Using a Digital Justice Framework To Improve Disaster Preparation and Response

Summary

Social justice, environmental justice, and climate justice are all digital justice. Digital injustice arises from the fact that 21 million Americans are not connected to the internet, and seven percent of Americans do not use it, even if they have access to it. This lack of connectivity can lead to the loss of life, disrupted communities, and frayed social cohesion during natural disasters, as people are unable to access life-saving information and preventive tools found online.

Digital injustice primarily affects poor rural communities and African American, Indigenous, and other communities of color. These communities are also overexposed to climate risk, economic fragility, and negative public health outcomes. Digital access is a pathway out of this overexposure. It is a crucial aspect of the digital justice conversation, alongside racial equity and climate resilience. 

Addressing this issue requires a long-term commitment to reimagining frameworks, but we can start by helping communities and policymakers understand the problem. Congress and the Biden-Harris Administration should embrace and support the creation of a Digital Justice Policy Framework that includes:

Challenges and Opportunities 

The internet has become a crucial tool in preparing for and recovering from ecological emergencies, building wealth, and promoting community connections. However, the digital divide has created barriers to accessing these resources for millions of people, particularly low-income individuals and people of color. The lack of access to the internet and technology during emergencies deepens existing vulnerabilities and creates preventable losses of life, displacement, and disrupted lives.

The map above shows the intersection between flood or sea level risk and lack of access to the internet. Credit: ArcGIS Online, Living Atlas, Monica Sanders. Click through for full interactive map.

Digital divestment, disasters, and poverty overlap in dangerous ways that reveal “inequities and deepen existing vulnerability… In the United States, roughly 21% of children live in poverty and without consistent access to food. Cascading onto poverty and vulnerability to large-scale events like pandemics and other disasters is the lack of access to the Internet and the education and opportunity that comes with it.”

A recent report about digital divestment in rural communities shows that access to internet infrastructure, devices, and information is critical to economic development. Yet rural communities are more likely to have no device in the home—26.4% versus 20% of the broader United States. Access to broadband is even lower, as most rural counties have just one or no provider. Geography often challenges access to public services. 

To tackle this issue, we must reimagine the use of data to ensure that all communities have access to information that reduces vulnerability and strengthens resilience. One pathway to reimagining data in a meaningful way is laid out in a National Academies of Science consensus study report, “Communities need information that they can effectively use in making decisions and investments that reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of their residents, economy, and environment. Assembling and using that information requires three things. First, data, while often abundantly available to communities, can be challenging for local communities and users to navigate, access, understand, and evaluate relative to local needs and questions. Second, climate data needs to be vetted and translated into information that is useful at a local level. Finally, information that communities receive from other sources needs to reflect the challenges and opportunities of those communities to not just be useful but also used.” Once communities are effectively connected and skilled up, they can use the information to make effective decisions.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) looked into the intersection of information and justice, releasing a study on the fragmented and overlapping broadband plan and funding. It recommended a national strategy to help scale these efforts across communities and focus agency efforts on communities in need that includes recommendations for education, workforce training, and evidence-based policymaking.

Communities can be empowered to take a data-driven journey from lack of access to resources to using innovative concepts like regenerative finance to build resiliency. With the right help, divested communities can co-create sustainable solutions and work toward digital justice. The federal government should leverage initiatives like the Justice 40 initiative, aimed at undoing past injustices and divestment, to create opportunities for communities to gain access to the tools they need and understand how to use them.

Plan of Action

Executive branch agencies and Congress should initiate a series of actions to establish a digital justice framework. The first step is to provide education and training for divested communities as a pathway to participate in digital and green economies. 

  1. Funding from recent legislation and agency earmarks should be leveraged to initiate education and training targeted at addressing historical inequities in the localization, quality, and information provided by digital infrastructure:
    • The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) allocates $65 billion to expand the availability of broadband Internet access. The bulk of that funding is dedicated to access and infrastructure. Under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, there is both funding and broad program language that allows for upskilling and training. Community leaders and organizations need support to advocate for funding at the state and local levels.  
  2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)1 environmental education fund, which traditionally has $2 million to $3.5 million in grant support to communities, is being shaped right now. Its offerings and parameters can be leveraged and extended without significant structural change. The fund’s parameters should include elements of the framework, including digital justice concepts like climate, digital, and other kinds of literacy programs in the notices of funding opportunities. This would enable community organizations that are already doing outreach and education to include more offerings in their portfolios. 

To further advance a digital justice framework, agencies receiving funding from IIJA and other recent legislative actions should look to embed education initiatives within technical assistance requests for proposals and funding announcements. Communities often lack access to and support in how to identify and use public resources and information related to digital and climate change challenges. One way to overcome this challenge is to include education initiatives as key components of technical assistance programs. In its role of ensuring the execution of budget proposals and legislation, the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) can issue guidance or memoranda to agencies directing them to include education elements in notices of funding, requests for proposals, and other public resources related to IIJA, IRA and Justice 40. 

One example can be found in the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. In addition to helping communities navigate the federal funding landscape, OMB could require that new rounds of the program include climate or resilience education and digital literacy. The BRIC program can also increase its technical assistance offerings from 20% of applicants to 40%, for example. This would empower recipients to navigate the fuller landscape of using science to develop solutions and then successfully navigate the funding process. 

Another program that is being designed at the time of this writing is the Environmental and Climate Justice Grant Program, which contains $3 billion in funding from the IRA. There is a unique opportunity to draft requests for information, collaboration, or proposals to include ideas for education and access programs to democratize critical information by teaching communities how to access and use it.

An accompanying public education campaign can make these ideas sustainable. Agencies should engage with the Ad Council on a public education campaign about digital justice or digital citizenship, social mobility, and climate resilience. As an example, in 2022 FEMA funded a preparation initiative directed at Black Americans and disasters with the Ad Council that discussed protecting people and property from disasters across multiple topics and media. The campaign was successful because the information was accessible and demonstrated its value. 

Climate literacy and digital citizenship training are as necessary for those designing programs as they are for communities. The federal agencies that disburse this funding should be tasked with creating programs to offer climate literacy and digital citizenship training for their workforce. Program leaders and policy staff should also be briefed and trained in understanding and detecting data collection, aggregation, and use biases. Federal program officers can be stymied by the lack of baseline standards for federal workforce training and curricula development. For example, FEMA has a goal to create a “climate literate” workforce and to “embed equity” into all of its work—yet there is no evidence-based definition nor standard upon which to build training that will yield consistent outcomes. Similar challenges surface in discussions about digital literacy and understanding how to leverage data for results.2 Within the EPA, the challenge is helping the workforce understand how to manage the data it generates, use it to inform programs, and provide it to communities in meaningful ways. Those charged with delivering justice-driven programs must be provided with the necessary education and tools to do so. 

