The original elevator pitch for the Day One Project wasn’t hard to boil down: 100 actionable science and technology policy ideas we could deliver to the victor in January 2021 – ideas ready for the new president on “Day One” of their time in the White House. We saw opportunities for great progress no matter which party emerged victorious – and so we focused on ideas that could garner bipartisan support. We couldn’t be prouder of the policy innovations that surfaced at the outset of Day One – from Mike Stebbins and Geoff Ling’s memo laying out the case for ARPA-H, an agency since launched and funded with over $2.5B in appropriations, to Adam Marblestone and Sam Rodriques’ memo proposing the creation of “Focused Research Organizations,” which has led to the creation of a network of philanthropically-supported research initiatives as well as inspired a number of new federal initiatives. These are but two examples from a very long list.

This is how policy actually changes. We believe our emphasis on concisely outlining the challenge, opportunities and specific steps for policymakers to take represents a leap forward for how technologists, scientists, and those with lived experience could make a difference. I add the last category because it’s often overlooked in policy circles but is where some of the best ideas can originate. At FAS, we take our role in creating the platform to democratize the policy making process seriously and seek to include an array of voices in creating sound and equitable policy.

The “secret sauce” of the Day One Project isn’t just the format of the policy recommendations we publish. It’s the “policy entrepreneurs” who make them happen: the people who make up FAS staff and policy contributors. My colleague Erica Goldman recently wrote eloquently in Issues in Science and Technology about why it’s so important that more scientists take the plunge into policy entrepreneurship. She highlighted the examples of policy entrepreneurs such as Julian Elliott, who rose to the challenge we posed before the last presidential election – individuals who came to us with bold policy ideas, but were also willing to put in the work to hammer those ideas into actionable forms, engage in dialogue with policymakers, and keep pushing for progress, celebrating both incremental and monumental steps toward change.

The thinking behind the Day One Project now has a track record of success – and the proud history of the Federation of American Scientists behind it. Since that initial batch of policy memos we unveiled nearly five years ago, we have launched 18 accelerators, with 183 participants – resulting in 132 additional policy memos and recommendations – all driven by policy entrepreneurs. We continue to mine for talent and remain committed to helping these individuals and teams refine their ideas – and it’s continuing to pay off. Groundwork laid in part by Lauren Shum’s memo about lead pollution from aviation fuel helped spur an endangerment finding from the EPA just this past October.

Now we sit on the verge of another Presidential election – and again FAS sees opportunity for meaningful, science-based policy innovations that can appeal to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. That’s why we’re launching Day One 2025 – and renewing the call for 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.

For this new effort, FAS has identified four priority areas where ideas and action are most sorely needed:

Government Capacity Policy and practice changes that enhance government’s ability to deliver, spanning talent, spending, culture, and more. 

One of my favorite Day One Project memos in this vein is about common-sense reforms to accelerate the “Authority to Operate” process for government tech by Mary Lazzeri, Dayton Williams, Greg Elin and Fen Labalme. 

Emerging Technologies and Global Risk The promise and peril of artificial intelligence, and the resurgent threat of nuclear conflict; emerging biorisks; safeguarding against planetary threats; all of these fields require robust approaches that will leverage technological progress, new policy frameworks and collaboration.

A great example in this vein is about establishing an AI Center of Excellence to address maternal health disparities by Kumba Sennaar and Grace Wickerson. 

Innovation and Competitiveness How can the U.S. better convert the strength of its R&D enterprise into shared prosperity and train it on the biggest challenges of the 21st century? 

We need more ideas to accelerate the development of thriving regional innovation ecosystems, foster the development of a K-12 education system that prepares students for tomorrow’s challenges, expand access to STEM talent pipelines, accelerate translation of promising innovations from lab to market, and more. 

Mark Lemley and Orly Lobel’s (now partially implemented) proposal for an array of strategies to ban non-competes to boost industry competition is a wonderful model of a memo focused on these questions.

Energy and Environment  Steps to accelerate a clean energy transition and ensure a world resilient to a changing climate. 

FAS’s own Zoë Brouns authored a memo on how community navigators could accelerate the distribution of federal climate funding. It’s one of many examples of great environmental policy recommendations already in our library.

We are again on the cusp of a massive policy window, an opportunity to arm a new or second-term administration with new ideas. Leading up to the launch of Day One 2025, FAS will be highlighting stories of policy entrepreneurs on our website. We hope these stories will be a reminder that great policy can come from anywhere – be it a young scientist yet to truly begin their career, or a policy veteran who’s served in the White House.

Maybe, as you read about the passion, persistence and imagination exhibited by one or all of these individuals, you’ll be inspired to try your hand at policy entrepreneurship with a policy proposal to make this country, and the world, a better place.

This series of interviews spotlights scientists working across the country to implement the Department of Energy’s massive efforts to transition the country to clean energy, and improve equity and address climate injustice along the way. The Federation’s clean energy workforce report discusses the challenges and opportunities associated with ramping up this dynamic, in-demand workforce. These interviews have been edited for length and do not necessarily reflect the views of the DOE.

With a PhD in materials science, a postdoc position at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and a stint as a AAAS Fellow, Dr. Shawn Chen has had a range of roles in the research community. Now at DOE as a career civil service member, he seeks to combine his technical skills with his passion for public service – to build the foundation for the next generation of clean energy technologies. 

Marrying Public Service and Science

Chen’s interest in engineering and materials science started while he was getting his undergraduate degree at UC San Diego. He was chosen to join Dr. Shirley Meng’s research team and started studying how to build stronger, better, and longer lasting batteries. This experience encouraged him to pursue a PhD, and he went on to study how to produce polymer films and materials – and figure out how to make films that use less energy.

It’s important to him that all his research connects back to energy in some way. Dr. Chen grew up in countries where energy was front of mind for his communities. “I grew up in Taiwan and spent two years in Malawi, and you really understand how important energy is. In Taiwan there was a special focus on conserving energy as much as possible. In Malawi, there would be days you wouldn’t have power. Growing up, that was something that was always on the mind.”

But it wasn’t just science that sparked his interest. With family members who had served in the military and a college degree that was funded in part by grants, Dr. Chen has always felt pulled to give back. “I wouldn’t have my education if it weren’t for the support of the country. What better way to do something to pay it back than to join public service?” As a grad student at Northwestern, Dr. Chen balanced his degree work with service in the graduate student government, negotiating on behalf of graduate student workers for better healthcare and working conditions.

Federal Service

With that outlook, the federal government seemed like a natural fit for him. After finishing his PhD, Dr. Chen took a postdoctoral position at the National Institute for Standards and Technology, where he continued his work on polymer films. His first foray into federal service allowed him to conduct research key to energy issues: studying how polymeric films could be used as membranes for fuel cells – for batteries and other energy technology, as well as for water treatment.  

Looking for even more of a policy focus in his work, Dr. Chen applied to the AAAS Fellowship, during which he interviewed at several different agencies. But the office that most spoke to him was the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. “What really resonated with me was this mission to keep America at the forefront of science and discovery and innovation…the fundamentals of science.” He got the fellowship, and recently converted to a permanent employee. Now he helps forward that same mission by overseeing and executing the office’s research funding and supporting fellow scientists in making progress on new technologies. 

He credits the AAAS Fellowship for giving him the opportunity. “It opened a door for me…without the fellowship, it would be very challenging for someone early in my career to be where I am now. I got a front row seat to how [policy] works behind the scenes.”  

The importance of research and development to fighting climate change is under-appreciated, in Dr. Chen’s opinion. “It’s very important to have that foundation. If we don’t have the scientific know-how, how can we innovate? You can’t just be throwing darts at a wall and hope it sticks.”

Because of that, effective and responsible stewardship of DOE’s research funding is one of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences’s core mandates. Dr. Chen plays a key role: reading applications, assigning reviewers, and making sure that projects align with national clean energy goals. Many of these projects “really address some of the climate challenges that we’re facing,” Dr. Chen says. Overseeing these projects and awards is his proudest accomplishment so far. His office played a major role in funding 29 projects with 264 million dollars that study large scale energy storage centers – directly supporting the Long Duration Storage Earth Shot. “The applications were top notch, the reviewers were excellent – and I think these awards will really make a significant change in the decades to come. I’m proud to say I’m a part of that effort.” 

Building a Stronger Science Talent Pipeline 

It’s not just funding the research – Dr. Chen is helping to bring younger scientists into the fold. DOE’s RENEW program – or Reaching a New Energy Workforce focuses on providing funding opportunities to minority serving institutions and non-R1 research institutions, places that have historically been unrepresented in the Office of Science portfolios. The program’s focus is on training and mentorship. DOE staff spend weeks with participants to engage them and expose them to the research process at the agency. They can create pathways into careers – not only in federal service, but into basic science research.

“Creating that opportunity for people that might not have even heard about clean energy, engineering, or STEM fields is really important. It’s an important piece of building the next generation – not just the technologies, but the people that will do this research.” 

Science in the Community

Dr. Chen sees his role as a public servant as going beyond just his day job. He feels a responsibility, not only to serve, support the development of new technologies, and forward key scientific research – but to engage his community in conversation about the importance of DOE’s work. 

“A lot of the people I interact with [outside of my work] don’t have a lot of interactions with government employees or scientists. Just putting a face to the names that they hear can help change their view of those people and educate them – tell them that we’re passionate about climate and energy. It’s important to meet people, make a friend, and talk about these things.”

There can be a lot of misunderstandings and questions about clean energy projects and what their impacts will be on communities. Dr. Chen believes it’s necessary for long-term buy-in, to keep strengthening our science communication and outreach efforts. 

In both his personal and professional lives, Dr. Chen continues to be inspired to give back and make the world a better place for those that come after him. “I think it’s important to fight for the people in the next generation. If we can make it better for the people that come after us, then we’ve had some positive impact.”

This series of interviews spotlights scientists working across the country to implement the Department of Energy’s massive efforts to transition the country to clean energy, and improve equity and address climate injustice along the way. The Federation’s clean energy workforce report discusses the challenges and opportunities associated with ramping up this dynamic, in-demand workforce. These interviews have been edited for length and do not necessarily reflect the views of the DOE.

Dr. Hannah Schlaerth’s passion for applied research on climate change was sparked in university, and after completing a PhD in environmental engineering, she joined the DOE’s Clean Energy Corps. Now Dr. Schlaerth, as a lifecycle emissions analyst for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, helps assess the air quality impacts of new clean energy technologies – directly forwarding the mission of industrial decarbonization across the country. 

Intro to Environmental Science

Dr. Schalerth’s climate journey started during her undergraduate studies. As a geology major, a research project on how climate change has impacted water quality in the U.S. Virgin Islands sparked her interest in environmental science. “Because of climate change, the water quality has really deteriorated, and it’s affected coral health down there. And I just fell in love with environmental research.” 

During her PhD at the University of Southern California, Dr. Schlaerth was awarded an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship to conduct research on urban air pollution and climate change. Her work sought to understand the intersection between aerosol concentration and urban heat islands, and how the two can impact one another. As part of another project, Dr. Schlaerth looked at urban greening and how some mitigation measures aimed at decarbonizing can have an unexpected secondary effect: an increase in organic emissions.

“Even as we’re decarbonizing and reducing some of these other precursors to ozone, we can still see some increased ozone from urban greening.” 

These projects have significant policy implications, and Dr. Schlaerth was committed to research that makes a difference. Some of her research was used by the California Air Resources Board to help inform future emissions regulations.

Her interest in air quality and applied research grew – and her graduate work opened more doors. 

Making Waves in the Clean Energy Corps

When the Inflation Reduction Act passed in August 2022, Dr. Schlaerth was “really excited.” After seeing Secretary Granholm speak about the Clean Energy Corps at the American Geophysical Union, it inspired her to apply to the Department of Energy. She joined the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations – a new office with a huge need for smart and skilled people. 

Dr. Schlaerth’s current role is analyzing lifecycle emissions – verifying that the reported emissions from new technologies that the DOE is potentially funding are accurate in practice. This work is vital to the long-term decarbonization strategies of the agency and the government – if new funded technologies don’t deliver on the emissions reductions they promise, that’s money ineffectively spent by DOE and in turn the taxpayers. Making the right decision about which ones to fund is good stewardship and smart science. 

Part of what she loves about her work is being able to see the impact she’s making – especially as someone who pursued research with real-world impacts. “When you’re in academia, you kind of get this message that the only way you can make any kind of change is by doing more research. Since I’ve started this job, I feel like I’m making more of an impact than my research did – and more directly. It has been awesome.”

