smartwatches, purchased at pharmacies for home health monitoring, and used by clinicians to inform treatment of everything from asthma to heart failure to COVID-19. Emerging algorithms are even incorporating pulse ox data to predict future illness.

There is a huge caveat. Pulse oximeters are medically transformative, but racially biased. The devices work less accurately on dark-skinned populations because melanin, the chemical which gives skin pigment, interferes with light-based pulse ox measurements. This means that dark-skinned individuals can exhibit normal pulse ox readings, but be suffering from hypoxemia or other critical conditions.

But because regulations to this day do not require diversity in medical device evaluation, many pulse ox manufacturers don’t test their devices on diverse populations. And because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has created streamlined pathways to approve new medical devices based on technology that is “substantially similar” to already-approved technology, the racial bias embedded in ‘80s-era pulse ox technology continues to pervade pulse oximeters on the market today.

COVID-19 illustrated, in devastating fashion, the consequences of this problem. Embedded bias in pulse oximeters demonstrably worsened outcomes for patient populations already disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Studies show, for instance, that Black COVID-19 patients have been 29% less likely to receive supplemental oxygen on time and three times as likely to suffer occult hypoxemia during the pandemic. 

Similar inequities persist across the health-innovation ecosystem. Women suffer from lack of sex-aware prescription drug dosages. Minorities increasingly suffer from biased health risk-assessment algorithms. Children and those with varying body types suffer from medical equipment not built for their physical characteristics. Across the board, inequities create greater risks of morbidity and mortality and contribute to ballooning national healthcare costs. 

This need not be the status quo. If health stakeholders—including patient advocates, medtech companies, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers—collectively commit to systematic evaluation and remediation of bias in health technology, change is possible.

An excellent example is eGFR algorithms. These algorithms, used to assess kidney functionality, previously used faulty “correction factors” to account for patient race. But this correction did not actually correlate with biological realities—and instead of treating patients more effectively, it increased disparities in care. Motivated by the data, advocacy and industry organizations issued broad recommendations to avoid using the eGFR calculation. Hospitals and medical systems listened, dropping eGFR from practice, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is now committing funding to investigate alternative calculations.

We as a society must continue to root out bias in health technology, from development to testing to deployment.

When we develop new medical tools, we should consider all the populations who could ultimately need them. 

When we test tools, we should rigorously evaluate outcomes across subgroup populations, looking for groups that might fare better or worse from its use in care. 

And when we deploy technologies, we need to be ready to track the outcomes of their use at scale.

Engineers, researchers, and clinicians can support these goals by designing medical devices with equity in mind. The UK just launched its evidence-gathering process on equity in medical devices, looking into the impacts of bias and ways to build more equitable solutions. The FDA’s meeting reviewing the evidence on pulse oximetry is a start to auditing technologies for their performance on different populations. 

Advocacy organizations can support these goals by providing input to ongoing policy processes. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS), alongside the University of Maryland Medical System, submitted a public comment to the FDA to call for regulations that will encourage the development of low-bias and bias-free tools. FAS is also convening a Forum on Bias in Pulse Oximetry to examine the consequences of bias, build an evidence base for bias-free pulse oximetry, and look ahead to approaches to build more equitable devices. 

“Do no harm”, a central oath in medicine, is becoming exceedingly difficult in our technological age. Yet, with an evidence-based approach that ensures technologies equitably serve all groups in a population and works to correct them when they do not, we can come closer to achieving this age-old goal.

What we learned in Mexico City

Moonshots seem impossible—until they’ve hit their target. This was the mantra of our in-person accelerator workshop, hosted with our partners at Unlock Aid in Mexico City. The workshop was just one part of our larger accelerator process where we’re working with innovators to develop moonshots around global development targets. FAS’s largest policy-development convening to date brought together over 70 participants (representing 40+ organizations, 25+ countries, and six continents) to think through creative approaches for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. 