FEMA, like the EPA and other agencies, will need help from Congress. Congress should do more to support scientific research and development for the purpose of upskilling the federal workforce. Where necessary, Congress must allocate funding, or adjust current funding mechanisms, to provide necessary resources. There is $369 billion for “Energy Security and Climate Change” in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 that broadly covers the aforementioned ideas. Adjusting language to reference programs that address education and access to information would make it clear that agencies can use some of that funding. In the House, this could take the form of a suspension bill or addition as technical correction language in a report. In the Senate, these additions could be added as amendments during “vote-o-rama.”

For legislative changes involving the workforce or communities, it is possible to justify language changes by looking at the legal intent of complementary initiatives in the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition to IIJA provisions, policy writers can use parts of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Justice 40 initiative, as well as the climate change and environmental justice executive orders, to justify changes that will provide agencies with direction and resources. Because this project is at the intersection of climate and digital justice, the jurisdictional alignments would mainly be with the United States Department of Commerce, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the United States Department of Agriculture, EPA and FEMA.

Recommendations for federal agencies:

Recommendations for Congress:

Conclusion

Digital justice is about a deeper understanding of the generational challenges we must confront in the next few years: the digital divide, climate risk, racial injustice, and rural poverty. Each of these connects back to our increasingly digital world and efforts to make sure all communities can access its benefits. A new policy framework for digital justice should be our ultimate goal. However, there are present opportunities to leverage existing programs and policy concepts to create tangible outcomes for communities now. Those include digital and climate literacy training, public education, and better education of government program leaders as well as providing communities and organizations with more transparent access to capital and information.

Frequently Asked Questions
What is digital divestment?

Digital divestment refers to the intentional  exclusion of certain communities and groups from the social, intellectual, and economic benefits of the internet, as well as technologies that leverage the internet.

What is climate resilience?

Climate resilience is about successfully coping with and managing the impacts of climate change while preventing those impacts from growing worse. This does not mean only thinking about severe weather. It also includes economic shocks and public health emergencies that come with climate change. During the COVID-19 pandemic, women disproportionately passed away and in one Maryland city, survivors’ social mobility decreased by 1%. However, the introduction of community WIFI began to change these outcomes.

What does digital justice have to do with climate change?

Communities (municipalities, states) that are left out of access to internet infrastructure not only miss out on educational, economic, and social mobility opportunities; they also miss out on critical information about severe weather and climate change. Scientists and researchers depend on an internet connection to conduct research to target solutions. No high-quality internet means no access to information about cascading risk.

How does this impact rural areas?

While the IIJA broadband infrastructure funding is a once-in-a-generation effort, the reality is that in many rural areas broadband is either not cost-effective nor a feasible solution due to geography or other contexts.

How can technology policy help create solutions?

By opening funding to different kinds of internet infrastructures (community Wi-Fi, satellite, fixed access), communities can increase their risk awareness and make their own solutions.

Why should the federal government take action on this issue vs. a state or local government or the private sector?

The federal government is already creating executive orders and legislation in this space. What is needed is a more cohesive plan. In some cases that may entail partnering with the private sector or finding creative ways to partner with communities.

What is the first step?

The first step is briefings and socializing this policy work because looking at equity, tech, and climate change from this perspective is still new and unfamiliar to many.

Enabling Faster Funding Timelines in the National Institutes of Health

Summary

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds some of the world’s most innovative biomedical research, but rising administrative burden and extended wait times—even in crisis—have shown that its funding system is in desperate need of modernization. Examples of promising alternative models exist: in the last two years, private “fast science funding” initiatives such as Fast Grants and Impetus Grants have delivered breakthroughs in responding to the coronavirus pandemic and aging research on days to one-month timelines, significantly faster than the yearly NIH funding cycles. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic the NIH implemented a temporary fast funding program called RADx, indicating a willingness to adopt such practices during acute crises. Research on other critical health challenges like aging, the opioid epidemic, and pandemic preparedness deserves similar urgency. We therefore believe it is critical that the NIH formalize and expand its institutional capacity for rapid funding of high-potential research.

Using the learnings of these fast funding programs, this memo proposes actions that the NIH could take to accelerate research outcomes and reduce administrative burden. Specifically, the NIH director should consider pursuing one of the following approaches to integrate faster funding mechanisms into its extramural research programs: 

Future efforts by the NIH and other federal policymakers to respond to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic would also benefit from a clearer understanding of the impact of the decision-making process and actions taken by the NIH during the earliest weeks of the pandemic. To that end, we also recommend that Congress initiate a report from the Government Accountability Office to illuminate the outcomes and learnings of fast governmental programs during COVID-19, such as RADx.

Challenge and Opportunity

The urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic created adaptations not only in how we structure our daily lives but in how we develop therapeutics and fund science. Starting in 2020, the public saw a rapid emergence of nongovernmental programs like Fast Grants, Impetus Grants, and Reproductive Grants to fund both big clinical trials and proof-of-concept scientific studies within timelines that were previously thought to be impossible. Within the government, the NIH launched RADx, a program for the rapid development of coronavirus diagnostics with significantly accelerated approval timelines. Though the sudden onset of the pandemic was unique, we believe that an array of other biomedical crises deserve the same sense of urgency and innovation. It is therefore vital that the new NIH director permanently integrate fast funding programs like RADx into the NIH in order to better respond to these crises and accelerate research progress for the future. 

To demonstrate why, we must remember that the coronavirus is far from being an outlier—in the last 20 years, humanity has gone through several major pandemics, notably swine flu, SARS CoV-1, and Ebola. Based on the long-observed history of infectious diseases, the risk of pandemics with an impact similar to that of COVID-19 is about two percent in any year. An extension of naturally occurring pandemics is the ongoing epidemic of opioid use and addiction. The rapidly changing landscape of opioid use—with overdose rates growing rapidly and synthetic opioid formulations becoming more common—makes slow, incremental grantmaking ill-suited for the task. The counterfactual impact of providing some awards via faster funding mechanisms in these cases is self-evident: having tests, trials, and interventions earlier saves lives and saves money, without sacrificing additional resources.

Beyond acute crises, there are strong longer-term public health motivations for achieving faster funding of science. In about 10 years, the United States will have more seniors (people aged 65+) than children. This will place substantial stress on the U.S. healthcare system, especially given that two-thirds of seniors suffer from more than one chronic disease. New disease treatments may help, but it often takes years to translate the results of basic research into approved drugs. The idiosyncrasies of drug discovery and clinical trials make them difficult to accelerate at scale, but we can reliably accelerate drug timelines on the front end by reducing the time researchers spend in writing and reviewing grants—potentially easing the long-term stress on U.S. healthcare.