For Dr. Schlaerth, the work is close to home as well. Ohio’s industrial history means that despite the lack of more visible climate threats like natural disasters or extreme heat, air quality in Ohioan cities is a serious issue. “So many of these decarbonization technologies are going to have air quality benefits in communities exactly like the one I live in. [This work] is on the precipice of some really awesome benefits.” Seeing your work at a federal level have national and local impacts at the same time is rare – but one of the benefits of working at DOE at this point in time. 

Now, because of the remote flexibility that DOE offers, Dr. Schlaerth has been able to relocate back to her home state. She finds there’s an increased interest in clean energy and decarbonization in her community now. When people ask about her job, they’re excited about the possibilities: 

“Coming back, I’ve noticed that even in the past five years people are a lot more invested in their local energy issues as well as these big bills. My Uber drivers are so interested in energy infrastructure and the grants they can get for electric vehicles.” 

But there is also hesitation. “I live in an industrial area – we still have some steel manufacturing near my apartment. There’s a misunderstanding about clean energy jobs and the huge economic impact some of these projects are going to have in regions like this.” Allowing federal employees to live where they work can not only help retain staff long-term, but can foster stronger connections and trust between the government, its initiatives, and the communities it serves. 

Despite the uphill battle the country is facing, Dr. Schlaerth feels optimistic about the future possibilities of industrial decarbonization – and especially being able to electrify some of the facilities she grew up alongside. “Electrification is a double-edged sword – it has to come from somewhere. But in the areas I’ve lived, you have huge community and indoor air quality benefits that I think are definitely worth any potential electricity tradeoff.”

Being a part of federal projects like those at OCED has given Dr. Schlaerth a more national perspective on clean energy development. “It’s really seeming like deployment is nationwide. It’s exciting to see that some communities, especially the more rural ones I grew up around, will experience the benefits of it – either through clean energy jobs or better air quality.”

On an individual level in her everyday life, and on a national scale through her work with OCED, Dr. Schlaerth will continue to make a difference in cleaning the air and decarbonizing the country.

This series of interviews spotlights scientists working across the country to implement the U.S. Department of Energy’s massive efforts to transition the country to clean energy, and improve equity and address climate injustice along the way. The Federation’s clean energy workforce report discusses the challenges and opportunities associated with ramping up this dynamic, in-demand workforce. These interviews have been edited for length and do not necessarily reflect the views of the DOE.

Dr. Adria Brooks’ journey to the Department of Energy has been a winding road. From the forests of Western Massachusetts, to the desert mountains of Arizona, to the frosty fields of Wisconsin, she has made a career out of teaching others why they should care about clean energy.

From Felling Trees to Harnessing Sunshine

Dr. Brooks’ pathway to clean energy began as an undergraduate when she took time off from her Bachelors degree to work on a forest trail crew. She spent nine months on a trail crew in Western Massachusetts. “I was trained to be a lumberjack, basically, but for conservation purposes – so felling trees to build bridges or trails and things. I loved that job; it was really fun and helped me connect with the environment.” Interacting with the environment in such a physical, tangible way encouraged her to change her course of study from space sciences to climate change and energy issues. 

Soon after switching her academic focus, she found work at a solar test facility managed by her alma mater, the University of Arizona. Very quickly she got hands-on experience in every facet of solar energy, from installation of modules and inverters to running experiments, collecting data, doing analysis, and writing reports. In addition, she honed her science communication skills by giving tours to visiting audiences – ranging from Girl Scouts to the late Senator John McCain.

Understanding how solar and its supporting power systems worked on the ground illuminated a new lesson for Dr. Brooks: “Solar [was] not the problem – the power grid is the reason we can’t get more clean energy.” With this new understanding, Dr. Brooks pursued both a Master’s and a PhD in electrical engineering, with a certificate in energy analysis and policy.

“I loved the policy piece of it, because it brought together economists and engineers and policy folks,” she says. This cohort of people came from different disciplines into  the energy analysis and policy program at University of Wisconsin. “It was a really cool program; I loved it.”

State Government Service

While pursuing her dissertation Dr. Brooks started working at the Wisconsin Public Service Commission as a transmission engineer. This demanding state government role proved to be a valuable training ground, building on the communication skills she honed in Arizona. As an engineer she worked across two different administrations, explaining electrical transmission systems, their challenges, and how different policies might impact reliability and clean energy goals. The key to effectively engaging her audience? Understanding their specific goals and meeting them where they were.

“The information [on power systems] I was providing was essentially the same. The question became: What lens am I using? Am I focusing on reliability and consumer cost? Am I focusing on decarbonisation? From my view, it didn’t really matter. The solutions wind up being pretty similar, but it was eye-opening for me to learn how to communicate the science to folks that don’t have that background, but who have the ability to make big decisions affecting the power grid. I thoroughly loved that job. And that’s what set me off wanting to do more policy work at the federal level.” 

Joining DOE and the GDO

Setting her sights on the federal government, Dr. Brooks joined the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)in 2020 as a AAAS Science Technology Policy Fellow in the Department’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office. The position was meant to be research heavy and focused on maximizing taxpayer investments in different investigative projects. But when a new administration came in with a long list of renewable energy goals and a serious focus on transmission, Dr. Brooks found herself reassigned to the Office of Electricity, and later hired into the newly created Grid Deployment Office (GDO).

GDO, which is tasked with investing in critical generation facilities, increasing grid resilience, and improving and expanding transmission and distribution systems to provide reliable, affordable electricity, needed internal folks who understood the science of renewable energy and grid deployment, and who could translate it to cross-cutting program teams and leadership who weren’t mired in the details day-to-day. Dr. Brooks found her groove  by bringing in skills from her days at the solar test facility and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. “My job became a lot more policy focused, trying to explain the science to stand up new programs related to the transmission and the power grid,” she said.  Dr. Brooks’ communications skills combined with her technical background are hugely important because the science of electrical transmission – and how that impacts what clean energy development can occur and how quickly – is often an incomprehensible thing for people, including policymakers.

Communication remains a crucial part of Dr. Brooks’s role and contribution at DOE.

A big win for Dr. Brooks and GDO was the October 2023 release of the National Transmission Needs Study. This study is a useful planning reference to efficiently and effectively deploy resources to update and expand the nation’s transmission grid infrastructure. Conducted every three years, this most recent study is more expansive in scope than previous versions. “Future policy decisions that the Department makes are going to be based on the findings of this report. It also provides a lot of valuable insight for utilities, developers, and other decision makers across the country, so that’s very big,” Dr. Brooks said. Although modest, she played a major role in planning, analyzing the data for, and rolling out the report.

The journey that brought Dr. Brooks to DOE seems almost preordained, as she is bringing her specific knowledge to bear on the urgent problem of climate change.

“Now I feel more impactful being so close to the policymaking, getting to have one foot in the engineering analysis and one foot in policy development. That is really exciting. I do think a lot of that is a very specific opportunity that matched the specific skill set that I had. I have felt very lucky in that regard, to be seen as an expert around the Department. Lots of different offices will reach out, or policymakers will reach out to try to get clarity on the transmission system, and that is exciting. But I also know that it’s luck that I stepped in at the exact time to make that opportunity for myself.”

Looking Ahead

While the transmission issues she works on can often feel insurmountable, Dr. Brooks feels optimistic about the future.

“I am hopeful about how much transmission we’re going to be able to build over the next 10 to 15 years. The word ‘transmission’ is now a common term; people understand it. A couple of years ago,  I would talk to folks about my job and they would say, ‘I don’t understand what the power grid is.’ Now, more people at least understand what the grid is, and that it is a bottleneck to getting clean energy online. That’s huge.  I think we’re going to make a lot more progress than I had any hope of us making even a couple of years ago.”

More than just the policy implications of her work, Dr. Brooks is impressed by how many young professionals want to join government service to play an active role in fighting climate change. Starting in Tucson, continuing in Wisconsin, and now from her home in Boston, she’s volunteered in a variety of roles unrelated to energy systems and grid work that facilitate climate discussions. “I’ve always found kids to be super eager and curious to learn”, she said, providing even more hope that the work will continue with the support of future generations.

This series of interviews spotlights scientists working across the country to implement the U.S. Department of Energy’s massive efforts to transition the country to clean energy, and improve equity and address climate injustice along the way. The Federation’s clean energy workforce report discusses the challenges and opportunities associated with ramping up this dynamic, in-demand workforce. These interviews have been edited for length and do not necessarily reflect the views of the DOE.

From the rugged snowbanks of Alaska to the tropical seaside of Hawai’i, Dr. Olivia Lee Mei Ling has sought to improve the access to, and delivery of, energy. To understand her journey to the Department of Energy and her work today, our story begins in Alaska.

Women in Polar Science

After obtaining her PhD in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from Texas A&M University,  Dr. Lee headed north to accept a teaching position at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. She spent ten years there, first in the Geophysical Department and later in the International Arctic Research Center. While there she developed future energy scenarios for Alaskans, working with federal, state, tribal and local governments, expert stakeholders and non-governmental organizations. Those conversations were sometimes difficult – bringing together a wide range of perspectives and personalities and asking them to align on a plan – but were vital to the state’s future.

“Building those relationships [between energy stakeholders], and helping those conversations continue to happen was a fantastic opportunity to delve into how policy and science can co-occur.”

While at the university she did a short stint with the National Science Foundation as an IPA [Intergovernmental Personnel Act, a temporary position in the federal government] supporting researchers doing work in the Arctic. There she was involved in interagency programs, with a lot of emphasis on developing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across agencies. 

During this time Dr. Lee supported growing outreach for a group of scientists, Women in Polar Science. She identified a need for this group after submitting an article to a geophysical journal about the group’s work – which was rejected because it ‘wasn’t of interest to a wide enough audience.’

Dr. Lee said it was “appalling to think that the science community is not interested or doesn’t believe there is enough value in sharing what we’ve learned about the women who face adversity doing research in polar environments. And so I co-founded the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee’s (IARPC) community of interest on diversity, equity, and inclusion issues.” The group has grown and since taken off, bringing more scientists together to work on DEI within arctic research.

Dr. Lee’s work in Polar Science led to more social ties within Alaska’s Tribal communities, and a deeper understanding of their unique needs. These experiences showed the value of skills beyond traditional scientific training. Empathy quickly became her guiding principle; as an oil-rich state, it became clear that any energy plan in Alaska needed to address community needs first.  “In some areas, like in Alaska, diesel will have to continue to be a part of the energy mix until they’re able to support something more reliable year-round than renewables can offer right now. We need to push clean energy, but not at the cost of livelihoods and safety of communities.” says Dr. Lee. To non-scientists, this statement might be surprising – isn’t the goal to eliminate all fossil fuels? No, the goal is to support a just transition in every region.

Moving States, Territories and Tribes to Clean Energy As Quickly As Possible at DOE

When the Department of Energy began ramping up hiring through the Clean Energy Corps, Dr. Lee was immediately interested. When she interviewed with the Grid Deployment Office, the office recognized her knowledge and skills were unique and vital to their work, and in particular, her combination of scientific expertise and knowledge of the needs associated with Tribal communities.

“We work with a lot of tribes, and it’s a skill set that not everyone has – to take the time to self-educate on the history of colonization, to respectfully interact with tribes, understand that they are self-governing entities and continue to face a lot of challenges in developing their economies.

At GDO, Dr. Lee supports grid resilience projects. Her team thinks critically about what specific infrastructure investments could help communities be more resilient to impacts from climate change – and what resources or guidance communities need to implement those ideas. “We’re not just reacting to disasters as they happen, but thinking about 10 years, 20 years down the road, where do we need to be? How do we sustain energy access and what partnerships we can help build now to make sure that this is an ongoing process?

She continues: “It’s really exciting to know that you are a part of modernizing the grid in a way that will have tangible benefits in the near term – and in the long term as well, if we’re able to help states and tribes plan how [IRA funds] can shape their sustainability moving forward.”

There are lots of unknowns: what kind of infrastructure exists today, and what kind of  investment is required to hasten transition? What resources specific to that location are available now, and how can productive programs be amplified? The work involves measuring and modeling to ensure waste and harm are minimized, while maximizing positive environmental and economic opportunities across the lifecycle of any energy plan.

“In my particular program, we’re supporting projects that develop good resilience. And there’s a very strong emphasis on going beyond theoretical into implementation. Like: what specific infrastructure investments and projects are going to be done to make the electrical grid more resilient to impacts from climate change?”

Unsurprisingly, this work is more than spreadsheets of numbers. To deploy an energy upgrade so much more must be considered: a region’s history, its present day health, and how the region may evolve based on the impacts of climate change prediction models. How can the department meet communities where they are and at the same time prepare them for a changing environment?