Maeve Skelly leading a brainstorming session

After years of Zoom calls, phone conferences, and emails, meeting our accelerator cohort in person was a refreshing change of pace. Connecting IRL enabled free-flowing collaboration on big issues like global water security, access, and safety. We saw convergence across organizations: City Taps, Drinkwell, and Evidence Action came together to create the “WaterShot”—a new approach to solving water access with an outcomes marketplace framework. We were reminded anew that policy is powered by people—and that strong interpersonal connections inevitably lead to better and more creative policy ideas.

Brainstorming at the event was inspired by remarks from global development leaders. Project Drawdown spoke about the Drawdown Framework for climate solutions, NPX Advisors demonstrated how to drive better outcomes with advanced market commitments, and Nasra Ismail, a leader in global development strategy, talked about the power of coalition building.

Josh Schoop answering participant questions

The workshop was an initial opportunity to expose global development experts to the idea that policy, like seed funding or infrastructure investment, is an input that supports scaling. Most individual innovators are understandably hyper-focused on scaling up their individual ideas or products. But good policy is needed to build a flourishing global development environment—a rising tide that lifts all entrepreneurial ships. An underlying theme of the Mexico City workshop was the importance of policy as a growth enabler. 

Now that we’re back in DC and over our jetlag, the accelerator continues, and we’re working with workshop participants to inform policymakers on key priorities for global development policy. We’re thinking about pain points in the field and opportunities for systems change, including earmarking funds for innovation, uplifting and incorporating community voices to policy, and setting new standards that focus on results.

The field of global development can be individualized and competitive—grants are few and far between, which doesn’t always foster shared best practices. But achieving the SDGs by 2030 must be a collaborative effort. Problems like climate change and food security are more pressing than ever, and they require an entirely new way of thinking about global development—finding and building on opportunities from proven results. Later this fall, look out for our participants’ moonshot memos as we roll them out. And if you have an idea about meeting the SDGs with a moonshot—or something else—why not submit it? Aiming at the moon is one thing, but getting there takes dedicated and sustained collaboration, and we’re so honored that these daring organizations want to work with us to do just that.

The Accelerator cohort in Mexico City

The Day One Project is going international!

The Day One Project is going international! My colleague Josh Schoop and I will be spending this week in Mexico City with our partners at Unlock Aid, where we’ll be co-hosting the Reimagining the Future of Global Development Moonshot Accelerator. This will be our eighth accelerator cohort, and the very first in-person group. 

We’re convening a group of 70 entrepreneurs, innovators, policymakers, and funders from around the world to think big about the future of global development and how government, business, industry, and aid can meet the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. With the recent passage of a historic investment in the transition away from fossil fuels, the time is now to act on the biggest threats facing humanity. Sitting squarely within ‘the decade of delivery’—the remaining years we have to achieve the SDGs— this moonshot accelerator serves as an important call for action. 

Our goal for this accelerator is to disrupt. We aim to generate new models to seed, scale, and implement catalytic solutions. The inspiration for the design of this accelerator comes from the “moonshot” model that the Kennedy administration pioneered to put the first man on the moon. A moonshot has since come to mean solving a daunting problem in an accelerated time period, requiring breakthrough, innovative, and radical thinking. If the past decades have not delivered the necessary change, then we have to shoot for the moon.

Over the course of the week, we’ll be working with the accelerator cohort to develop their own moonshots in health, the green economy, biodiversity, food and water insecurity, and more. These moonshots will be the building blocks for a Global Development Outcomes Marketplace, pitching funders and policymakers on new ways to unlock innovation in global development. Innovation here involves so much more than just new technology – it means new systems, processes, cooperation, organizing, and change, while ensuring that diverse perspectives are leading the way forward. 

We’re really invested in these ideas and the people driving them, so here’s a sneak peek at a couple innovative groups joining us in Mexico City: Instiglio, headquartered in Bogotá, Colombia, is experimenting with new global development systems, like innovative financing methods, while SwipeRx in Indonesia is dedicated to revolutionizing the pharmacy industry with a tech-based solution. There are, of course, so many more groups who’ll be discussing and testing their ideas in-person, and the goal is to channel this cohort’s diverse expertise to create high-level, actionable recommendations for funders and multilateral organizations that center equity and outcomes. 