The existing science funding system developed over time with the best intentions, but for a variety of reasons—partly because the supply of federal dollars has not kept up with demand—administrative requirements have become a major challenge for many researchers. According to surveys, working scientists now spend 44% of their research time on administrative activities and compliance, with roughly half of that time spent on pre-award activities. Over 60% of scientists say administrative burden compromises research productivity, and many fear it discourages students from pursuing science careers. In addition, the wait for funding can be extensive: one of the major NIH grants, R01, takes more than three months to write and around 8–20 months to receive (see FAQ). Even proof-of-concept ideas face onerous review processes and take at least a year to fund. This can bottleneck potentially transformative ideas, as with Katalin Kariko famously struggling to get funding for her breakthrough mRNA vaccine work when it was at its early stages. These issues have been of interest for science policymakers for more than two decades, but with little to show for it. 

Though several nongovernmental organizations have attempted to address this need, the model of private citizens continuously fundraising to enable fast science is neither sustainable nor substantial enough compared to the impact of the NIH. We believe that a coordinated governmental effort is needed to revitalize American research productivity and ensure a prompt response to national—and international—health challenges like naturally occurring pandemics and imminent demographic pressure from age-related diseases. The new NIH director has an opportunity to take bold action by making faster funding programs a priority under their leadership and a keystone of their legacy. 

The government’s own track record with such programs gives grounds for optimism. In addition to the aforementioned RADx program at NIH, the National Science Foundation (NSF) runs the Early-Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) and Rapid Response Research (RAPID) programs, which can have response times in a matter of weeks. Going back further in history, during World War II, the National Defense Research Committee maintained a one-week review process.
Faster grant review processes can be either integrated into existing grant programs or rolled out by institutes in temporary grant initiatives responding to pressing needs, as the RADx program was. For example, when faced with data falsification around the beta amyloid hypothesis, the National Institute of Aging (NIA) could leverage fast grant review infrastructure to quickly fund replication studies for key papers, without waiting for the next funding cycle. In case of threats to human health due to toxins, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) could rapidly fund studies on risk assessment and prevention, giving public evidence-based recommendations with no delay. Finally, empowering the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to quickly fund science would prepare us for many yet-to-come pandemics.

Plan of Action

The NIH is a decentralized organization, with institutes and centers (ICs) that each have their own mission and focus areas. While the NIH Office of the Director sets general policies and guidelines for research grants, individual ICs have the authority to create their own grant programs and define their goals and scope. The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is responsible for the peer review process used to review grants across the NIH and recently published new guidelines to simplify the review criteria. Given this organizational structure, we propose that the NIH Office of the Director, particularly the Office of Extramural Research, assess opportunities for both NIH-wide and institute-specific fast funding mechanisms and direct the CSR, institutes, and centers to produce proposed plans for fast funding mechanisms within one year. The Director’s Office should consider the following approaches. 

Approach 1. Develop an expedited peer review process for the existing R21 grant mechanism to bring it more in line with the NIH’s own goals of funding high-reward, rapid-turnaround research. 

The R21 program is designed to support high-risk, high-reward, rapid-turnaround, proof-of-concept research. However, it has been historically less popular among applicants compared to the NIH’s traditional research mechanism, the R01. This is in part due to the fact that its application and review process is known to be only slightly less burdensome than the R01, despite providing less than half of the financial and temporal support. Therefore, reforming the application and peer review process for the R21 program to make it a fast grant–style award would both bring it more in line with its own goals and potentially make it more attractive to applicants. 

All ICs follow identical yearly cycles for major grant programs like the R21, and the CSR centrally manages the peer review process for these grant applications. Thus, changes to the R21 grant review process must be spearheaded by the NIH director and coordinated in a centralized manner with all parties involved in the review process: the CSR, program directors and managers at the ICs, and the advisory councils at the ICs. 

The track record of federal and private fast funding initiatives demonstrates that faster funding timelines can be feasible and successful (see FAQ). Among the key learnings and observations of public efforts that the NIH could implement are:

Pending the success of these changes, the NIH should consider applying similar changes to other major research grant programs.

Approach 2. Direct NIH institutes and centers to independently develop and deploy programs with faster funding timelines using Other Transaction Authority (OTA).

Compared to reforming an existing mechanism, the creation of institute-specific fast funding programs would allow for context-specific implementation and cross-institute comparison. This could be accomplished using OTA—the same authority used by the NIH to implement COVID-19 response programs. Since 2020, all ICs at the NIH have had this authority and may implement programs using OTA with approval from the director of NIH, though many have yet to make use of it.

As discussed previously, the NIA, NIDA, and NIAID would be prime candidates for the roll-out of faster funding. In particular, these new programs could focus on responding to time-sensitive research needs within each institute or center’s area of focus—such as health crises or replication of linchpin findings—that would provide large public benefits. To maintain this focus, these programs could restrict investigator-initiated applications and only issue funding opportunity announcements for areas of pressing need. 

To enable faster peer review of applications, ICs should establish (a) new study section(s) within their Scientific Review Branch dedicated to rapid review, similar to how the RADx program had its own dedicated review committees. Reviewers who join these study sections would commit to short meetings on a monthly or bimonthly basis rather than meeting three times a year for one to two days as traditional study sections do. Additionally, as recommended above, these new programs should have a three-page limit on applications to reduce the administrative burden on both applicants and reviewers. 

In this framework, we propose that the ICs be encouraged to direct at least one percent of their budget to establish new research programs with faster funding processes. We believe that even one percent of the annual budget is sufficient to launch initial fast grant programs funded through National Institutes. For example, the National Institute of Aging had an operating budget of $4 billion in the 2022 fiscal year. One percent of this budget would constitute $40 million for faster funding initiatives, which would be on the order of initial budgets of Impetus and Fast Grants ($25 million and $50 million accordingly). 

NIH ICs should develop success criteria in advance of launching new fast funding programs. If the success criteria are met, they should gradually increase the budget and expand the scope of the program by allowing for investigator-initiated applications, making it a real alternative to R01 grants. A precedent for this type of grant program growth is the Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) (R35) grant program within the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), which set the goal of funding 60% of all R01 equivalent grants through MIRA by 2025. In the spirit of fast grants, we recommend setting a deadline on how long each institute can take to establish a fast grants program to ensure that the process does not extend for too many years.

Additional recommendation. Congress should initiate a Government Accountability Office report to illuminate the outcomes and learnings of governmental fast funding programs during COVID-19, such as RADx.

While a number of published papers cite RADx funding, the program’s overall impact and efficiency haven’t yet been assessed. We believe that the agency’s response during the pandemic isn’t yet well-understood but likely played an important role. Illuminating the learnings of these interventions would greatly benefit future emergency fast funding programs.