Unexpected Opportunities to Build Grid Resilience

Dr. Lee shares one example of how her team did just that. One of the Alaskan tribes they work with requested funding for a project that seemed outside the bounds of grid resilience. They didn’t ask for wiring, poles or grounding, but for snow removal equipment for their wind facility. 

During a recent snowstorm, the community couldn’t access their wind facilities because they lacked updated snow removal equipment. Without ready access to those facilities, if anything had gone wrong, the grid would have had problems as well. “It’s so important to have energy in Alaska winters – it’s life or death. You can’t just say ‘I’ll put on an extra blanket.’ Responding to a request for something as simple as snow removal equipment is an actual, valid, small step that we can take to support grid resilience.” 

Dr. Lee’s ability to think creatively and understand the needs of remote communities are the skills that make her an exceptional team member. Without that level of understanding, that tribe may not have gotten support for equipment that at first glance, isn’t immediately related to grid resilience.

Advice for Those Seeking Roles in Government Clean Energy Work

Dr. Lee’s achievements underscore the importance of a strong federal workforce. She offered advice for those entering government for the first time: “Find mentors who can help you navigate how the government works, and be open to new opportunities and trying new things.” She adds that being open to learning and finding mentors in different offices and different career stages brings the most opportunities compared to a so-called “straight career path.”

She says another benefit is that the people working clean energy technology in the government are some of the most optimistic people. Her work at GDO – helping modernize and fortify the grid – is vital to the resilience and livelihood of communities across the country.

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) seeks to advance progress on a broad suite of contemporary issues where science, technology, and innovation policy can deliver dramatic progress. In recognition of her work in public service, FAS will honor Dr. Alondra Nelson with the Public Service Award next month alongside other distinguished figures including Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Todd Young (R-IN) for their work in Congress making the CHIPS & Science Act a reality to ensure a better future for our nation. 

In addition to my role as Senior Fellow in Science Policy for FAS, I have the pleasure of chairing Membership Engagement for Section X, a governance committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) focused on Societal Impacts of Science and Engineering. I had the honor of co-moderating a session featuring Dr. Alondra Nelson last week, titled Big Issues for Science Policy in a Challenging World—A Conversation with Dr. Alondra Nelson at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in Washington D.C. 

The hybrid event was co-organized with Section K (Social, Economic, and Political Sciences) and co-moderated with Dr. Barbara Schneider, John A. Hannah University Distinguished Professor in the College of Education and the Department of Sociology at Michigan State University and Immediate Past Chair of AAAS Section K. We led a targeted Q&A discussion informed by audience questions in-person and online. 

The conversation focused on how scientific and technical expertise can have a seat at the policymaking table, which aligns with the mission of FAS, and provided key insights from an established leader. Opening remarks featured reflections from Dr. Alondra Nelson on the current state of key issues in science policy that were priorities during her time in the Biden-Harris administration, and her views on the landscape of challenges that should occupy our attention in science policy today and in the future. Dr. Alondra Nelson is the Harold F. Linder Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study and a distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. A former deputy assistant to President Joe Biden, she served as acting director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the first ever Deputy Director for Science and Society. 

FAS is highly invested in ensuring that federal government spending is directed towards enhancing our nation’s competitiveness in science and technology. Dr. Nelson emphasized the idea of innovation for a purpose, and how scientific research and technology development have the potential to improve society, including through STEM education and the infrastructure necessary for research investments to be successful. She also discussed how science and technology can advance democratic values, and highlighted three examples from her time at OSTP that provide promise for the future, including: the cancer moonshot; expanding access to federally funded research across the country; and the need for bringing new voices into science and technology.

Public trust in science and public engagement. The moderated discussion began with the idea of public trust in science in order to set the stage for the current policy landscape. We are operating in a low trust environment for science, and we should make scientific data more accessible to the public. She also highlighted that we need to engage the public in the design process of science and technology, which is why the OSTP Division of Science and Society was initially created. On this point, Dr. Nelson also said that “science policy is a space of possibility” and that we need to expand these opportunities more widely.

“Science policy is a space of possibility”

FAS Science Policy Fellow Adriana Bankston in conversation with Alondra Nelson at the American Educational Research Association.

Scientific workforce, federal investments and international collaboration. Dr. Nelson described the need to make the implementation of CHIPS and Science a reality and to bring more young voices into science and technology. She remarked that the promise of the CHIPS and Science Act is the intention around investments, and that “we need the ‘and science’ part to be fully funded in order to support the future scientific workforce.” To the question of how we should target federal investments in science and technology, she emphasized the need for collaborative research, bipartisan opportunities, and continuing to study the ‘science of science’ in order to understand the best ways for improving the system, while recognizing that the ROI from the investments we make today may take a few generations to be evident. Relatedly, on the question of ensuring our nation’s competitiveness in science and technology while fostering international collaboration, Dr. Nelson reminded the audience that “national security is a concern around many STEM areas of research.” 

Including marginalized voices and technological development. A significant part of the conversation focused on ensuring that marginalized voices have a seat at the table in science and technology. Dr. Nelson stated bluntly that “you can’t have good science without diversity” and that we need to support institutions across the country and engage with different types of educational institutions that may have been traditionally marginalized. To this end, as an example, she emphasized that OSTP previously engaged indigenous knowledge in its work around science and technology governance. The field of artificial intelligence (AI) was also discussed as an example of an area where we need to elevate the visibility of ethical issues that marginalized communities face. The CHIPS and Science Act focused on key technology areas that could create jobs in fields such as AI, leading to a discussion on the need for better policy around emerging technologies, creating high quality jobs, and a stronger focus on workers in the innovation economy. 

The event concluded with a high level discussion on policy impact, to which Dr. Nelson remarked that “if you want your science to have an impact, you should find ways to elevate the visibility of your findings among policymakers.” She stated that this will necessitate expanding our current methods to include broader voices in science and technology in the future. We look forward to honoring Dr. Nelson’s impact in the field during next month’s FAS event.

With the news that SpaceX’s Starship is nearing readiness for another test launch, FAS CEO Dan Correa has been thinking more about what its technology could mean for national security, space science, and commercial space activities. Correa believes policymakers should be thinking and talking more about the implications of Starship and other competing space efforts as well. He recently sat down with Karan Kunjur and Neel Kunjur, founders of space technology startup K2 Space, to find out just how big of a leap the next generation of launch vehicles will represent.

Dan Correa, FAS CEO:  Let’s start with reminding people exactly what SpaceX’s Starship is – and why it could be such a paradigm shifter.

Karan Kunjur, K2 Space Co-founder, CEO: Starship is a next generation launch vehicle and spacecraft being developed by SpaceX, and when operational will change the game in space exploration. It’s the largest and most powerful launch system to ever be developed (150+ tons of payload capacity to LEO) and is intended to be fully re-usable. 

A single Starship launching at a cadence of three times per week will be capable of delivering more mass to orbit in a year than humanity has launched in all of history. 

With Starship-class access to space, we’re about to move from an era of mass constraint, to an era of mass abundance. In this new era, what we put in space will look different. The historic trades that were made around mass vs. cost will be flipped on its head, and the optimal spacecraft required for science, commercial and national security missions will change. 

DC:  Can you be more specific about what types of economic sectors are likely to be affected by Starship and other similar next generation launch vehicles? In other words, is there a broader ecosystem of products and services that you think are likely to emerge to take advantage of Starship or similar capabilities from other companies?

Neel Kunjur, K2 Space Co-founder, CTO: Historically, almost every application in space has been constrained by something commonly known as ‘SWAP’ – Size, Weight and Power. Satellite bus manufacturers have been forced to use expensive, lightweight components that are specially designed for spacecraft that need to fit inside current rockets. Payload designers have been forced to pursue compact sensor designs and complicated, sometimes unreliable deployables. Brought together, these needs have resulted in lightweight, but necessarily expensive vehicles. 

A perfect example of this is the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). In order to fit required mission capabilities within SWAP constraints, the designers of JWST had to 1) Develop a highly complex deployable segmented mirror to fit within the volume budget, 2) Use expensive and novel Beryllium mirrors to fit within the mass budget, and 3) Design low power instruments and thermal conditioning hardware to fit within the power budget. This kind of complexity dramatically increases the cost of missions. 

KK: Exactly. In a world with Starship, things will become significantly simpler. Instead of a complex, unfolding, segmented mirror, you could use a large monolithic mirror. Instead of expensive Beryllium mirrors, you could use simpler and cheaper materials with lower stiffness-to-mass ratios, similar to those used in ground-based telescopes. Instead of expensive, power-optimized instruments, additional power could be used to make simpler and cheaper instruments with more robust thermal conditioning capabilities.    

The potential for change exists across every type of mission in space. It will become possible to have a satellite bus platform that has more power, more payload volume and more payload mass – but one that comes in at the cost of a small satellite. In a world with launch vehicles like Starship, satellite-based communications providers will be able to use the increased power to have greater throughput, remote-sensing players will be able to use more volume to have larger apertures, and national security missions will no longer need to make the trade-off between single exquisite satellites and constellations of low capability small satellites.  

DC: Can we get more specific about what we think the new costs would be? If I’m a taxpayer thinking about how my government financially supports space exploration and activity, that’s important. Or even if I’m a philanthropic supporter of space science – it matters. So what are some “back of the envelope” estimates of cost, schedule, and performance of Starship-enabled missions, relative to status quo approaches?

KK: Here’s an example: the MOSAIC (Mars Orbiters for Surface-Atmosphere-Ionosphere Connections) concept, identified as a priority in the National Academies’ 2022 Planetary Decadal Survey, was a 10-satellite constellation to understand the integrated Mars climate system from its shallow ice, up through Mars’ atmospheric layers, and out to the exosphere and space weather environment. The study envisioned deploying one large “mothership” satellite and nine smaller satellites in orbit around Mars using SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Rocket. Development of these spacecraft was expected to cost ~$1B (excluding recommended 50% reserves). 

In a world with Starship, the same mission could cost $200M in spacecraft costs. With this next generation launch vehicle, you could launch 10 large satellites in a single Starship. Each satellite would be redesigned to optimize for Starship’s mass allowance (150 tons), allowing the use of cheaper, but heavier materials and components (e.g. aluminum instead of expensive isogrid & composite structure). Each satellite would have more capabilities from a power (20kW), payload mass and payload volume than the large “mothership” satellite envisioned in the original MOSAIC study. 

DC: You’ve told me that standardization and modularization possibilities with Starship as it relates to satellites and scientific instruments is crucial. Can you elaborate on that idea?

NK: Longer term, having mass will allow us to do interesting things like over-spec the SWAP capabilities of the satellite bus to meet the requirements of various space science missions – thereby driving standardization. With sufficient SWAP, we could start to include a consistent bundle of instruments (rather than selecting a few to fit within limited SWAP budgets) – reducing the level of customization and non-recurring engineering (NRE) required for each mission. 

Although there will always be some level of customization required for each individual scientific mission, the potential to standardize a large portion of the hardware will make it possible to mass produce probes, increasing the potential frequency of missions and reducing the potential cost per mission. Examples here include standardized build-to-print suites of spectrometers, cameras, and particle and field sensors.

DC:  What are the implications for the Defense Department?  What are some of the important opportunities to deliver capabilities to solve national security problems in less time, at a lower cost, and with greater resilience?

NK: In 2022, the Space Force made resilience its No. 1 priority. One of the ways it hoped to achieve resilience was through the use of cheaper, more quickly deployed satellites. Unfortunately, the only path historically to going cheaper and faster was by going smaller, thereby sacrificing capabilities (e.g. low cost satellites typically come in <2kW of array power). 

With Starship, and companies like K2, agencies such as the Department of Defense will have access to larger, more capable satellites that are built cheaper, faster and with lower NRE. Instead of a single exquisite satellite with 20kW of power, the DoD will be able to deploy constellations of 40 satellites, each with 20kW of power, all within a single Starship. With the rise of refueling and next generation propulsion systems, these high power constellations will be deployable in higher orbits like Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) and Geostationary Orbit (GEO), providing a much needed alternative to a potentially crowded Low Earth Orbit (LEO). 

DC:  The NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program (COTS) program used firm, fixed-price milestone payments to solve a problem (deliver and retrieve cargo and crew to the International Space Station) at a fraction of the cost of “business as usual” approaches.  NASA also gave companies such as SpaceX greater autonomy with respect to how to solve this problem.  What are some key lessons that policy-makers should learn from the NASA COTS program and similar efforts at the Space Development Agency?  