I’m most excited to hear from experts and entrepreneurs from all over the world on what has been holding back progress despite attempted solutions, and I look forward to collaborating on what a new set of systems could look like. I’m excited to learn from our inspiring cohort, and to build mutual understanding across sectors to find ways to improve current solutions and break ground on a new path forward.I have high hopes that this accelerator will reinvigorate global development and uplift new voices and ideas in order to build a more prosperous planet. I resonate strongly with the voices of young people demanding urgent climate action worldwide–it’s time to harness this momentum to make sustainable, transformative change. Follow the journey of our first in-person accelerator on Twitter.

A Convening on The Future of U.S. Infrastructure Innovation

Background and Purpose

On July 26, 2022, MIT Mobility Initiative, MIT Washington Office, and The Engine hosted a workshop with leaders from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and infrastructure stakeholders — industry veterans, startup founders, federal, state and local policymakers and regulators, academics and investors.

The purpose of this convening was to engage a broad, diverse set of stakeholders in a series of ideation exercises to imagine what a set of ambitious advanced research programs could focus on to remake the future of American infrastructure. This read-out builds on a partnership FAS and the Day One Project have with the Department of Transportation to support solutions-based research and development. You can learn more about our work here.

The workshop consisted of two sessions. In the first working session, attendees discussed key challenges in infrastructure and possible research priority areas for ARPA-I. In the second half of the first session, participants were asked to come up with priority program areas that ARPA-I could focus on

During the second working session, participants considered the barriers that prevent the translation of breakthrough science and engineering into infrastructure reality, and opportunities for ARPA-I to smooth some of those frictions as an institution.

Resulting Recommendations

While some of the recommendations below may ultimately fall outside of ARPA-I’s mandate, or may require further Congressional authorization, they emphasize the need for ARPA-I to be strategically coordinating future deployment at scale even at the earliest stages of a project.

Deploying capital strategically

Establishing development and test infrastructure:

Catalyzing stakeholder collaboration:

Towards a Solution for Broadening the Geography of NSF Funding

Congressional negotiations over the massive bipartisan innovation bill have stumbled over a controversial proposal to expand the geographic footprint of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding. That proposal, in the Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA), mandates that 20% of NSF’s budget be directed to a special program to help institutions in the many states that receive relatively few NSF dollars.

Such a mandate would represent a dramatic expansion of the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which currently receives less than 3% of NSF’s budget. Major EPSCoR expansion is popular among legislators who would like to see the research institutions they represent become more competitive within the NSF portfolio. Some legislators have said their support of the overall innovation package is contingent on such expansion.

But the proposed 20% set-aside for EPSCoR is being met with fierce opposition on Capitol Hill. 96 other legislators recently co-authored a letter warning, “Arbitrarily walling off a sizable percentage of a science agency’s budget from a sizable majority of the country’s research institutions would fundamentally reduce the entire nation’s scientific capacity and damage the research profiles of existing institutions.”

Both proponents and opponents of the 20% set-aside make good points. Those in favor want to see more equitable distribution of federal research dollars, while those against are concerned that the mandatory set-aside is too massive and blunt an instrument for achieving that goal. Fortunately, we believe compromise is achievable—and well worth pursuing. Here’s how.

What is EPSCoR?

First, some quick background on the program at the heart of the controversy: ESPCoR. The program was established in 1979 with the admirable goal of broadening the geographic distribution of NSF research dollars, which even then were disproportionately concentrated in a handful of states.