Conclusion

The NIH should become a reliable agent for quickly mobilizing funding to address emergencies and accelerating solutions for longer-term pressing issues. As present, no funding mechanisms within NIH or its branch institutes enable them to react to such matters rapidly. However, both public and governmental initiatives show that fast funding programs are not only possible but can also be extremely successful. Given this, we propose the creation of permanent fast grants programs within the NIH and its institutes based on learnings from past initiatives.

The changes proposed here are part of a larger effort from the scientific community to modernize and accelerate research funding across the U.S. government. In the current climate of rapidly advancing technology and increasing global challenges, it is more important than ever for U.S. agencies to stay at the forefront of science and innovation. A fast funding mechanism would enable the NIH to be more agile and responsive to the needs of the scientific community and would greatly benefit the public through the advancement of human health and safety.

Frequently Asked Questions
What actions, besides RADx, did the NIH take in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

The NIH released a number of Notices of Special Interest to allow emergency revision to existing grants (e.g., PA-20-135 and PA-18-591) and a quicker path for commercialization of life-saving COVID technologies (NOT-EB-20-008). Unfortunately, repurposing existing grants reportedly took several months, significantly delaying impactful research.

What does the current review process look like?

The current scientific review process in NIH involves  multiple stakeholders. There are two stages of review at NIH, with the first stage being conducted by a Scientific Review Group that consists primarily of nonfederal scientists. Typically, Center for Scientific Review committees meet three times a year for one or two days. This way, the initial review starts only four months after the proposal submission. Special Emphasis Panel meetings that are not recurring take even longer due to panel recruitment and scheduling. The Institute and Center National Advisory Councils or Boards are responsible for the second stage of review, which usually happens after revision and appeals, taking the total timeline to approximately a year.

Is there evidence for the NIH’s current approach to scientific review?

Because of the difficulty of empirically studying drivers of scientific impact, there has been little research evaluating peer review’s effects on scientific quality. A Cochrane systematic review from 2007 found no studies directly assessing review’s effects on scientific quality, and a recent Rand review of the literature in 2018 found a similar lack of empirical evidence. A few more recent studies have found modest associations between NIH peer review scores and research impact, suggesting that peer review may indeed successfully identify innovative projects. However, such a relationship still falls short of demonstrating that the current model of grant review reliably leads to better funding outcomes than alternative models. Additionally, some studies have demonstrated that the current model leads to variable and conservative assessments. Taken together, we think that experimentation with models of peer review that are less burdensome for applicants and reviewers is warranted.

One concern with faster reviews is a lower science quality. How do you ensure high-quality science while keeping fast response times and short proposals?

Intuitively, it seems that having longer grant applications and longer review processes ensures that both researchers and reviewers expend great effort to address pitfalls and failure modes before research starts. However, systematic reviews of the literature have found that reducing the length and complexity of applications has minimal effects on funding decisions, suggesting that the quality of resulting science is unlikely to be affected. 


Historical examples have also suggested that the quality of an endeavor is largely uncorrelated from its planning times. It took Moderna 45 days from COVID-19 genome publication to submit the mRNA-1273 vaccine to the NIH for use in its Phase 1 clinical study. Such examples exist within government too: during World War II, National Defense Research Committee set a record by reviewing and authorizing grants within one week, which led to DUKW, Project Pigeon, Proximity fuze, and Radar.


Recent fast grant initiatives have produced high-quality outcomes. With its short applications and next-day response times, Fast Grants enabled:



  • detection of new concerning COVID-19 variants before other sources of funding became available.

  • work that showed saliva-based COVID-19 tests can work just as well as those using nasopharyngeal swabs.

  • drug-repurposing clinical trials, one of which identified a generic drug reducing hospitalization from COVID-19 by ~40%. 

  • Research into “Long COVID,” which is now being followed up with a clinical trial on the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to improve symptoms.


Impetus Grants focused on projects with longer timelines but led to a number of important preprints in less than a year from the moment person applied:



With the heavy toll that resource-intensive approaches to peer review take on the speed and innovative potential of science—and the early signs that fast grants lead to important and high-quality work—we feel that the evidentiary burden should be placed on current onerous methods rather than the proposed streamlined approaches. Without strong reason to believe that the status quo produces vastly improved science, we feel there is no reason to add years of grant writing and wait times to the process.

Why focus on the NIH, as opposed to other science funding agencies?

The adoption of faster funding mechanisms would indeed be valuable across a range of federal funding agencies. Here, we focus on the NIH because its budget for extramural research (over $30 billion per year) represents the single largest source of science funding in the United States. Additionally, the NIH’s umbrella of health and medical science includes many domains that would be well-served by faster research timelines for proof-of-concept studies—including pandemics, aging, opioid addiction, mental health, cancer, etc.

Project BOoST: A Biomanufacturing Test Facility Network for Bioprocess Optimization, Scaling, and Training

Summary

The U.S. bioeconomy commands millions of liters of bioproduction capacity, but only a tiny fraction of this capacity supports process optimization. Companies of all sizes face great pressures that limit their ability to commit resources to these important efforts. Consequently, the biomanufacturing industry is often forced to juggle sensitive, brittle production processes that don’t scale easily and are prone to disruption. As some recent failures of prominent companies demonstrate, this increases risk for the entire bioeconomy, and especially for the development of new companies and products.

To remedy this, the Department of Commerce should first allocate $80 million to seed a bioproduction R&D facility network that provides process optimization capability to the greater bioeconomy, followed by a $30 million process optimization challenge wherein participating facilities compete at workflow optimization, scaling, and transfer. Part one of the proposal requires rapid development, with the initial R&D facility network of four sites starting bioprocessing operations within 12 months of award. In addition to training workers for the greater bioeconomy, the facility network’s services would be available on a contract basis to any company at any stage of maturity. This work could include optimization for yield, scaling, process resilience, and/or technology transfer—all critical needs across the sector. After federal government startup funding, the network would transition toward financial independence, increasingly running on revenue from process optimization work, workforce training, and state/local support.

Part two of the plan lays out a biomanufacturing “Grand Challenge” in which participating network facilities compete to optimize a standardized biomanufacturing process. Prioritizing process resilience, security, and transferability in addition to yield, this effort would help set a new industry standard for what process optimization really means in addition to demonstrating what can be accomplished by the network facilities. With this demonstration of value, demand for facility services in other geographic locations would increase, spurring the growth of the facility network across the country.

By the end of the program, the U.S. biomanufacturing sector would see a number of benefits, including easier process innovation, a larger and better trained workforce, shortened product time to market, and reduced production risks.