KK: The NASA COTS program and SDA have demonstrated that policy can be as effective as technology in driving positive change in space. The move towards firm, fixed priced models incentivized reductions in cost/time, and pushed commercial entities to be thoughtful about what it would take to deliver against stated mission requirements. The autonomy that was given to the companies like SpaceX was critical to achieving the unprecedented results that were delivered. 

Moving forward, other areas that could benefit from this approach include deep space communications infrastructure and space debris identification and remediation. 

NK: Take the communications capabilities around Mars. The current infrastructure is aging and throughput limited – we just have a collection of Mars orbiters that are operating beyond their primary design lifetimes. With the ramp-up of ambitious scientific missions expected to be launched over the next decade (including eventual human exploration efforts), this aging infrastructure will be unable to keep up with a potentially exponential increase in data demands. 

Rather than addressing this via conventional completed missions, where the end-to-end mission is prescribed, a new approach that uses mechanisms like data buys or Advance Market Commitments could fit well here. Assigning a price for throughput deployed on a $/Gbps basis – what the U.S. government would be willing to pay, but not actually prescribing how those capabilities are deployed – could result in a cheaper, faster and more effective solution. Companies could then raise capital against the potential market, build out the infrastructure and shoulder a majority of the risk, much like any other early stage venture.

DC: What new commercial capabilities might Starship unlock?  Would any of these capabilities benefit from some government involvement or participation, in the same way that the NASA COTS program helped finance the development of the Falcon9?

KK: Almost every new commercial space customer has been forced to operate with sub-scale unit economics. Given capital constraints, their only option has been to buy a small satellite and compromise on the power, payload mass or payload volume they actually need.  In a world with Starship, commercial players will be able to deploy capable constellations at a fraction of the cost. They’ll be able to multi-manifest in a single Starship, amortizing the cost of launch across their full constellation (instead of just 4-8 satellites). The mass allowance of Starship will make previously infeasible commercial businesses feasible, from large fuel depots, to orbital cargo stations, to massive power plants. 

As we think about development across the solar system, as future deep space missions increase the demand for data, the lack of comms capabilities beyond the Deep Space Network (DSN) is going to play a limiting factor. A concerted effort to start building these capabilities to handle future data demand could be an interesting candidate for a COTS-like approach.

DC:  For policy-makers and program managers who want to learn more about Starship and other similar capabilities, what should they read, and who should they be following?

KK: There are a number of great pieces on the potential of Starship, including:

• Starship will be the biggest rocket ever. Are space scientists ready to take advantage of it? 
• Starship is still not understood 
• Accelerating Astrophysics with SpaceX 

DC: Great recommendations. Thanks to you both for chatting.

KK: Thank you.

NK: Thanks.

The U.S. bioeconomy has been surging forward, charged by the Presidential Executive Order 14081 and the CHIPS and Science Act. However, there are many difficult challenges that lay ahead for the U.S. bioeconomy, including for U.S. biomanufacturing capabilities. U.S. biomanufacturing has been grappling with issues in fermentation capacity including challenges related to scale-up, inconsistent supply chains, and downstream processing. While the U.S. government works on shoring up these roadblocks, it will be important to bring industry perspectives into the conversation to craft solutions that not only addresses the current set of issues but looks to mitigate challenges that may arise in the future.

To get a better understanding of industry perspectives on the U.S. bioeconomy and the U.S. biomanufacturing sector, the Federation of American Scientists interviewed Dr. Sarah Richardson, the CEO of MicroByre. MicroByre is a climate-focused biotech startup that specializes in providing specialized bacteria based on the specific fermentation needs of its clients. Dr. Richardson received her B.S. in biology from the University of Maryland in 2004 and a Ph.D. in human genetics and molecular biology from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 2011. Her extensive training in computational and molecular biology has given her a unique perspective regarding emerging technologies enabled by synthetic biology.

FAS: The U.S. Government is focused on increasing fermentation capacity, including scale-up, and creating a resilient supply chain. In your opinion, are there specific areas in the supply chain and in scale-up that need more attention?

Dr. Sarah Richardson: The pandemic had such an impact on supply chains that everyone is reevaluating the centralization of critical manufacturing. The United States got the CHIPS and Science Act to invest in domestic semiconductor manufacturing. The voting public realized that almost every need they had required circuits. Shortages in pharmaceuticals are slowly raising awareness of chemical and biomedical manufacturing vulnerabilities as well. The public has even less insight into vulnerabilities in industrial biomanufacturing, so it is important that our elected officials are proactive with things like Executive Order 14081.

When we talk about supply chains we usually mean the sourcing and transfer of raw, intermediate, and finished materials — the flow of goods. We achieve robustness by having alternative suppliers, stockpiles, and exacting resource management. For biomanufacturing, an oft raised supply chain concern is feedstock. I can and will expound on this, but securing a supply of corn sugar is not the right long-term play here. Shoring up corn sugar supplies will not have a meaningful impact on industrial biomanufacturing and should be prioritized in that light.

Biomanufacturing efforts are different from the long standing production of consumer goods in that they are heavily tied to a scientific vendor market. As we scale to production, part of our supply chain is a lot of sterile plastic disposable consumables. We compete with biomedical sectors for those, for personal protective equipment, and for other appliances. This supply chain issue squeezed not just biomanufacturing, but scientific research in general.

We need something that isn’t always thought of as part of the supply chain: specialized infrastructural hardware. This  may not be manufactured domestically. Access to scale up fermentation vessels is already squeezed. The other problem is that no matter where you build them, these vessels are designed for the deployment of canonical feedstocks and yeasts. Addressing the manufacturing locale would offer us the chance to innovate in vessel and process design and support the kinds of novel fermentations on alternate feedstocks that are needed to advance industrial biomanufacturing. There are righteous calls for the construction of new pilot plants. We should make sure that we take the opportunity to build for the right future.

One of the indisputable strengths of biomanufacturing is the potential for decentralization! Look at microbrewing: fermentation can happen anywhere without country-spanning feedstock pipelines. As we onboard overlooked feedstocks, it may only be practical to leverage them if some fermentation happens locally. As we look at supply chains and scale up we should model what that might look like for manufacturing, feedstock supply chains, and downstream processing. Not just at a national level, but at regional and local scales as well.

There are a lot of immediate policy needs for the bioeconomy, many of which are outlined in Executive Order 14081. How should these immediate needs be balanced with long-term needs? Is there a trade-off?

Counterintuitively, the most immediate needs will have the most distant payoffs! The tradeoff is that we can’t have every single detail nailed down before work begins. We will have to build tactically for strategic flexibility. Climate change and manufacturing robustness are life or death problems. We need to be open to more creative solutions in funding methods, timeline expectations; in who comes to the table, in who around the table is given the power to affect change, and in messaging! The comfortable, familiar, traditional modes of action and funding have failed to accelerate our response to this crisis.

We have to get started on regulation yesterday, because the only thing that moves slower than technology is policy. We need to agree on meaningful, aggressive, and potentially unflattering metrics to measure progress and compliance. We need to define our terms clearly: what is “bio-based,” does it not have petroleum in it at all? What does “plant-based” mean? What percentage of a product has to be renewable to be labeled so? If it comes from renewable sources but its end-of-life is not circularizable, can we still call it “green”?

We need incentives for innovation and development that do not entrench a comfortable but unproductive status quo. We need to offer stability to innovators by looking ahead and proactively incubating the standards and regulations that will support safety, security, and intellectual property protection. We should evaluate existing standards and practices for inflexibility: if they only support the current technology and a tradition that has failed to deliver change, they will continue to deliver nothing new as a solution. 

We need to get on good footing with workforce development, as well. A truly multidisciplinary effort is critical and will take a while to pull off; it takes at least a decade to turn a high school student into a scientist. I only know of one national graduate fellowship that actually requires awardees to train seriously in more than one discipline. Siloing is a major problem in higher education and therefore in biomanufacturing. What passes for “multidisciplinary” is frequently “I am a computer scientist who is not rude to biologists” or “our company has both a chemical division and an AI division.” A cross-discipline “bilingual” workforce is absolutely critical to reuniting the skill sets needed to advance the bioeconomy. Organizations like BioMADE with serious commitments to developing a biomanufacturing workforce cannot effectively address the educational pipeline without significantly more support.

MicroByre is working to advance alternatives to substrates currently favored by the bioeconomy.

When we emphasize the collection of data — which data are we talking about? Is the data we have collected already a useful jumping off point for what comes next? Are the models relevant for foreseeable changes in technology, regulation, and deployment? For some of it, absolutely not. As every responsible machine learning expert can tell you, data is not something you want to skimp or cheap out on collecting or curating. We have to be deliberate about what we collect, and why. Biases cannot all be avoided, but we have to take a beat to evaluate whether extant models, architecture, and sources are relevant, useful, or adaptable. A data model is as subject to a sunk cost fallacy as anything else. There will be pressure to leverage familiar models and excuses made about the need for speed and the utility of transfer learning. We cannot let volume or nostalgia keep us from taking a sober look at the data and models we currently have, and which ones we actually need to get.

What are the major pain points the biomanufacturing industry is currently facing?

Downstream processing is the work of separating target molecules from the background noise of production. In purely chemical and petrochemical fields, separation processes are well established, extensively characterized, and relatively standardized. This is not the case in industrial biomanufacturing, where upstream flows are arguably more variable and complex than in petrochemicals. Producers on the biomedical side of biomanufacturing who make antibiotics, biologics, and other pharmaceuticals have worked on this problem for a long time. Their products tend to be more expensive and worth specialized handling. The time the field has spent developing the techniques in the urgent pursuit of human health works in their favor for innovation. However, separating fermentation broth from arbitrary commodity molecules is still a major hurdle for a bioindustrial sector already facing so many other simultaneous challenges. Without a robust library of downstream processing methods and a workforce versant in their development and deployment, new industrial products are viewed as significant scaling risks and are funded accordingly.

There is fatigue as well. For the sake of argument, let us peg the onset of the modern era of industrial biomanufacturing to the turn of the latest century. There have been the requisite amount of promises any field must make to build itself into prominence, but there has not been the progress that engenders trust in those or future promises. We have touted synthetic biology as the answer for two and a half decades but our dependence on petroleum for chemicals is as intense as ever. The goodwill we need to shift an entire industry is not a renewable resource. It takes capital, it takes time, and it takes faith that those investments will pay off. But now the chemical companies we need to adopt new solutions have lost some confidence. The policy makers we need to lean into alternative paths and visionary funding are losing trust. If the public from whence government funding ultimately springs descends into skepticism, we may lose our chance to pivot and deliver.

The right investment right now will spell the difference between life and death on this planet for billions of people.

This dangerous dearth of confidence can be addressed by doing something difficult: owning up to it. No one has ever said “oh goody — a chance to do a postmortem!”. But such introspective exercises are critical to making effective changes. A lack of reflection is a tacit vote for the status quo, which is comfortable because we’re rarely punished for a lack of advocacy. We should commission an honest look at the last thirty years — without judgment, without anger, and without the need to reframe disappointing attempts as fractional successes for granting agencies, or position singular successes as broadly representative of progress for egos. 

Biomanufacturing is so promising! With proper care and attention it will be incredibly transformative. The right investment right now will spell the difference between life and death on this planet for billions of people. We owe it to ourselves and to science to do it right — which we can only do by acknowledging what we need to change and then truly committing to those changes.

Corn sugar tends to be the most utilized biomass in the bioeconomy. What are the issues the U.S. faces if it continues to rely solely on corn sugar as biomass?

History shows that low-volume, high-margin fine chemicals can be made profitable on corn sugar, but high-volume, low-margin commodity chemicals cannot. Projects that produce fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals see commercial success but suffer from feedstock availability and scaling capacity. Success in high-margin markets encourages people to use the exact same technology to attempt low-margin markets, but then they struggle to reduce costs and improve titers. When a commodity chemical endeavor starts to flag, it can pivot to high-margin markets. This is a pattern we see again and again. As long as corn sugar is the default biomass, it will not change; the United States will not be able to replace petrochemicals with biomanufacturing because the price of corn sugar is too high and cannot be technologically reduced. This pattern is also perpetuated because the yeast we usually ask to do biomanufacturing cannot be made to consume anything but corn sugar. We also struggle to produce arbitrary chemicals in scalable amounts from corn sugar. We are stuck in an unproductive reinforcing spiral. 