EPSCoR provides eligible jurisdictions with targeted support for research infrastructure, development activities like workshops, and co-funding for project proposals submitted to other parts of NSF. A jurisdiction is eligible to participate in EPSCoR if its most recent five-year level of total NSF funding is equal to or less than 0.75% of the total NSF budget (excluding EPSCoR funding and NSF funding to other federal agencies). Currently, 25 states plus Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands qualify for EPSCoR. Yet the non-EPSCoR states still accounted for nearly 90% of NSF awards in FY 2021.
 

Why is expansion controversial?

As mentioned above, the Senate-passed USICA (S. 1260) would require NSF to devote 20% of its budget to EPSCoR (including research consortia led by EPSCoR institutions). The problem is that EPSCoR received only 2.4% of NSF’s FY 2022 appropriation. This means that to achieve the 20% mandate without cutting non-EPSCoR funding, Congress would have to approve nearly $2 billion in new appropriations for NSF in FY 2023, representing a 22% year-over-year increase, devoted entirely to EPSCoR. This is, to be blunt, wildly unlikely.

On the other hand, achieving a 20% budget share for EPSCoR under a more realistic FY 2023 appropriation for NSF would require cutting funding for non-EPSCoR programs on the order of 15%: a cataclysmic proposition for the research community.

Neither pathway for a 20% EPSCoR set-aside seems plausible. Still, key legislators have said that the 20% target is a must-have. So what can be done?

A path forward

We think a workable compromise is possible. The following three revisions to the Senate-proposed set-aside that everyone might accept:

  1. Specify that the 20% mandate applies to institutions in EPSCoR states rather than the EPSCoR program itself. While specific funding for the EPSCoR program accounts for less than 3% of the total NSF budget, institutions in current EPSCoR states actually receive about 13% of NSF research dollars. In other words, a substantial portion of NSF funding is allocated to EPSCoR institutions through the agency’s normal competitive-award opportunities. Given this fact, there’s a clear case to be made for focusing the 20% ramp-up on EPSCoR-eligible institutions rather than the EPSCoR program.

     

  2. Specify that the mandate only applies to extramural funding, not to agency operations and administrative appropriations. This is simply good government. If EPSCoR funding is tied to administrative appropriations, it may create an incentive to bloat the administrative line items. Further, if the mandate is applied to the entirety of the NSF budget and administrative costs must increase for other reasons (for instance, to cover future capital investments at NSF headquarters), then NSF may be forced to “balance the books” by cutting non-EPSCoR extramural funding to maintain the 20% ESPCoR share.

     

  3. Establish a multi-year trajectory to achieve the 20% target. As mentioned above, a major year-over-year increase in the proportion of NSF funding directed to either EPSCoR or EPSCoR-eligible institutions could cripple other essential NSF programs from which funding would have to be pulled. Managing the deluge of new dollars could also prove a challenge for EPSCoR-eligible institutions. Phasing in the 20% target over, say, five years would (i) enable federal appropriators to navigate pathways for increasing EPSCoR funding while avoiding drastic cuts elsewhere at NSF, and (ii) give EPSCoR-eligible institutions time to build out the capacities needed to maximize return on new research investments.

Crunching the numbers

To illustrate what this proposed compromise could mean fiscally, let’s say Congress mandates that NSF funding for EPSCoR-eligible institutions rises from its current ~13% share of total research dollars to 20% in five years. To achieve this target, the share of NSF funding received by EPSCoR-eligible states would have to rise by approximately 9% per year for five years.

Under this scenario, if NSF achieves 3% annual increases in appropriations (which is close to what it’s done since the FY 2013 “sequestration” year), then we’d see about 13% annual growth in NSF research dollars funneled to EPSCoR states due to the escalating set-aside. NSF research dollars funneled to non-EPSCoR states would increase by about 1% annually over the same time period. By the end of the five-year period, EPSCoR-eligible institutions would have seen a more than 80% increase in funding.

Annual increases in NSF appropriations of 2% would be enough to achieve the 20% set-aside without cutting funding for institutions in non-EPSCoR states, but wouldn’t allow any growth in funding for those institutions either. In other words, the appropriations increases would have to be entirely directed to the rising EPSCoR set-aside.