Challenge & Opportunity

Biological products are, by definition, made by means of complex biological processes carried out by sensitive—some might even say fickle—microorganisms and cell lines. Determining the right steps and conditions to induce a microbe into producing a given product at a worthwhile yield is an arduous task. And once produced, the product needs to be extensively processed to make it pure, stable, and safe enough for shipping and use. Working out this entire production workflow takes a great deal of time, energy, and expertise, and the complexity of production workflows increases alongside the complexity of biological products. Many products fail at this point in development, keeping beneficial products out of the hands of end users and cutting off constructive contributions—revenue, jobs—to the larger bioeconomy. 

Once a bioproduction process is worked out at an R&D level, it must be scaled up to a much larger commercial level—another major point of failure for academic and commercial programs. Scaling up requires different equipment with its own controls and idiosyncrasies, each generating additional, sometimes unpredictable, complexities that must be corrected for or managed. The biomanufacturing industry has been asking for help with process scaling for years, and recent national initiatives, such as the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL) and the BioIndustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem (BioMADE), have sought to address this strategic need.

Each step on this road to the end market represents a chance for failure, and the risks are so high that the road is littered with failed companies that had a promising product that just couldn’t be made reliably or a brittle production process that blew up when performed at scale. The overarching competitive commercial environment doesn’t help, as new companies must rush from concept to production, often cutting corners along the way. Meanwhile, mature biomanufacturing companies often nurse small profit margins and must aggressively guard existing revenue streams, leaving little or no spare capacity to innovate and improve processes. All of these factors result in production workflows that are hastily constructed, poorly optimized, prone to scaling difficulties, and vulnerable to failure at multiple points. When—not if—process failures occur, the entire economy suffers, often in catastrophic ways. In the last several years alone, such failures have been witnessed at Emergent Biosciences, Dr Reddy’s, and Abbott, with any number of downstream effects. Society, too, misses out when more sustainable, environmentally friendly production methods are overlooked in favor of older, less efficient but more familiar ones. 

There is an urgent need for a national network of biomanufacturing facilities dedicated to process optimization and scaling—critical efforts that are too often overlooked or hastily glossed over, to the subsequent detriment of the entire bioeconomy. Available to any company at any stage of maturity, this facility network would operate on a contract basis to optimize biological production processes for stability, resilience, and technology transfer. The facilities would also assist with yield optimization, in addition to incorporating the specialized equipment designed to aid in scale-up risk analysis. Once established with government funding, the facility network would stand on its own, running on contract fees for process optimization and scale-up efforts. As demand for services grows, the facility network model could spread out geographically to support other markets.

This a highly opportune time for such a program. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the essential importance of biomanufacturing capabilities—extending to the geopolitical level—as well as the fragility of many supply chains and processes. In response, the CHIPS and Science Act and Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing, among others, have provided directives to shore up U.S. biomanufacturing capacity and resilience. Project BOoST seeks to meet those directives all while building a workforce to support broader participation in a strong national bioeconomy.

Plan of Action

Project BOoST encompasses a $110 million ask spread out over four years and two overlapping phases: a first phase that quickly stands up a four-facility network to perform biomanufacturing process optimization, and a second phase that establishes a biomanufacturing “Grand Challenge” wherein facilities compete in the optimization of a standardized bioproduction process. 

Phase I: Establishing the facility network

The Department of Commerce should allocate $80 million over three years to establish the initial facility network at four sites in different regions of the country. The program would be structured as a competitive contract, with a preference for contract bidders who:

Possible funding pathways include one of the bio-related Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs), such as NIIMBL, BioMADE, or BioFabUSA. At a minimum, partnerships would be established with these MIIs to disseminate helpful information gained from the facility network. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) could also be helpful in establishing data standards for technology transfer. The Bioeconomy Information Sharing and Analysis Center (BIO-ISAC) would be another important partner organization, helping to inform the facilities’ efforts to increase both cyber resilience of workflows and industry information sharing.

Funds would be earmarked for initial startup expenditures, including lease/purchase of appropriate buildings, equipment purchases, and initial salaries/benefits of operating personnel, trainers, and program support. Funding milestones would be configured to encourage rapid movement, including:

Since no actual product made in these facilities would be directed toward regulated use (e.g., food, medical), there would likely be reduced need to build and operate the facilities at full Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) specification, allowing for significant time and cost savings. Of course, the ultimate intent is for optimized and scaled production processes to migrate back to regulated use where relevant, but process optimization need not be done in the same environment. Regardless, the facilities would be instrumented so as to facilitate bidirectional technology transfer. With detailed telemetry of processes and data traffic collected in a standardized manner from the network’s sites, organizations would have a much easier time bringing optimized, scaled processes from these facilities out to commercial production. This would result in faster parameter optimization, improved scale-up, increased workflow resilience, better product assurance, and streamlined tech transfer—all of which are major impediments and risks to growth of the U.S. bioeconomy.

Process optimization and scaling work would be accomplished on a contract basis with industry clients, with robust intellectual property protections in place to guard trade secrets. At the same time, anonymized information and techniques gathered from optimization and scaling efforts would be automatically shared with other sites in the network, enabling more globalized learning and more rapid method development. These lessons learned would also be organized and published to the relevant industry organizations, allowing these efforts to lift all ships across the bioeconomy. In this way, even a facility that failed to achieve sufficient economic self-sustainability would still make significant contributions to the industry knowledge base.

Focused on execution speed, each facility would be a public-private consortium, bringing together regional companies, universities, state and local governments, and others to create a locus of education, technology development, and job creation. In addition to hewing to provisions within the CHIPS and Science Act, this facility network would also match the “biomanufacturing infrastructure hubs” recommendation from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Using the Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs model laid out in the CHIPS and Science Act, the facilities would be located near to, but not within, leading biotechnology centers, with an eye to benefiting small and rural communities where possible. All the aforementioned stakeholders would have a say in site location, with location criteria including: 

Although some MIIs have innovation acceleration and/or improving production availability within their charters, to date no production capacity has been built specifically to address the critical issues of process optimization and scaling. Project BOoST would complement the ongoing work of the bio-focused MIIs. And since the aforementioned risks to the bioeconomy represent a strategic threat today, this execution plan is intentionally designed to move rapidly. Locating network facilities outside of costly metropolitan areas and not needing full cGMP certification means that an individual facility could be spun up in months as opposed to years and at much lower cost. These facilities would quickly be able to offer their benefits to industry, local economies, and workers looking to train into a growing job sector.

Phase II: Scale-up challenge

Approximately 30 months from program start, facilities that meet the aforementioned funding milestones and demonstrate continuous movement toward financial self-sustainability (as measured by a shift from federal to state, local, and industry support) would be eligible to participate in an additional $30 million, 18-month scale-up challenge, wherein they would receive a reference production workflow so they could compete at workflow optimization, scaling, and transfer.