Even if commodity projects could profit using corn sugar, there is not enough to go around. How much corn sugar would we have to use to replace even a fifth of the volume of petroleum commodity chemicals we currently rely on? How much more land, nitrogen, water, and additional carbon emissions would be needed? Would chemical interests begin to overpower food, medical, and energy interests? What if a pathogen or natural disaster wiped out the corn crop for a year or two? Even if we could succeed at manufacturing commodities with corn sugar alone, locking out alternatives makes the United States supply chain brittle and vulnerable.

MicroByre is working to advance alternatives to substrates currently favored by the bioeconomy.

Continued reliance on corn sugar slows our technological development and stifles innovation. Specialists approaching manufacturing problems in their domain are necessarily forced to adopt the standards of neighboring domains. A chemical engineer is not going to work on separating a biomass into nutrition sources when no microbiologist is offering an organism to adopt it. A molecular biologist is not going to deploy a specialized metabolic pathway dependent on a nutrition source not found in corn sugar. Equipment vendors are not going to design tools at any scale that stray from a market demand overwhelmingly based on the use of corn sugar. Grantors direct funds with the guidance of universities and industry leaders, who are biased towards corn sugar because that’s what they use to generate quick prototypes and spin out new start up companies. 

The result of relying on corn sugar is an entrenched field and consequently we might lose our chance to make a difference. Without introducing low-cost, abundant feedstocks like wastes, we run the risk of disqualifying an entire field of innovation. 

What does the U.S. need to do in order for other biomass sources to be utilized beyond corn sugar? Are there ideas (or specific programs) that the U.S. government could supercharge?

Federal agencies must stop funding projects that propose to scale familiar yeasts on corn sugars to produce novel industrial chemicals. We must immediately stop funding biomass conversion projects meant to provide refined sugars to such endeavors. And we must stop any notion of dedicating arable land solely to corn sugar solely for the purposes of biomanufacturing new industrial products. The math does not and will not work out. The United States must stop throwing money and support at such things that seem like they ought to succeed any minute now, even though we have been waiting for that success for 50 years without any meaningful changes in the economic analysis or technology available.

Ironically, we need to take a page from the book that cemented petroleum and car supremacy in this country. We need to do the kind of inglorious, overlooked, and subsequently taken for granted survey of the kind that enabled the Eisenhower Interstate System to be built. 

We need to characterize all of the non-corn feedstocks and their economic and microbial ecosystems. We need to know how much of each biomass exists, what it is composed of, and who is compiling where. We need to know what organisms rot it and what they produce from it. We need to make all of that data as freely available as possible to lower the barriers of entry for cross-disciplinary teams of researchers and innovators to design and build the logistical, microbiological, chemical, and mechanical infrastructure necessary. We need to prioritize and leverage the complex biomasses that cannot just be ground into yeast food. 

We need to get the lay of the land so – to use the roadway analogy – we know where to pour the asphalt. An example of this sort of effort is the Materials Genome Initiative, which is a crosscutting multi-agency initiative for advancing materials and manufacturing technology. (And which has, to my chagrin, stolen the term “genome” for non-biological purposes.) An even more visible example to the public is a resource like the Plant Hardiness Zone Map that provides a basis for agricultural risk assessment to everyone in the country.

The United States needs to lean into an old strength and fund infrastructure that gives all the relevant specialties the ability to collaborate on truly divergent and innovative biomass efforts. The field of industrial biomanufacturing must make a concerted effort to critically examine a history of failed technical investments, shake off the chains of the status quo, and guide us into true innovation. Infrastructure is not the kind of project that yields an immediate return. If venture capital or philanthropy could do it, they would have already. The United States must flex its unique ability to work on a generational investment timeline; to spend money in the very short term on the right things so as to set everyone up for decades of wildly profitable success — and a safer and more livable planet.

The Detroit Regional Partnership (DRP) will use $52 million from the EDA to transition legacy automotive industry into a globally competitive advanced mobility cluster. The Global Epicenter of Mobility (GEM) coalition will do this through a new Supply Chain Transformation Center and Mobility Accelerator Innovation Network that will bolster existing pillars of support in their ecosystem.

Maureen Krauss is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Detroit Regional Partnership. In December, 2022 Maureen testified at a House Science, Space, and Technology subcommittee hearing on Building Regional Innovation Economies. You can find her testimony here. Christine Roeder is the Executive Vice President of the GEM coalition and has over 20 years of experience with economic development and the automotive industry across Michigan. She previously held various senior leadership roles at the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC).

This interview is part of an FAS series on Unleashing Regional Innovation where we talk to leaders building the next wave of innovative clusters and ecosystems in communities across the United States. We aim to spotlight their work and help other communities learn by example. Our first round of interviews are with finalists of the Build Back Better Regional Challenge run by the Economic Development Administration as part of the American Rescue Plan.

Ryan Buscaglia: Could you tell me a little bit about the history of your coalition and how it came together in Detroit?

Maureen Krauss:  We represent a region of five and a half million people. That is not a federal formula region or state formula region. It is a self chosen region where people/communities have decided they want to work together. So that always makes things a little easier. We’ve been doing this for a long time in economic development. And when you look at our seven clusters that we focus on, the mobility cluster—advanced mobility—right now is responsible for about 70% of our workload. So it’s one that we’re immersed in. Everyone knows Detroit as the auto town, the auto region. Michigan—the auto state. We have been seeing this transformation everyday from ICE to EV (internal combustion engine to electric vehicle) but it’s really more than auto right? It has to do with aerospace and defense and a lot of other industries that are here on how the mobility industry is changing.

So it was interesting when we first convened regional partners who work in this space. We actually didn’t pick mobility. We said: ‘What should it be? What topics should it be?’ And we were really pleased when people got back to us on that: 19 out of 20 said mobility. So that was a clear sign that this was a space we needed to really focus on. 

The one other thing I will say, Christine and I worked together back in 2009 and 2010 when our auto economy imploded, and we learned a lot from that. We did not want that to happen again. Our global epicenter of mobility approach is to proactively embrace this change and ensure that our talent and our small and medium sized companies and our entrepreneurs can keep pace with the global shift, with the big original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), with the huge tier-one suppliers, and make sure they have access to the resources and the research that they need to make the transition. At one point I said to the EDA: we don’t want to ever come back to the federal government for a bailout. We want to show that we’re proactively recognizing this change and doing something about it. Christine, I don’t know if you want to share any other insight around that on how people got involved in it [the coalition].

Christine Roeder: My prior work for 20 plus years was with the state level economic development group doing business development. And so a lot of my time—if not 90 plus percent of my time over that couple of decades—was spent on automotive projects in Southeast Michigan.

Knowing this ecosystem of players of workforce development and entrepreneurs and the different incubators we have, the work we have with these research institutions like University of Michigan and Wayne State— we’re really fortunate in this region. To the DRPS credit, when they were pulling this application together. It was not a situation of “well this is the group we have and this is how we’re moving forward.” It was “how can we make the table bigger?” I’ve heard Maureen say that a number of times, how can we make the table bigger? And who else is missing and how can we bring them to the table? 

Dodge Factory, 1916

Everyone knows Detroit as the auto town, the auto region – but it’s really much more than auto.

So I’m really thrilled about the work we’re doing within these different pillars of projects for the EDA, because they have brought together groups that never have even worked together their whole time doing workforce development or economic development in the Detroit metro region. We’re building trust across different organizations and educating these organizations about what the capabilities they each have.

You mentioned the historic roots of this coalition coming out of the incredibly tough period of 2009 and 2010. Could you talk about the lessons from that period and how that informed the projects and coalition that you’re working on today?

Maureen: There were some really significant programs that came out of that period of time. Some did not work out. They didn’t pan out, they weren’t needed. But we had to really take a look and say— okay, we’re very grateful for this auto industry here, what would we be without it? It provides great jobs, great quality of life, and jobs across the spectrum from manufacturing to technical research and development. We have these assets, what else can we do with them? 

So what happened as this coalition was building: we saw the different components be created to address very specific needs, and our approach on this EDA grant was we don’t want to invent something new. It was funny how the EDA asked us in all the meetings, well, is there a construction project? Or are we building a new thing? No, we have some existing pillars that are quite strong! We want the funds to accelerate their work, and make sure that historically excluded communities (HECs) will be able to have access. 

We looked at a very broad definition of HECs not just from a racial lens, but for instance, our region is very urban and suburban and rural. So how do we ensure that a successful program in Ann Arbor or Detroit can reach companies and people in the rural areas of our region too? So it was really, as Christine said, expanding that table and not creating yet another program.

And then we looked at what are shared components that we can all benefit from. That’s the strength of one of our components called GEM-Central and the whole research piece. Entrepreneurs, small-medium sized companies—they can’t hire high end McKinsey or Boston Consulting Group firms to do their research, but there’s a lot of shared information there. So we wanted to strengthen that and have that available to all. 

And then very importantly in the DEI space, we’re a very diverse region, and it’s very authentic here. But we want to ensure that our small and medium sized companies also understand how to be more diverse, how to really embrace all of the cultures that are here in the Detroit area. You know, a lot of these smaller firms barely have an HR person, let alone a DEI officer. So that’s one of our activities. We want to make sure that small and medium sized companies understand how to incorporate DEI into their companies to provide greater opportunities for all because we do believe that we have a great talent pool here. Sometimes you just have to look in different places than the traditional sources. And that really encompasses a lot of our DEI work and allowing access to those findings and those paths for companies that might just have a part time HR person doing payroll.

How are you bringing people to the table trying to be inclusive in the process of developing this future oriented cluster? Did it look like weekly meetings or did it look like town halls? Did you go to people in the community?

Maureen: Our diversity here is very authentic. So it’s not like we had to one day say, who can we call that represents black entrepreneurs or whatever. We work with these people every day. It was really as Christine said. We met every week for I don’t know how many weeks we typically had about 80 people on each call. We never met in person, either. Remember, this all started during COVID. We never met in person. But we had these meetings and we invited a big group of everyone we knew. Who was who was the black business Chamber of Commerce here? Get them in. Detroit Future City? Get them in. Our rural areas’ economic development partners and others? Get them in. It never seemed that it was forced, but it was just making sure they were in the conversations and there was that representation. It was the weekly mantra—who’s not here? Tell your friend, tell us who we can include on an invite. 

We have the second largest Arab population outside the Middle East in the Detroit area. There’s a very strong Hispanic Chamber of Commerce here. So Ernst and Young (EY) helped us bring all those people together and have those conversations. We did two sessions with them to really listen to what their thoughts and ideas and approaches would be to make sure that we were inclusive. I don’t think any of us feel comfortable that we’ve solved this issue. Right? But we’re gonna work super hard to be better and more inclusive in everything we do. And then Christine, if you want to talk about the global initiative as well and how they were engaged?

Christine: As this project came together we split it up into different pillars of activities. The talent pillar includes Global Detroit, which is an organization that works day in and day out bringing immigrants and the world community to Michigan, and specifically Southeast Michigan for job opportunities, entrepreneurship opportunities, and to become part of our ecosystem. As well as standing up for those groups that are already here in Detroit. As Maureen mentioned, we have a very strong Arab American presence here. We have a growing Bangladeshi population in Hamtramck. It’s wonderful to see and the integration of that into our community is really important, especially with the need to help them to build businesses and hire people.

The entrepreneurship program at Global Detroit is one of the funded partners of the EDA under our umbrella of GEM. Whether it’s with that group or, for example, yesterday and the day before here in downtown Detroit at our large convention center the Michigan Minority Business Development Council had their annual minority procurement conference. So they had hundreds of companies and hundreds of exhibits on the floor and we had two of our partners that had exhibited there. One of them being the group that’s reaching out to the legacy companies, the ICE companies that Maureen mentioned, as well as our talent and workforce pillar. So we had two of our pillars represented there, reaching out into the minority business community and talking about GEM. We’re looking to do things differently and dig way deeper into these historically excluded communities to make sure that they’re part of the solution.

I know that a conversation people are having is around the struggle of trying to link up a series of small and mid sized manufacturers who may or may not be able to plug into different OEM supply chains at different places. So hearing that you’ve connected that with the talent piece is wonderful, hopefully creating a value chain that is inclusive, and meets all the needs of a globally competitive market at the end of the day. Is that initiative connected with the new supply chain transformation center that is a critical part of your project?

Christine: The Supply Chain Transformation Center is the legacy company component, and they were there yesterday. So yes, it’s tied into that and working with those companies, particularly new companies that they’ve never worked with before in more rural areas and/or minority owned. All of those companies have components and products that are at risk of being extinct in the next 20 years. One of the lessons that Maureen and I learned back in 2008 and 2009 was that when companies that only made one part for one or two customers, when those customers filed bankruptcy, they suddenly had no idea what they were going to do.