Finally, annual increases in NSF appropriations of 5% would be enough to achieve the 20% set-aside for EPSCoR-eligible institutions while also enabling non-EPSCoR-eligible institutions to enjoy continued 3% annual increases in funding growth.
 

The next step

U.S. strength in innovation is predicated on the scientific contributions from all corners of the nation. There is hence a clear and compelling reason to ensure that all U.S. research institutions have the resources they need to succeed, including those that have historically received a lower share of support from federal agencies.

he bipartisan innovation package offers a chance to achieve this, but it must be done carefully. The three-pronged compromise on EPSCoR outlined above is a prudent way to thread the needle. It should also be supported by sustained, robust increases in NSF funding as a whole. Congress should therefore couple this compromise with an explicit, bipartisan commitment to support long-term appropriations growth for NSF—because such growth would benefit institutions in every state.

The bipartisan innovation package offers enormous potential upside along several dimensions for U.S. science, innovation, and competitiveness. To enable that upside, an EPSCoR compromise is worth pursuing.

Regulating Use of Mobile Sentry Devices by U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Summary

Robotic and automated systems have the potential to remove humans from dangerous situations, but their current intended use as aids or replacements for human officers conducting border patrols raises ethical concerns if not regulated to ensure that this use “promot[es] the safety of the officer/agent and the public” (emphasis added). U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should update its use-of-force policy to cover the use of robotic and other autonomous systems for CBP-specific applications that differ from the military applications assumed in existing regulations. The most relevant existing regulation, Department of Defense Directive 3000.09, governs how semi-autonomous weapons may be used to engage with enemy combatants in the context of war. This use case is quite different from mobile sentry duty, which may include interactions with civilians (whether U.S. citizens or migrants). With robotic and automated systems about to come into regular use at CBP, the agency should proactively issue regulations to forestall adverse effects—specifically, by only permitting use of these systems in ways that presume all encountered humans to be non-combatants. 

Challenge and Opportunity

CBP is currently developing mobile sentry devices as a new technology to force-multiply its presence at the border. Mobile sentry devices, such as legged and flying robots, have the potential to reduce deaths at the border by making it easier to locate and provide aid to migrants in distress. According to an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report, 22% of migrant deaths between 2010 and 2021 that involved an on-duty CBP agent or officer were caused by medical distress that began before the agent or officer arrived on the scene. However, the eventual use cases, rules of engagement, and functionalities of these robots are unclear. If not properly regulated, mobile sentry devices could also be used to harm or threaten people at the border—thereby contributing to the 44% of deaths that occurred as a direct result of vehicular or foot pursuit by a CBP agent. Regulations on mobile sentry device use—rather than merely acquisition—are needed because even originally unarmed devices can be weaponized after purchase. Devices that remain unarmed can also harm civilians using a limb or propeller. 

Existing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations governing autonomous systems seek to minimize technological bias in artificially intelligent risk-assessment systems. Existing military regulations seek to minimize risks of misused or misunderstood capabilities for autonomous systems. However, no existing federal regulations govern how uncrewed vehicles, whether remotely controlled or autonomous, can be used by CBP. The answer is not as simple as extending military regulations to the CBP. Military regulations governing autonomous systems assume that the robots in question are armed and interacting with enemy combatants. This assumption does not apply to most, if not all, possible CBP use cases.

With the CBP already testing robotic dogs for deployment on the Southwestern border, the need for tailored regulation is pressing. Recent backlash over the New York Police Department testing similar autonomous systems makes this topic even more timely. While the robots used by CBP are currently unarmed, the same company that developed the robots being tested by CBP is working with another company to mount weapons on them. The rapid innovation and manufacturing of these systems requires implementation of policies governing their use by CBP before CBP has fully incorporated such systems into its workflows, and before the companies that build these systems have formed a powerful enough lobby to resist appropriate oversight. 