In contrast to previous Grand Challenges, which typically have a unifying theme (e.g., cancer, clean energy) but relatively open goals and means, Project BOoST would be hyperfocused to ensure a high degree of applicability and benefit to the biomanufacturing industry. The starting reference production workflow would be provided at lab scale, with specifications of materials, processing steps, and instrument settings. From this starting point, participating facilities would be asked to characterize and optimize the starting workflow to produce maximal yield across a broad range of conditions; scale the workflow to a 1,000L batch level, again maximizing yield; and transfer the workflows at both scales to a competing facility both for verification purposes and for proof of transferability.

In addition, all competing workflows would be subject to red-teaming by an independent group of biomanufacturing and cybersecurity experts. This examination would serve as an important assessment of workflow resilience in the setting of equipment failure, supply chain issues, cyberattack, and other scenarios.

The winning facilities—represented by their workflows—would be determined by a combination of factors:

The end result would be the practical demonstration and independent verification of the successful optimization, scale-up, and transfer of a production process—a major opportunity for learning and knowledge sharing across the entire industry.

Conclusion

Scientific innovation and advanced automation in biomanufacturing represent a potent double-edged sword. While they have allowed for incredible advances in biomanufacturing capability and capacity—to the benefit of all—they have also created complexities and dependencies that together constitute a strategic risk to the bioeconomy. This risk is a significant threat, with process failures already creating national headlines out of company collapses and congressional investigations. We propose to act now to create a biomanufacturing facility network dedicated to making production workflows more robust, resilient, and scalable, with a plan strongly biased toward rapid execution. Bringing together commercial entities, educational institutions, and multiple levels of government, Project BOoST will quickly create jobs, provide workforce development opportunities, and strengthen the bioeconomy as a whole.

Frequently Asked Questions
What differentiates Project BOoST from other facilities and networks proposed by MIIs, current Centers for Innovation in Advanced Development and Manufacturing (CIADMs), and the Department of Defense (DoD) authorization to support bioindustrial R&D included in the National Defense Authorization Act?






































Project BOoST MIIs CIADMs DoD/NDAA
Time frame to start of facility operations Estimated 12 months from funding Unknown—as of yet no new ground broken   Already operational, although only one surviving Unknown—plan to meet goals of act due 6/2023
Geographic location Targeting small and rural communities Unknown Mix: urban and less urban Unknown
Scope Process optimization, resilience, and scaling, including scale-up risk assessment DOD MII: TRL acceleration in nonmedical products


DOC MII: accelerate biopharmaceutical innovation 

 Maintenance of critical product stockpiles, reserve production capacity Research into new methods, capacity building, scaling 
Financial model Initial government funding with transition to self-sufficiency Government funding plus partner contributions Persistent government funding Unknown
Will this effort address supply chain threats?

Yes. Supply chain resilience will be a constant evaluation criterion through the program. A more resilient workflow in this context might include onshoring and/or dual sourcing of critical reagent supplies, establishing on-site reserves of single-point-of-failure equipment, maintaining backups of important digital resources (e.g., software, firmware, ladder logic), and explicitly rehearsing failure recovery procedures.

What kind of workforce training opportunities would be available at these facilities?

While the specifics will be left up to the contract bidders, we recommend training programs ranging from short, focused trainings for people already in the biomanufacturing industry to longer certificate programs that can give a trainee the basic suite of skills needed to function in a skilled biomanufacturing role.

Why can’t industry address these issues on its own?

They would if they could. On a fundamental level, due to the nature of the U.S. economic system, the biomanufacturing industry is focused on competition, and there’s a lot of it. Industry organizations, whether large or small, must be primarily concerned with some combination of generating new products and producing those products. They are unable to devote resources toward more strategic efforts like resilience, data standards, and process assurance simply because energy and dollars spent there means less to put toward new product development or increasing production capacity. (Contrast this to a country like China, where the government can more easily direct industry efforts in a certain direction.) Revolutionary change and progress in U.S. biomanufacturing requires the public sector to step up to solve some of these holistic, longer-term challenges.

Advancing the U.S. Bioindustrial Production Sector

Summary

The bioindustrial production of chemicals and other goods is a critical sector of the U.S. bioeconomy. However, the sector faces challenges such as drawn-out research and development timelines, low profit margins, the requirements to produce and sell product in vast quantities over long periods of time, and barriers to accessing scale-up capacity. Companies can find it challenging to rapidly exchange helpful knowledge, attract early-stage investors, access pilot-scale infrastructure to generate evidence that forecasts cost-effective production at scale, and obtain the financing to build or access domestic commercial-scale bioproduction, biomanufacturing, and downstream bioprocessing infrastructure and facilities.

The federal government has already recognized the need to take action to sustain and extend U.S. leadership in biotech and biomanufacturing. The recent Executive Order on advancing the U.S. bioeconomy and relevant provisions in the CHIPS and Science Law and the Inflation Reduction Law have put forward high aspirations, as well some funding, that could help stimulate the biotech and biomanufacturing ecosystem.

The U.S. government should create a Bio for America Program Office (BAPO) at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) to house a suite of initiatives that would lead to the creation of more well-paying U.S.-based biomanufacturing jobs, spur economic growth and development in areas of the country that haven’t historically benefited from biotech or biomanufacturing, and ensure more resilient U.S. supply chains, the more sustainable production of chemicals and other goods, and enhanced U.S. competitiveness.

Challenge and Opportunity

The bioeconomy—the part of the economy driven by the life sciences and biotech, and enabled by engineering, computing, and information science—has the potential to revolutionize human health, climate and energy, food security and sustainability, and supply chain stability, as well as support economic growth and well-paying jobs across the country. Indeed, the sector has already produced many breakthroughs, such as mRNA vaccines that help counter the devastating impacts of COVID-19 and genetically engineered microbes that provide nutrients to crops without the pollution associated with traditional fertilizers. Valued at over $950 billion, the U.S. bioeconomy accounts for more than five percent of the U.S. gross domestic product—more than the contribution from the construction industry and on par with the information sector.

However, without sufficient federal support and coordination, the U.S. risks ceding economic, national security, and societal benefits provided by a strong bioeconomy to competitors that are implementing cohesive strategies to advance their bioeconomies. For example, China aims to dominate the 21st-century bioeconomy and has prioritized the growth of its bioeconomy in its five-year plans. From 2016 to July 2021, the market value of publicly listed biopharmaceutical innovators from China increased approximately 127-fold across several major stock exchanges, to more than $380 billion, with biotechnology companies accounting for more than 47 percent of that valuation.