Diversifying those companies into other products is what the supply chain transformation pillar is really doing. It is identifying those companies working with them on what is the product, where else could it be applied? What’s your machinery like? What else could it make? What’s your talent like? What can we upskill them into doing? And then how do we make sure that company continues to be a company as the product line that they’re currently making is shrunk into a handful of suppliers that will continue to build those or produce those parts. ICE is not going away, it’s going to take decades for those all to come off the roads, right? But we’re not going to have as many of them, there’s not going to be as many produced at the large scale. So how do we help those companies to find other customers to build their parts?

Maureen: We’re trying to create a path for the customer journey, and connect all the different components of GEM to ensure that all of these really strong pillars that we have—we do hate to call them pillars, but ‘co-recipient’ sounds very government-like, so we haven’t found the perfect phrase—but you know, we have six of them. How do we make sure that they are aligned? So it’s almost like a handoff. So your company’s going to make a new part at your legacy company and you’re going to transition but then we have to talk about the talent and what do we do with your existing talent so they don’t just get left behind, but that they have the skills to make that. We really are trying to be thoughtful about making sure these programs are also connected, talking to one another and sharing this customer journey. And in the end our customer is our people, right? Whether they represent individual talent or small or medium sized companies. We just need to ensure that all the pieces flow together nicely.

“Nothing stops Detroit”

From Ryan Doyle via Flickr

How have you been navigating this transition from people thinking of Detroit as the auto town, and Michigan the auto state, and moving from that vision to the next 10-20 years as people make this transition from ICE to EV? I’m wondering how you tell the story of that transition to people and if you ever get pushback from people who might want to double down on the historic focus on ICE automobiles. 

Maureen: You’re always going to have naysayers. I never got my late parents to use a cellphone properly, and that was frustrating. Bless them, but it just didn’t work. I do think our people are very resilient. We’ve learned about change before and we learned what happens when you don’t embrace that change in the right way. There’s still going to be the naysayers “oh we will never have enough charging stations, oh who is going to supply all the hydrogen?” Those things are going to be a part of the conversation.

That’s why our research component is so important so we have the right data to show it’s not either or. There’s not going to be one date in the future where we switch from ICE to EV. We have to transition. It’s happening very quickly. We just had a big announcement in DC this week with Secretary Raimondo about a project that’s coming to Michigan with 600 jobs in the hydrogen electrolyzer space, they’re called NEL. So this is happening in a big way, but we want to be sensitive to the fact that change is hard.

Christine: I would just add that what’s going on with the government, federal regulations coming down that the companies need to meet in a short amount of time doesn’t leave any chance that this transition is happening. We are going to do what we can to save as many jobs and save as many companies as we can. And continue to attract companies in this new supply chain as maureen just mentioned this week’s announcement in the hydrogen space. It’s not just electric vehicles that run on batteries, it is hydrogen too. There are many other ways that our mobility companies are going to wean us from fossil fuels and move us towards more renewable choices. There’s going to be naysayers but we need to follow where the puck is going, not just follow the puck. 

Maureen, you testified to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Research and Technology Subcommittee last December. How did it feel to stand up on such a stage and speak up for your region like that?

Maureen: I’m extraordinarily proud. I grew up here, it’s my home. Five years ago they wouldn’t have asked Detroit to testify for this. It meant so much that they were asking us. I had Congress people from around the country asking me “how did you do this?  How did you work together and avoid somebody going rogue?” I’m proud our region realized the strength of working together. Five years ago we would have had five different applications from this region and none of them would have been strong enough to be successful. It was interesting when you saw who called us initially to tell us DRP needed to lead this. It was our council of governments, SEMCOG, somebody from Ann Arbor, from Automation Alley, these were all mature organizations who recognized: “why would we apply individually? Let’s do this together.” 

Those of us who are here know the great innovation that happens here. We tour the facilities and it’s a marvel. For a long time our story got overshadowed by other issues: bankruptcy or crime or vacant buildings. Now to be recognized as an example of innovation is, not to be sappy, but it made me very proud to tell that story on a national scale.

If you’re successful in doing what you proposed, what’s your hopeful vision for what Detroit will look like in 10-15 years?

Maureen: You’ve probably seen a shirt somewhere that says ‘Detroit vs Everybody’. It was done a few years ago when the city got beat up quite a bit. Really where we’re at today is so different, it’s such a different place. But it takes a while for a community to go down. Takes a while for it to get back. When I tell my future grandchildren what grandma did I want to show them the amazing people and companies that chose to come here because they saw it as an opportunity to be innovative and to be their best selves and be successful. People from all over the country and the world.

Christine: Ten years from now the seeds we are planting will grow into a recognized entrepreneurial ecosystem. That’s an area where Southeast Michigan—because of the jobs available in the auto industry—has not been an area nurturing entrepreneurship and bringing new ideas to market. Ten years from now I hope we’re seeing headlines of incubators bustling and companies that we put into the funnel as an idea raising their series A in venture capital to grow jobs and keep them in Michigan. Use our talent that will be training through GEM. Working with universities to make sure commercialization is happening here and we are able to grow. Again these new business owners. We adore and support our automakers and all the supply chains through it. For my daughters who are teenagers right now I would love for my children to be able to have that choice of coming out of school, and if they have an idea for something they want to create they can do it here in Detroit, they don’t have to go to a coast to do it. The GEM coalition, the entrepreneurship startup piece especially, I would like to see the work we’re doing in that area have a real impact.

Washington Maritime Blue aims to scale its blue economy innovation cluster in the Pacific Northwest Region. The coalition is supporting an invigorated and resilient regional blue economy by connecting clean energy production and storage technologies to maritime and ocean economies. They are working across the innovation spectrum, incubating early-stage ventures and advancing large-scale technologies being deployed in the region. Including projects related to hydrogen production and storage.

Joshua Berger is the President/CEO of Washington Maritime Blue, an organization committed to the development of maritime business, technology, and practices that promote a sustainable future contributing to economic growth, ecological health, and thriving communities.

This interview is part of an FAS series on Unleashing Regional Innovation where we talk to leaders building the next wave of innovative clusters and ecosystems in communities across the United States. We aim to spotlight their work and help other communities learn by example. Our first round of interviews are with finalists of the Build Back Better Regional Challenge run by the Economic Development Administration as part of the American Rescue Plan.

Ryan: Could you tell us a little bit about how your build back blue coalition started, and the history of your organization as an overview?

Joshua: Our origin story is not wholly unique, but certainly pretty specific to the success of growing out an innovation cluster organization and the breadth of the relationships and concentric circles that build out from that. In my former role I was working for our Governor Jay Inslee. I was both policy and economic development lead on all things related to our Maritime and Ocean industries. We recognized that we had a $40 billion maritime industry here. That’s been a legacy sector here in the state but closely nestled—literally and figuratively—with a booming and growing tech sector, certainly one of the most advanced and comprehensive manufacturing sectors that’s tied to Boeing and aerospace more broadly, and a significant amount of capital and a growing startup ecosystem in this region.

And all that was growing and being recognized alongside a major transition happening in maritime, oceans and fisheries and the growth of this term: the ‘blue economy.’ And so the governor put together a high level advisory committee and asked for us to create a stakeholder driven statewide strategy for the blue economy. How could Washington State Lead nationally, if not globally on the growth of the blue economy? This was about eight years ago now at this point.

So we spent 18 months gathering up hundreds of stakeholders in formal and informal facilitated discussions and meetings. And as we were doing that, recognizing where all our all our assets were and where we had some real significant opportunity to compete and grow.

We went around the globe to places like Norway and Portugal and Hamburg and Singapore, and asked, ‘Okay, how are you leading in this innovation economy? How are you driving capital? How are you helping corporates work with research facilities, institutions, community partners, and public partners’? They all had these things called ‘Innovation Cluster’ organizations—formally organized clusters, but in a way where you very deliberately tied your industry partners with research institutions, university, public agencies (everything from federal state agencies, ports, municipalities, transit authorities), with other NGOs and community based organizations.

Add that together very intentionally and we could drive forward and lead in the blue economy. So we raised our hand and said ‘yes, we would like one of those.’ And we formed it and spun it out of our state Department of Commerce. And so that organization has been running Washington Maritime Blue for five years now. We have multiple program areas, have grown to 130 plus members, with 12 full time staff, supporting demonstration projects, supporting the entrepreneurial and startup ecosystem, working on career pipeline, workforce development efforts, as well as being a conduit for delegations and knowledge sharing and business development opportunities all broadly focused on the blue economy. It’s really about profitability, sustainability, and equity as the core focus areas of maritime and oceans.

That’s a great overview, thank you. So you had a coalition forming for several years before the EDA came out with their Build Back Better Regional Challenge award? How did you approach that given that you already had a partnership and had an innovation cluster that was in development?

Well, we’ve already been running on our second round of EDA support as well as state support, local ports and municipalities. It was an EDA regional innovation strategy grant that supported the state, the development of the strategy and the formation of the cluster organization. We were then awarded an EDA build to scale award which we’re still engaged in. It helps us operationalize and take the cluster organization and its goal is to the next level. And when the build back better process came along, we sort of said okay, how do we shape what’s now already a rich and effective cluster—which is itself a coalition of partners focused on innovation—and broaden that out, so that we are very intentionally helping build and focused on the intersection of the blue economy and the green economy on the energy transition side of the house. Our organization will work on everything from kelp, to digital drayage truck solutions to the future of fuels. And this was a real attempt to support the innovation happening in those multiple sectors in concentric circles around the blue economy.

How did you decide to focus on the intersection of energy projects, specifically clean and green energy, with the blue economy? And when you were making that decision, who was at the table/ who informed that choice?

We have close partners around these multiple spaces. If we just look at maritime decarbonization, which has been a heavy focus for us, we continue to recognize one of the more challenging aspects is to actually make that transition across maritime (for example ferry electrification and future fuels). I mean ships, drayage trucks, port operations. It’s one thing to have the technology on board vessels so that a vessel could run low to zero emissions. It’s another thing to have the infrastructure across the community that supports an entire system of those vessels.

We have hundreds of different types of vessels, thousands of different vessels that are part of the maritime economy that works here. What we recognized quickly was utilities have a strong role to play. Certainly the future of fuel has a role to play. At the same time, we’re seeing that transition in the EV and transportation markets, we’re seeing that transition happening in the aerospace markets with sustainable aerospace fuel and the like. A lot of this infrastructure is shared. So if we’re going to truly be able to make this transition and move beyond demonstration projects we need a larger ecosystem and infrastructure to support it.

And so, we’ve worked closely with other organizations like the Clean Tech Alliance, the newly forming CHARGE consortium which is focused on electrically generated e-fuels, and the aerospace industry and others. So we recognize if we can form this larger coalition focused on the clean energy transition, and we take it through a blue economy lens, we can support an ecosystem that supports all of this. Whether it’s the actual fuel production and infrastructure to get it to a working waterfront, as well as the startup ecosystem and workforce ecosystems that ultimately help that help that continue to grow.

So this was this stuff we were already working on with partners and as the opportunity came along we as an organization have the operational infrastructure in place, coordination infrastructure in place, already have all the industry and research partners at the table. And if we can bring in our partners in those adjacent sectors, then we felt we had a strong coalition to build.

What are a few of the main projects that you proposed to work on and are you still working on them, even though you didn’t wind up winning the full phase two award?

The projects are all still ongoing. Some we have a lead on some others have leads on. The actual infrastructure capital projects that are moved forward are fuel production, a tribal facility on the border of Washington and Oregon, another is a transition from the final coal plant in Washington State on the fuel production side. On the demonstration side is a demonstration of being able to utilize formic acid as a liquid hydrogen carrier that supports port and terminal operations. And another is building out the infrastructure to support a connected maritime and manufacturing area of our state. So the Tacoma tide flats— the Port of Tacoma and many other manufacturing facilities including a fuel production site is there. What we are proposing and are continuing to build is a 5G and edge-enabled area that could support the efficient flow of fuel, chips, manufacturing, and the like.

And then another innovation center on the east side of our state, which is more of a hub around where fuel production is happening: electrically generated hydrogen for the most part. So we’re building out the hydrogen infrastructure and demonstrations of where that would be able to be used. We also had programmatic projects which continue to enable our organizations to work together to have a pipeline of new projects into that ecosystem. How do we support them and build out new demonstration projects, the startup ecosystem, and then the workforce development to support it. So there were capital and programmatic projects as well.