Plan of Action

CBP should immediately update its Use of Force policy to include restrictions on use of force by mobile sentry devices. Specifically, CBP should add a chapter to the policy with the following language:

These regulations should go into effect before Mobile Sentry Devices are moved from the testing phase to the deployment phase. Related new technology, whether it increases capabilities for surveillance or autonomous mobility, should undergo review by a committee that includes representatives from the National Use of Force Review Board, migrant rights groups, and citizens living along the border. This review should mirror the process laid out in the Community Control over Police Surveillance project, which has already been successfully implemented in multiple cities. 

Conclusion

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) is developing an application for legged robots as mobile sentry devices at the southwest border. However, the use cases, functionality, and rules of engagement for these robots remain unclear. New regulations are needed to forestall adverse effects of autonomous robots used by the federal government for non-military applications, such as those envisioned by CBP. These regulations should specify that mobile sentry devices can only be used as humanitarian aids, and must use de-escalation methods to indicate that they are not threatening. Regulations should further mandate that mobile sentry devices maintain clear distance from human targets, that use of force by mobile sentry devices is never considered “reasonable,” and that mobile sentry devices may never be used to pursue, detain, or arrest humans. Such regulations will help ensure that the legged robots currently being tested as mobile sentry devices by CBP—as well as any future mobile sentry devices—are used ethically and in line with CBP’s goals, alleviating concerns for migrant advocates and citizens along the border.

Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of regulating CBP use of autonomous robots as mobile sentry devices rather than purchasing of autonomous robots?

Regulations on purchasing are not sufficient to prevent mobile sentry device technology from being weaponized after it is purchased. However, DHS could certainly also consider updating its acquisition regulations to include clauses resulting in fines when mobile sentry devices acquired by the CBP are not used for humanitarian purposes.

Why is Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 3000.09 not sufficient to regulate the use of force by all government agencies?

DOD Directive 3000.09 regulates the use of autonomous weapons systems in the context of war. For an autonomous, semi-autonomous, or remotely controlled system that is deployed with the intention to be a weapon in an active battlefield, this regulation makes sense. But applications of robotic and automated systems currently being developed by DHS are oriented towards mobile sentry duty along stretches of American land where civilians are likely to be found. This sentry duty is likely to be performed by uncrewed ground robots following GPS breadcrumb trails along predetermined regular patrols along the border. Applying Directive 3000.09, the use of a robot to kill or harm a person during a routine patrol along the border would not be a violation as long as a human had “meaningful control” over the robot at that time. The upshot is that mobile sentry devices used by CBP should be subject to stricter regulations.

What standards do robotics companies have on the use of their technologies?

Most companies selling legged robots in the United States have explicit end-user policies prohibiting the use of their machines to harm or intimidate humans or animals. Some companies selling quadcopter drones have similar policies. But these policies lack any enforcement mechanism. As such, there is a regulatory gap that the federal government must fill.

Is updating its Use of Force policy the only way for CBP to regulate its use of mobile sentry devices?

No, but it is an immediately actionable strategy. An alternative—albeit more time-consuming—option would be for CBP to form a committee comprising representatives from the National Use of Force Review Board, the military, migrant-rights activist groups, and experts on ethics to develop a directive for CBP’s use of mobile sentry devices. This directive should be modeled after DoD Directive 3000.09, which regulates the use of lethal autonomous weapons systems by the military. As the autonomous systems in DOD Directive 3000.09 are assumed to be interacting with enemy combatants while CBP’s jurisdiction consists mostly of civilians, the CBP directive should be considerably more stringent than Directive 3000.09.

Would the policies proposed in this memo vary with the degree of autonomy possessed by the robot in question?

The policies proposed in this memo govern what mobile sentry devices are and are not permitted to do, regardless of the extent to which humans are involved in device operation and/or the degree of autonomy possessed by the technology in question. The policies proposed in this memo could therefore be applied consistently as the technology continues to be developed. AI is always changing and improving, and by creating policies that are tech-agnostic, CPB can avoid updating regulations as mobile sentry device technology evolves.