Bioindustrial manufacturing (nonpharmaceutical) is a critical segment of the bioeconomy but faces low profit margins combined with the need to produce and sell product in vast quantities over long timelines. It is challenging for companies to translate research and development into commercially viable efforts and attract investors to finance access to or construction of domestic bioproduction, biomanufacturing, and downstream bioprocessing infrastructure and facilities such as fermentation tanks and bioreactors. Furthermore, many biotech and synthetic biology companies face difficulty acquiring capital for scale-up, whether that requires building custom demonstration- or commercial-scale infrastructure, contracting with fee-for-service bioproduction organizations to outsource manufacturing in external facilities, or retooling existing equipment.

All this has the potential to lead to yet more instances of “designed in America, made elsewhere”: microbes that are engineered by U.S. companies to fabricate chemicals or other products could end up being used to produce at commercial scale abroad, which is not a recipe for economic growth and improving quality of life for residents of the U.S. Domestic manufacturers should be executing bioindustrial production so that more well-paying jobs are accessible in the U.S., with the added benefits of contributing to a more stable supply chain, which bolsters U.S. national and economic security.

The federal government has recognized the need for U.S. leadership in biotech and biomanufacturing: the recent Executive Order on advancing the U.S. bioeconomy and relevant provisions in the CHIPS and Science Law and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)  provide high-level aspirations and some actual dollars to bolster the biotech and biomanufacturing ecosystem. Indeed, some funds appropriated in the IRA could be used to meet biomanufacturing goals set in the CHIPS and Science Law and EO.

To reach its full potential, bioindustrial manufacturing requires additional support at various levels and may need as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in capital. There is an opportunity for the U.S. government to be intentional about accelerating the growth of the bioindustrial manufacturing sector, and reaping the economic, national security, and societal benefits that would come with it.

Public-private partnerships aimed at providing resources and capital for experimental development at early-stage companies, as well as bioindustrial production scale-up and commercialization projects that are techno-economically sound, would be a strong signal that the federal government is serious about leveraging bioindusty to meet human health, climate and energy, food security and sustainability, and supply chain stability needs, as well as support economic growth and well-paying jobs. Many of the investments by the U.S. taxpayers would be matched and multiplied by investments from nongovernment sources, amplifying the impact, and generating high return on investment for Americans in the form of well-paying jobs, breakthrough products, and more stable supply chains. Furthermore, the investment would show that the U.S. is committed to leveraging advanced manufacturing to raise quality of life for Americans and retain leadership in biotech and biomanufacturing.

Plan of Action

This plan focuses on four initiatives that address specific challenge points:

The proposed initiatives could all be housed in a new office at NIST called the Bio for America Program Office (BAPO), which would collaborate closely with the Office of the Secretary of Commerce and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, as well as additional government and nongovernmental stakeholders as appropriate. NIST would be an effective home for the BAPO given that it harbors cross-disciplinary expertise in engineering and the physical, information, chemical, and biological sciences; is a nonregulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, whose mission it is “to drive U.S. economic competitiveness, strengthen domestic industry, and spur the growth of quality jobs in all communities across the country”; and serves as a neutral convener for industry consortia, standards development organizations, federal labs, universities, public workshops, and interlaboratory comparability testing.

Bioindustrial Production Precompetitive Consortium

NIST should establish a Consortium, coordinated out of BAPO, to address the measurements, tools, and standards needed to advance both research and commercial bioindustrial products. The Consortium would convene industry, academia, and government to identify and address measurement, tool, and standards needs; enable members to work with NIST to develop those solutions and standards; leverage NIST expertise; and collaborate with related programs at other federal agencies. The Consortium could rapidly develop relationships with organizations such as the Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem (BioMADE, a Manufacturing Innovation Institute that is part of the Manufacturing USA network), the Engineering Biology Research Consortium (EBRC), SynBioBeta, the Alternative Fuels & Chemicals Coalition (AFCC), the Synthetic Biology Coalition, the Joint BioEnergy Institute, and the Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts Process Development Unit at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s pilot-scale Integrated Biorefinery Research Facility. It would also be useful to communicate with efforts in the biopharmaceutical space such as the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals.

The benefits to members would include access to a neutral forum for addressing precompetitive needs; participation in the development of experimental benchmarks, guidelines, and terminology; access to tools developed by the consortium ahead of public release; and institutional representation on the consortium steering committee. Members would contribute an annual fee of, for example, $20,000 or in-kind support of equivalent value, as well as sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement.

Congress should initially appropriate $20 million over five years to support the Consortium’s activities, and the Consortium could launch by putting forward a Notice of Consortium establishment and letter of interest form.

U.S. Bioindustrial Production Investment Portfolio

Early-stage companies are the engine for U.S. job creation, regional economic development, and technological innovation. A more consistent, yet scrupulous, source of funding for nascent companies in the bioindustrial production space would be catalytic. Using the BARDA Ventures-Global Health Investment Corporation (GHIC) Global Health Security Portfolio public-private partnership as a model, the U.S. government, coordinating both existing and new appropriations via BAPO Ventures, should seed a nonprofit partnership manager to launch a U.S. Bioindustrial Production Investment Portfolio. The portfolio would crowd-in additional capital and invest in early-stage, domestic bioindustrial production companies that share sound metrics and credible techno-economic analyses that they are on the path to product commercialization and profitability.

The portfolio’s nonprofit partnership manager should be empowered to crowd-in capital using return augmentation and risk mitigation incentives as they see fit. Measures that a venture fund could take to incentivize coinvestment could include but are not limited to:

Launching a U.S. Bioindustrial Production Investment Portfolio requires the following four steps.

1. Both existing and newly appropriated federal funds should be used to seed investments in the U.S. Bioindustrial Production Investment Portfolio.

Existing appropriations: Appropriations have already been made to some federal agencies through the IRA and other vehicles that could be used to seed the portfolio. BAPO Ventures should coordinate with the interagency, and agencies with available funds could contribute to directly seeding the portfolio. Some examples of existing funds to coordinate include:

New appropriations: Congress should appropriate $500 million in new funding for BAPO Ventures over five years to support BAPO Ventures personnel and operations and augment the portfolio. These funds would be critical since they could be applied for all-purpose venture capital investments in early-stage bioindustrial production companies. Congress should also grant BAPO Ventures, as well as other agencies or programs, any authority needed to transfer funds to the portfolio for these purposes.

2. Identify the nonprofit partnership manager.

BAPO Ventures should solicit proposals for an existing nonprofit partner to manage the U.S. Bioindustrial Production Investment Portfolio. Selection should be based on demonstrated track record of experience with and successful venture investments in bioindustrial manufacturing or a closely related space. Potential nonprofit partners include Breakthrough Energy Catalyst or America’s Frontier Fund. GHIC should also be consulted. 

3. Transfer funds from the appropriate U.S. government programs to funds within the portfolio and support the nonprofit partnership manager in crowding-in additional capital.