You’ve talked a little bit about entrepreneurs, you mentioned how you have startups in house. And you’ve talked about how you work with more established players like utilities. You started out of a state level commerce program. That’s several of the stakeholders that are important in an innovation ecosystem, but two that I haven’t heard as much about that I would love to know how you interact with are research institutions and sources of risk capital.

They are all part of the quintuple helix of how we do innovation for sure. We have close working relationships with multiple different research institutions that are actually members of our organization. So our membership is made up of that quintuple helix as well.

The research institutions we engage are our national lab here, the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL), multiple centers at the University of Washington include the Applied Physics Lab, Pacific Marine Energy Center, Washington State University’s CHARGE Consortium and JC Dream Consortium, which are really focused on new fuels. Then other research institutions outside of our area, including the Middlebury Institute for the blue economy. And then, actually through the pandemic, we did a lot of work with the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington as we were helping our maritime and fishing industry work through the pandemic. So they are a core part of this.

One example which is a capital project that was proposed in our build back better application and is continuing on with various funding was the ability to capture carbon to store high density hydrogen in a safe, transportable manner and the ability to extract that hydrogen out of it and utilize it for multiple different purposes. For us, a maritime use case is to be able to run and support basically a one megawatt generator, zero energy generator. And so a startup that’s part of our ecosystem figured out the way to essentially have a single carbon capture moment. Capture some carbon, shoot it full of electricity and create formic acid with high density hydrogen inside of it. The Pacific Northwest National Lab had the reformer on the other side to then pull the hydrogen out of the formic acid and utilize it in multiple different ways. So this was a partnership between the startup, the national lab, the utility who’s going to own and operate it, and two different maritime operators in the port that we’re going to actually utilize the energy. And then a global engineering firm to do some wraparound support services.

That’s a quintessential joint innovation project where our role is to help layer public private capital, bring the value chain of partners, we have the relationship with the terminal operators and the truck drivers, the labs, the startups, the utilities, etc. So that’s a critical way in which one example of how the national labs and research institutions broadly play a part. We do a lot of work to bring those research institutions together. We’re working now to essentially create a charter between the research institutions involved in our organization, and how they’re gonna work together to focus on ocean based climate solutions: Oregon State University, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, University of Washington, WSU, and others to have some formality across some of that too. The research institutions, like the rest of that quintuple helix, are critical.

On the capital side, it’s all about getting capital to get this stuff moving. We believe that there’s an important role for layering public and private capital. On the private side we have growing relationships with all the different flavors of capital, whether it’s debt equity, risk, others. And they’re mostly relationships who are interested in the projects and looking at different ways to finance them. That started with a capital landscape study—we were looking across our region and across the country asking who’s funding things in the blue economy and at what stages and what levels and what mechanisms. Certainly we have a pipeline of venture risk capital interested in the startups that come through our programs. So we’ve done a lot of work to energize that pipeline, as well as educate that pipeline on the opportunities in the blue economy and oceans. And we’re now forming our own early stage investment fund. So we’ve now partnered with a longtime impact venture capital managing partner and collectively created a new fund that will invest directly into our marquee accelerator program, which are all venture scale companies.

You mentioned that you did a roadshow across the globe at the start—Norway and other port facilities across Europe. What are those relationships like today and do you still keep in touch? Whether that’s with colleagues in the US, like the Port of LA, or the Pacific, or globally?

This is critical. There is one ocean and so therefore there is one blue economy, right? We’re intricately tied. Norway in particular, primarily because of the leadership they have in maritime electrification and offshore wind development. As we were developing this work and in my former role I helped negotiate an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between Norway and the state of Washington, which we continue to build off of and update. We also have one with Finland, Singapore and Korea and a number of others that we’re engaged with- France, Portugal. We look at opportunities, through the clusters and then into their state run economic development and innovation agencies. My friend from Norway is here this week. I’ll be in Iceland next week. Through the startup community we run a program called the One Ocean accelerator, which is specifically designed for international startups who are a little further along and looking for a soft entry landing point into the US market. So we run a 12-week program dedicated to international startups. We’ve had them from Korea and Finland and Norway and Portugal. And then we’ll be expanding this year as well. We have international delegations that come and go through this region and that we also bring across the globe. So those relationships are integral, absolutely.

If you’re successful with the projects that you’re working on, what is your end vision for what Washington state looks like in 10-15 years? How would you like to see it look different because of your impact?

Washington State has probably the most aggressive climate goals in the country, and have made some significant strides to set up the incentives and infrastructure and investments to be able to do that here. One of those things is we have the cleanest and cheapest electrons in the country. And so if you’re going to make a business model work for this clean energy transition, whether it’s fuel production or operations or use, you can make it work here first. And so if we are able to effectively couple our climate incentives, the capital landscape that’s here, and the infrastructure to support this work we’re going to see significant innovation coming to this region. Whether it’s to support it or build it from the inside up. We see it as being an aggressively welcoming home for innovation across the clean energy transition, which is going to allow us to meet our climate goals here by 2025 – 2030 and beyond. Active growing legacy sectors that are doing it in new, clean, equitable and sustainable fashions and continued growth across this region. That’s certainly our goal.

The South Kansas Coalition, led by Wichita State University (WSU), will receive $51 million to strengthen U.S. aerospace production. Their award will help stand up a Hub for Advanced Manufacturing and Research to support the adoption of new production methods by small- and mid-sized manufacturers, as well as supporting the buildout of a workforce training facility and a complementary Smart Manufacturing Adoption Program.

Debra Franklin is the Associate Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at Wichita State University.

This interview is part of an FAS series on Unleashing Regional Innovation where we talk to leaders building the next wave of innovative clusters and ecosystems in communities across the United States. We aim to spotlight their work and help other communities learn by example. Our first round of interviews are with finalists of the Build Back Better Regional Challenge run by the Economic Development Administration as part of the American Rescue Plan.

Ryan: Hi, Debra. Could you tell us a little bit about how this coalition came together and the history of your partnership in Wichita?

Debra Franklin: For more than a decade, the South Kansas Coalition has been working together on various projects. The Wichita region leverages a strategic plan titled the Regional Growth Plan that is regularly updated, and advanced manufacturing is a targeted industry sector. The coalition has identified regionally important priorities, and we look for funding opportunities that help to support or enhance the targeted industry sectors. Coalition stakeholders have previously worked together on several different projects with a variety of federal and state agencies.

So, you were planning these projects and had the strategic plan going well before the EDA announced their challenge, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. One of the ways that we approach industry-driven initiatives in our area is to ask industry what kind of public sector investments would be helpful for private sector profitability and competitiveness in global markets. There are clearly some investments, workforce, technology and innovation elements that need to be kept within their firm for competitive reasons. But there are things that the public sector can do to advance innovation, expand workforce skills, and increase private sector productivity, profitability, and sustainability. And those are the activities and investments that the coalition prioritizes. These industry-driven strategies and tactics are included in the regional strategic plan. When competitive funding opportunities are published, such as the EDA Build Back Better opportunity, we can look at the strategic focus area and the priority activities that best fit a particular funding mechanism.

In both the strategic plan and your build back better narrative that you submitted, why did you decide to focus on an aerospace cluster, and how did you make that decision?

When we wrote the application, we initially wrote it focused on advanced manufacturing anchored in aerospace. Because the aerospace industry is so large – concentrated in Wichita – the proposal ended up getting dubbed as an aerospace project. So, if you go back and look at the Phase One winners and the sector icons that EDA used at that particular point in time, you will notice that the Wichita proposal was categorized as an advanced manufacturing project. As we moved into the Phase Two challenge, the EDA chose the aerospace icon for our award and classified the South Kansas/Wichita proposal as an aerospace project.

Wichita is known as the air capital of the world because of the concentration of aerospace manufacturers in the region. But we also know that aerospace is very cyclical, and we have other industrial concentrations or regional specializations in other manufacturing industries. Wichita has advanced manufacturing with high precision, low volume, highly regulated types of production. The South Kansas region has an overall manufacturing location quotient that is twice the national average, one of the highest manufacturing concentrations of the largest United States metropolitan areas.

Additionally, global economic and geopolitical trends in the aerospace market are of strategic national importance. So, when we were asked, ‘what is your north star? What is the imperative for the United States to fund the South Kansas proposal?’, we leaned into what is going on in global markets – and the future growth of aerospace.

One of the things I would love to follow up on is the role of small and mid-sized manufacturers (SMMs). I saw a number thrown out that there are 450 plus different independent manufacturers in the area. Could you talk more about Wichita’s manufacturing landscape in general and how you heard from those communities?

We have a strong regional manufacturers association that is convened by the chamber of commerce. That is one of the primary places where our SMMs lean in and work together on coordinating collaborative efforts. They have an executive board of 20+ leaders and have more than 200 members from various manufacturing and manufacturing-related companies throughout the area. When the coalition is looking for a sounding board and a manufacturing group to help prioritize these public sector investments, the Wichita Manufactures Association provides an essential market perspective. It is also vital to highlight labor because it is especially important to understand the tolerance for innovation adoption and the enthusiasm of workers for new production processes that are commercialized through these investments.

Several years ago, we were working on a project for autonomous vehicles. Many people find autonomous technologies interesting, but some workers are concerned about these innovative technologies disrupting their careers and do not enthusiastically support them. When looking at how to prioritize federal investments into a regional economy, you need to look at all groups and how the innovative technologies are perceived. As a region aspires to implement automation or manufacturing elements for commercial adoption, if manufacturers want workers training, or if leaders aspire to help companies go from design to manufacturing in increasingly compressed development cycles with ecologically and economically sustainable technologies, it is essential to know how these activities are going to be received not only by the leadership and the ownership of these particular firms, large, medium or small, but the technicians and frontline workers who are manufacturing the products or delivering the services.

The coalition worked with Deloitte on a future of work study. One of the subgroups engaged was frontline workers. The study did not identify the participants as unionized or not unionized. Frontline workers were asked about their willingness to accommodate, tolerate, or enthusiastically support adopting these newer technologies. And the numbers were approaching 70% who were affirmative in wanting to move forward. Regional frontline workers supported the idea of assistive technologies in manufacturing; they understand that labor shortages are a global economic challenge. We believe workforce shortages were pivotal in evolving the worker’s perspective on technology adoption. Kansas has savvy people who know global markets well – in our agricultural markets as well as in our manufacturing markets.

When you talk about assisted manufacturing, what are some of the actual technologies or things that you think people are particularly excited to get moving?

The coalition focused on two technologies in the Build Back Better proposal: additive manufacturing and high-velocity subtractive manufacturing. These technologies impact the entire life cycle of a product: design, production, sustainment, and recycling. These two technologies impact the speed to market, production productivity, mass customization, and sustainability elements.

The coalition approaches economic development by prioritizing investments that help manufacturers compete in global markets. What public sector investments are required to compete in global markets? What do manufacturers need from the public sector? What do manufacturers require for their next-generation factory? Or what is necessary to fit the existing manufacturing assets, and how will companies integrate key technologies to modernize? Robotics and automation are a big part of the conversation. Workers, leadership, and owners are predominantly driven by safety and environmental concerns, and access to talent.

I think that a really critical and important part that you mentioned was not responding to a single public opportunity but looking at how to become globally competitive from the get-go. And then you could not rely on a single federal opportunity, but if one happened to come along, you wanted to put your best foot forward. Following up on that, what does your engagement with industry look like? Had you not won this award, would you still have moved forward with many of the plans?

Even in this situation, the coalition always makes decisions based on limited resources. You have a lengthy list of prioritized activities and investments. We move them forward as strategically as possible; what needs to be done first and second? Who else can pick up an activity or training and move it forward? Are long-term sustainability elements always a part of what we are doing? Yes. Could we be where we are today without this award? Absolutely not. 

The Build Back Better award has given us an opportunity to add to our public sector capital stack as well as a new Hub for Advanced Manufacturing and Research. With this expanded capacity, the region can now develop and deliver curricula and provide an industrial common. This would not have happened without this award. And being that we are in a heavily concentrated manufacturing sector and have multiple manufacturing firms, the multiplier effect on this investment is powerful.

Thinking through some of the different stakeholders who are either a part of this coalition formally or informally: how are research institutions part of this coalition in Wichita?

Remember that this proposal operates within a larger ecosystem; we have multiple programs where we collaborate on deliverables that are of strategic national importance. Howard University is a new collaborative research institution we are working with in this initiative. Howard just received the recent UARC award from the Air Force. We collaborated with Howard because a Deloitte consultant from The Smart Factory @ Wichita introduced Wichita State to the leaders of Howard’s Center for Excellence in Supply Chain Management. They are also working on supply chain efficiencies and smart technologies for manufacturing.