An Earthshot for Clean Steel and Aluminum

Summary

The scale of mobilization and technological advancement required to avoid the worst effects of climate change has recently led U.S. politicians to invoke the need for a new, 21st century “moonshot.” The Obama Administration launched the SunShot Initiative to dramatically reduce the cost of solar energy and, more recently, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced a series of “Earthshots” to drive down the cost of emerging climate solutions, such as long-duration energy storage.

While DOE’s Earthshots to date have been technology-specific and sector-agnostic, certain heavy industrial processes, such as steel and concrete, are so emissions- intensive and fundamental to modern economies as to demand an Earthshot unto themselves. These products are ubiquitous in modern life, and will be subject to increasing demand as we seek to deploy the clean energy infrastructure necessary to meet climate goals. In other words, there is no reasonable pathway to preserving a livable planet without developing clean steel and concrete production at mass scale. Yet the sociotechnical pathways to green industry – including the mix of technological solutions to replace high-temperature heat and process emissions, approaches to address local air pollutants, and economic development strategies – remain complex and untested. We urgently need to orient our climate innovation programs to the task.

Therefore, this memo proposes that DOE launch a Steel Shot to drive zero-emissions iron, steel, and aluminum production to cost-parity with traditional production within a decade. In other words, zero dollar difference for zero-emissions steel in ten years, or Zero for Zero in Ten.

Challenge and Opportunity

As part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s historic effort to quadruple federal funding for clean energy innovation, DOE has launched a series of “Earthshots” to dramatically slash the cost of emerging technologies and galvanize entrepreneurs and industry to hone in on ambitious but achievable goals. DOE has announced Earthshots for carbon dioxide removal, long-duration storage, and clean hydrogen. New programs authorized by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, such as hydrogen demonstration hubs, provide tools to help DOE to meet the ambitious cost and performance targets set in the Earthshots. The Earthshot technologies have promising applications for achieving net-zero emissions economy-wide, including in sectors that are challenging to decarbonize through clean electricity alone.

One such sector is heavy industry, a notoriously challenging and emissions-intensive sector that, despite contributing to nearly one-third of U.S. emissions, has received relatively little focus from federal policymakers. Within the industrial sector, production of iron and steel, concrete, and chemicals are the biggest sources of CO2 emissions, producing climate pollution not only from their heavy energy demands, but also from their inherent processes (e.g., clinker production for cement). 

Meanwhile, global demand for cleaner versions of these products – the basic building blocks of modern society – is on the rise. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that CO2 emissions from iron and steel production alone will need to fall from 2.4 Gt to 0.2 Gt over the next three decades to meet a net-zero emissions target economy-wide, even as overall steel consumption increases to meet our needs for clean energy buildout. Accordingly, by 2050, global investment in clean energy and sustainable infrastructure materials will grow to $5 trillion per year. The United States is well-positioned to seize these economic opportunities, particularly in the metals industry, given its long history of metals production, skilled workforce, the initiation of talks to reach a carbon emissions-based steel and aluminum trade agreement, and strong labor and political coalitions in favor of restoring U.S. manufacturing leadership.

“The metals industry is foundational to economic prosperity, energy infrastructure, and national security. It has a presence in all 50 states and directly employs more than a half million people. The metals industry also contributes 10% of national climate emissions.”

Department of Energy request for information on a new Clean Energy Manufacturing Institute, 2021

However, the exact solutions that will be deployed to decarbonize heavy industry remain to be seen. According to the aforementioned IEA Net-Zero Energy (NZE) scenario, steel decarbonization could require a mix of carbon capture, hydrogen-based, and other innovative approaches, as well as material efficiency gains. It is likely that electrification – and in the case of steel, increased global use of electric arc furnaces – will also play a significant role. While technology research funding should be increased, traditional “technology-push” efforts alone are unlikely to spur rapid and widespread adoption of a diverse array of solutions, particularly at low-margin, capital-intensive manufacturing facilities. This points to the potential for creative technology-neutral policies, such as clean procurement programs, which create early markets for low-emissions production practices without prescribing a particular technological pathway.

Therefore, as a complement to its Earthshots that “push” promising clean energy technologies down the cost curve, DOE should also consider adopting technology-neutral Earthshots for the industrial sector, even if some of the same solutions may be found in other Earthshots (e.g., hydrogen). It is important for DOE to be very disciplined in identifying one or two essential sectors, where the opportunity is large and strategic, to avoid creating overly balkanized sectoral strategies. In particular, DOE should start with the launch of a Steel Shot to buy down the cost of zero-emissions iron, steel, and aluminum production to parity with traditional production within a decade, while increasing overall production in the sector. In other words, zero dollar difference for zero-emissions steel in ten years, or Zero for Zero in Ten.

The Steel Shot can bring together applied research and demonstration programs, public-private partnerships, prizes, and government procurement, galvanizing public energy around a target that enables a wide variety of approaches to compete. These efforts will be synergistic with technology-specific Earthshots seeking dramatic cost declines on a similar timeline.

Plan of Action

Develop and launch a metals-focused Earthshot: 

Invest in domestic clean steelmaking capacity:

Create demand for “green steel” through market pull mechanisms:

Frequently Asked Questions
Is a sector-focused Energy Earthshot really necessary?

The lower technology prices targeted by the Hydrogen Earthshot and the Carbon Negative Shot are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee that these technologies are deployed in the highest emissions producing sectors, such as steel, cement, and chemicals. The right combination of approaches to achieve price reduction remains uncertain and can vary by plant, location, process, product, as noted in a recent McKinsey study on decarbonization challenges across the industrial sector. Additionally, there is a high upfront cost to deploying novel solutions, and private financers are reluctant to take a risk on untested technologies. Nonetheless, to avoid creating overly balkanized sectoral strategies, it will be important for DOE to be very disciplined in identifying one or two essential sectors, such as metals, where the opportunity is large and strategic.

Why are metals the best opportunity for a sector-focused Earthshot?

These products are ubiquitous and increasingly crucial for deploying the clean energy infrastructure necessary to reach net-zero. The United States of America has a long history of metals production, a skilled workforce, and strong labor and political coalitions in favor of restoring U.S. manufacturing leadership. Additionally, carbon-intensive steel from China has become a growing concern for U.S. manufacturers and policymakers; China produces 56% of global crude steel, followed by India (6%), Japan (5%), and then the U.S. (4%). The U.S. already maintains a strong competitive advantage in clean steel, and the technologies needed to double-down and fully decarbonize steel are close to commercialization, but still require government support to achieve cost parity.

Will this Earthshot reduce U.S. metals manufacturing competitiveness?

U.S. steel production is already less polluting than many foreign sources, but that typically comes with additional costs. Reducing the “green premium” will help to keep US metal producers competitive, while preparing them for the needs of buyers, who are increasingly seeking out green steel products. End users such as Volkswagen are aiming for zero emissions across their entire value chain by 2050, while Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have already begun sourcing low-emissions steel for new autos. Meanwhile,  the EU is preparing to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism that could result in higher prices for steel and aluminum-produced products from the United States. The ramifications of the carbon border tax are already being seen in steel agreements, such as the recent US-EU announcement to drop punitive tariffs on each other’s steel and aluminum exports and to begin talks on a carbon-based trade agreement.

What is the right baseline to use for calculating the “green premium” of metals?

Breakthrough Energy estimated that the “green premium” for steel using carbon capture is approximately 16% – 29% higher than “normally” produced steel. Because there are a variety of processes that could be used to reduce emissions, and thus contribute to the “green premium,” there may not be a single number that can be estimated for the current costs. However, wherever possible, we advocate for using real-world data of “green” produced steel to estimate how close DOE is to achieving its benchmark targets in comparison to “traditional” steel.