In the early 2000s, as advanced composite adoption was accelerating in multiple industries, we found it important for policymakers and economic development experts who collaborate with policymakers to more fully understand composites and what challenges the adoption of these new materials involves. Howard has become especially important because they are focused on supply chain synergies and are in the District of Columbia. They work in proximity to policymakers, and we work with manufacturers, materials experts, and other kinds of engineering and production processes. By working together, the coalition will be better able to maximize this award. Collaborating and learning from our colleagues at Howard has been a privilege. Again, this is an ecosystem program. We are very honored to accelerate activities important to the regional strategic plan and the United States. The updated national strategy for advanced manufacturing is one resource that sits on my desk all the time

And what about workforce development?

We must train existing workers with a deep knowledge of the legacy and current manufacturing best practices. We cannot snap our fingers and create multi-billion-dollar factories that replace aging ones. We work into, leverage, and build on capabilities and capacities that the U.S. manufacturing is so very proud of and successful in operating, making them more successful and more productive. Higher throughput, higher quality, and mass customization are the elements that help to make the U.S. more competitive in global markets. Recently we were at the future ready center with leaders from across the state that included different stakeholders: pipeline technologies, K-12, the Workforce Board, the largest school district in the state, etc. Clearly, we are concerned about our next generation of manufacturers, but we also have mid-career workers with this legacy knowledge that need to add to their capabilities, capacity, and knowledge of next-generation technologies; they will be the first adopters.

One of the things you spoke about in your application was focusing on recruiting diverse talent. Could you speak to what exactly you plan to do when it comes to recruiting and retaining diverse talent?

Wichita is in the Midwest, and recruiting diverse talent looks a little different in the Midwest. We recruit nationally to our region and intentionally and explicitly support and recruit all people in our area. The fastest-growing population demographic group in our region is the Hispanic population. Wichita State University is the most diverse public higher education institution in Kansas, and we are an emerging Hispanic-Serving Institution. In addition to a growing Hispanic population, the region has a very vibrant and growing Vietnamese population. We add language adaptations for workers and families to support these populations and others. We reach out to all communities and work with the schools and minority chambers of commerce.

Think ten years in the future, how will Wichita look different if you are successful in what you proposed to do?

That is the best question; that is why we write these applications and prioritize investments and why disparate people who might not benefit directly come together and support these programs and projects – because of the long-run vision. The knowledge that our regional manufacturing environment is a unique national asset that produces essential economic value and national security outcomes. We operate in a high-precision, highly regulated unique environment; there is a respect for excellence and pride in the manufacturing culture. How does Wichita look in ten years? We are more precise, more effective, more efficient, and we are going to be able to operate in global economies meaningfully across the country.

The St. Louis Tech Triangle coalition will receive approximately $25 million to support the region’s advanced manufacturing cluster – which will support and grow the existing biosciences and geospatial clusters. One of their primary projects is the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Center (AMIC), which will be the hub of an inclusive ecosystem and bring investment to a historically excluded area of STL.

Tracy Henke is the Chief Policy Officer/President of ChamberSTL with Greater St. Louis Inc., lead of the region’s Build Back Better Coalition. GSL was founded on January 1, 2021 as a result of combining the strengths of five legacy civic organizations into one with a unified focus around a common vision and strategy for fostering inclusive economic growth. Ben Johnson is Senior Vice President, Programs at BioSTL. Since 2001, BioSTL has laid the foundation for St. Louis’ biosciences innovation economy with a comprehensive set of transformational programs leveraging the region’s medical and plant science strengths. 

This interview is part of an FAS series on Unleashing Regional Innovation where we talk to leaders building the next wave of innovative clusters and ecosystems in communities across the United States. We aim to spotlight their work and help other communities learn by example. Our first round of interviews are with finalists of the Build Back Better Regional Challenge run by the Economic Development Administration as part of the American Rescue Plan.

Ryan Buscaglia: Could you tell us how your coalition came together and the history of your partnership between organizations? Were you working on elements of this project before the EDA even announced their process?

Tracy Henke: The whole concept for the hub of our proposal originated back in 2015. Some workforce training and items related to innovation and entrepreneurship were already going on. But they were going on separately. The St. Louis Tech Triangle and the partners came together through identifying synergies that existed that could be built upon and leveraged. This [Build Back Better Regional Challenge] was an opportunity to identify those synergies and bring them together more cohesively with the support of federal funding to accelerate that work to make certain that we could move together instead of in isolation.

So, Ben, on the Bio side that you work on, had you been working on individual projects related to advancing the bioeconomy in St. Louis, which maybe hadn’t had as much connection to the other two legs of the triangle before this partnership came up? 

Ben Johnson: I would echo Tracy in that this was an opportunity to grow existing, and find new, synergies across the industry cluster. For the biosciences, over 20 years in St. Louis, we’ve been working as a coalition of academic institutions, corporate partners, entrepreneurs, support organizations, philanthropy and civic organizations, to build our bioscience economy. With the success of that collaboration in building innovation infrastructure, we now feel like we’re just at the starting line of realizing the economic potential in some respects. These were existing partnerships and projects and collaborations that were in the works. In some ways, Tracy and her organization gave us a bit of a framework to knit that together with other emerging clusters in a way that some of the other clusters hadn’t really been positioned to organize in the past. I think a critical piece there is that we didn’t come together exclusively for the purposes of ‘here’s Build Back Better, let’s react to it.’ We had a foundation, we had coalition partnerships. We were able to come together around an organized thesis that really drives inclusive growth for the region. From there, projects knit together well. It wasn’t like, ‘Okay, here’s the NOFO. Let’s figure out what exists in the world.’ There was an existing framework for that discussion, including the STL 2030 Jobs Plan, stewarded through Tracy and Greater St. Louis Inc. 

Could you talk about why you decided to focus on three distinct fields (advanced manufacturing, geospatial, and biosciences) in your project?

Tracy: Understand that while it is the St. Louis Tech Triangle, the driver of our submission is advanced manufacturing. Advanced manufacturing supports biosciences, it supports geospatial and it leverages the history and existing strength of our region. Metro St. Louis has always been a leader in manufacturing and so that question, ‘why focus on all three?’ It’s a focus on advanced manufacturing that supports our biosciences, energy and our geospatial, and more. Also, we call it the tech triangle because when you look at an overview map of the region, you can literally create a triangle that links the placemaking hubs of the three clusters. 

Growing the advanced manufacturing cluster supports our existing bioscience and geospatial activities, but also helps grow and further grow, for instance, our aerospace and other opportunities that might exist, and that’s leveraging our past and present history in the region.

With all of these different projects ongoing, which coalition actually took the lead on writing and submitting the application?

Tracy: Greater St. Louis, Inc. did. Why was it Greater St. Louis? Partially because we’re not an implementer of any of these programs in particular. We are a convener, we are an entity that works with all of them. Hopefully they all see GSL as a partner in this effort. And because you can’t have 20 writers, it doesn’t work well. If you have 20 people doing these interviews and you try to put it together in one cohesive document, you have 20 different voices. And so for the overarching narrative it needs to be in one voice to make sense for those reviewing.  We shared it, and we ensured that partners offered feedback. We incorporated as able, but of course, had the limitations put on us by EDA on page numbers, numerous requirements, etc. Individual partners wrote their individual submissions; it doesn’t mean partners didn’t provide edits and guidance, and I did as well to ensure linkage with the overarching narrative, but they all wrote their own. We met on a regular basis, but there always has to be one person with the pen.

I’m glad you took the pen for St. Louis! Could you talk a bit about the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Center (AMIC-STL) and why that is the hub of this proposal?

Tracy: The Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Center, which is referred to as AMIC-STL, was identified in 2015. The St. Louis Economic Development Partnership is a partner in our specific submission, not just the overarching narrative, but our specific submission on cluster growth. They received a grant back in 2014, I believe, when it looked like there was going to be significant downsizing in the aerospace industry here in the St. Louis metro, specifically Boeing. And so that’s when a defense readjustment grant was provided to help the region think about what does this region need to do, how do all those people get trained for other employment, and they looked at once again, this region’s strength in manufacturing.

AMICSTL is modeled off of the AMRC in Sheffield, England. The Advanced Manufacturing Research Center in Sheffield, England, was initially a Boeing funded entity. There are other manufacturing centers in Europe, I believe there’s also one in Japan now, they’re all a little different. But in our opinion, and what we have studied here within the United States, there isn’t anything like we’re talking about here in the United States. The Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Center will be an opportunity to do the research and development. It will be an opportunity to do prototyping and small batch manufacturing, but also an opportunity to create what we call verticals in different spaces. So an aerospace vertical, a bioscience vertical, an energy storage vertical. Something that brings not just a prime entity like hypothetically, aerospace and Boeing, but then all their other suppliers, all the entities that feed into Boeing and what Boeing does and the research that goes along with it. By co-locating, it allows cross pollination of ideas and also cross pollination of how to use things in other ways.

The Advanced Manufacturing Research Center in Sheffield, England, was initially a Boeing funded entity.

So something that might be used as relates to technology on a drone to look under the canopy of trees might have some technology applicable to the healthcare space. Or researchers might be able to take something that they learned from the development of a specific technology and apply it in a completely different field. Having these researchers and developers and the ability to prototype etc, allows for cross pollination of ideas and that growth, which then spurs additional development and additional growth. 

If you look at what happened in AMRC and Sheffield, they started with a handful of R&D individuals, they now have over 500. And they now have over 400 units of housing built. They started with one building, they now have multiple buildings.

Ben: Another point I think that was critical, particularly for our regional strategy and commitments but also for Build Back Better and EDA is the physical geographic location in a significantly disinvested historically excluded community. It really gives an opportunity to bring some of this new manufacturing innovation, bridging the biosciences and geospatial, as sort of a beachhead into a neighborhood and community where that type of investment has not occurred in a significant amount of years.

Tracy: When you look at the history of St. Louis, and you look at how communities were built up, a lot of them were built up within the urban core around manufacturing. Unfortunately, we lost a lot of that and then saw out-flight. Even early in 2015-2016 with the conversation about the establishment of this Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Center, they talked then about how its location should be in a historically disinvested community. And so this is a strategic location in the heart of the city where the land currently exists, right next to a technical school and in close location to multiple education institutions as well that can help on the workforce side, strategically located near NGA West, near our cortex and biosciences partners, as well as surrounded by other workforce partners.

Recognizing that this is a tough challenge, how are you making sure that AMIC-STL has a constructive and growth minded and equitable result for the community rather than continuing a trend of either pushing people out of homes / businesses or making it difficult for existing residents and existing community members to stay there?

Tracy: Almost every week GSL brings our AMIC-STL partner and our city partners and our neighborhood partners where AMIC-STL will be located to the table. 

Once again, this is purposeful on its location. There is nothing currently on the site. Most of the surrounding community, quite honestly, has suffered from disinvestment. There are vacant homes and boarded up buildings because of the outflight and more. And so we are working to ensure AMICSTL, being that centerpiece, sort of like AMRC and Sheffield, will create this domino effect. But to do that, we also have to make sure that partners are at the table. In addition we must have community engagement and will use BBBRC funding to help with this. We’re also drafting an RFP on establishing the baseline of metrics as it relates to the manufacturing ecosystem in the region, as well as the spokes of that and how far they reach. 

We’re looking at this holistically. We’re not just looking at building a building.

Also, our workforce partners are looking at what gaps exist in workforce training, and not creating new workforce programs necessarily, but how do our existing workforce entities fill those gaps. We’re looking at this holistically. We’re not just looking at building a building. I think that’s the important thing.

How will St. Louis look different in ten years if you’re successful in doing what you proposed?

Tracy: In ten years: AMIC is built and the dominoes have started resulting in growth. Our workforce training, our innovation entrepreneurship, our community engagement, our cluster growth is working. Can I say this is going to be overnight? No, I cannot. Is this going to be easy? No, it is not. In ten years is it our hope that we’ve seen progress? Yes. Can we say that it is our hope to continue seeing AMIC growing with verticals with benefits to different areas and lines? Yes. We are doing this deliberately and with intention to ensure a higher probability of success.

Ben: Ten years from now, I believe through Build Back Better and the collaboration to form it—with AMIC as its embodiment—will be a longitudinal and generational model, even if it is a model still in progress. It will be a model for how we do intentional, inclusive economic growth with increased permeability between innovation districts and underserved neighborhoods. A new model for STL and beyond for lessons learned and successes. Ten years, we will still be getting better and continuously improving in that work, but AMIC will be a significant mile post in that journey of St. Louis doing things differently.