The nonprofit partnership manager will recruit capital from nonfederal government sources into the portfolio’s different funds with the aim of matching and/or exceeding the dedicated public funds to generate a multiplier effect and access even more capital. Capital from investors willing to take on risk equatable to venture capital would be the most viable targets.

4. The nonprofit partnership manager will use the portfolio’s funds to invest in U.S. early-stage bioindustrial production companies on the basis of sound techno-economic analyses and robust metrics.

The nonprofit partnership manager would invest in bioindustrial production companies that commit to hiring and manufacturing domestically and making products useful to Americans and the country, on the basis of robust techno-economic analyses of the companies’ commercial potential, and generate returns on investments. BAPO Ventures, as well as NIST writ large, would be accessible for technical assistance, if necessary. The nonprofit partnership manager would structure investments with co-funding from additional nonfederal government investors. As this public-private partnership generates investment returns, proceeds from the BAPO Ventures funding will be returned to the portfolio and its funds for reinvestment and sustainment of BAPO Ventures. If this evergreen fund begins to compete with, rather than incentivize, private market funding, or otherwise begins to be unproductive, the fund should be tapered off and/or sunset.

Bioindustrial Production Scale-up Infrastructure Group

It is critical for early-stage bioindustrial production companies to gather evidence that their production processes have the potential to be commercially viable at scale—or not. To learn this, companies need access to pilot- and intermediate-scale bioindustrial production infrastructure like fermenters and bioreactors, as well as modern downstream bioprocessing equipment. The BAPO should house a Bioindustrial Production Scale-up Infrastructure Group (BPSIG). which, as an initial step, would work with both the interagency and nonfederal government partners to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the U.S. bioindustrial production pilot- and intermediate-scale infrastructure landscape with the aim of informing a precision strategy for most effectively leveraging federal resources.

The BPSIG would aim to complete the landscape analysis in three months, seeking to understand deficiencies in capacities such as the different volumes of fermenters and bioreactors that are accessible (and the costs associated with their use) and modular downstream bioprocessing equipment accessibility. They should also identify existing facilities that have accessible capacity, such as corporations’ sites where capacity might be rented, toll facilities, or facilities that could be retooled or rehabilitated to provide the necessary pilot-scale capacity. BPSIG should engage with organizations such as Capacitor, the Bioprocess to Product Network, Royal DSM, DuPont, Cargill, BioMADE, Battelle, MITRE, and the Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts Process Development Unit at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory when performing this evaluation.

If the assessment concludes that retooling existing sites or building new pilot- or intermediate-scale infrastructure is necessary, and that government support would be catalytic, some funds would already be available via existing appropriations, and new appropriations might also be necessary. Appropriations have already been made to some federal agencies through the IRA and other vehicles that could be coordinated by the BPSIG. BPSIG should coordinate with the interagency, and agencies with available funds could contribute directly to building the network. Existing funds to leverage include:

Additionally, Congress may need to make appropriations directly to BPSIG, which BPSIG could then allocate to other federal financing programs for retooling or building any additional pilot- or intermediate-scale bioindustrial production infrastructure projects outside the scope of existing pools of already-appropriated funds.

Bioindustrial Production Loan Program Office

To ensure techno-economically sound bioindustrial production companies can secure financing for demonstration- or commercial-scale infrastructure and equipment needs, Congress should enable an initiative within BAPO called the Bioindustrial Production Loan Programs Office (BPLPO) that replicates and improves the DOE LPO model. The BPLPO would be tailored to the bioindustrial production segment, without agencies’ science or technology mission area constraints (for instance, energy), offering flexible debt instruments and supporting large-scale projects. For example, assistance in the form of loan guarantees would help underwrite debt associated with launching bioproduction plants.

Coordination with DOE LPO, DOE Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, the U.S. Small Business Association, the relevant U.S. Department of Agriculture loan programs, and other government agencies and offices would be key to avoid duplicating efforts and to incorporate lessons learned and best practices from existing efforts. Congress should appropriate an initial $5 billion for the BPLPO, authorizing the program for an initial 10 years.

Conclusion

Launching a suite of public-private partnerships to advance domestic bioproduction would create more well-paying biomanufacturing jobs in the U.S., expand economic opportunity across the country by spreading the biotech and biomanufacturing footprint into nontraditional areas, produce more high-quality chemicals and goods in the U.S., and help meet national and economic security needs, such as strengthened supply chains and more sustainable production methods.

Frequently Asked Questions
Is there precedent for a federal agency–nonprofit venture capital organization public-private partnership in biotech or biomanufacturing?

BARDA, situated within the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, launched BARDA Ventures in June 2021 to “accelerate development and commercialization of technologies and medical products needed to respond to or prevent public health emergencies, such as pandemics, and other health security threats.” BARDA has provided the nonprofit organization GHIC tens of millions of dollars. GHIC launched and manages a global health security fund with matching capital from other investors. This partnership allows direct linkage with the investment community and establishes sustained and long-term efforts to identify, nurture, and commercialize technologies that aid the U.S. in responding effectively to future health security threats.

Could the BARDA-GHIC model be applied to other sectors in addition to bioindustrial manufacturing?

Yes. The BARDA-GHIC model can be considered when there is underinvestment from the capital markets in a particular early-stage commercial area.

Why the focus on coordinating existing funds from DoD and DOE?

Some funds have already been appropriated to DoD and DOE that could be used to advance U.S. bioindustrial production. DoD and DOE are both stakeholders in bioindustrial manufacturing whose missions would benefit from virtually any domestic bioindustrial manufacturing efforts.

What are some other opportunities for capital for bioindustrial production?

Capital from strategic investors, venture investors with long-term outlooks, and private equity, with growth equity of particular interest, could be targeted. Examples of strategic investors that could be pursued include IndianOil Corp, Petronas, Brookfield, or BASF. Venture investors with longer-term outlook funds like Breakthrough Energy Catalyst would also be candidates to pursue to recruit capital.


The scale-up and commercialization of some bioindustrial production capabilities can be capital intensive; however, standing-up bioproduction facilities can cost two to 2,000 times less than chemical facilities, and operating expenses for a bioproduction facility are relatively low, making return on capital more attractive to capital markets. It’s likely that investments’ returns should be expected to be long-term in nature. Investments now could help some bioindustrial production operations reach profitability by the mid- to late 2020s, with positive returns on investments likely. In addition to acquiring equity in bioindustrial production companies, some investors may contribute to commercializing the bioindustrial production of those operations’ chemicals or other goods in their regions of influence, etc.

What’s a potential starting point for the equitable and strategic placement of pilot- and intermediate-scale bioindustrial production facilities?

Potential regional targets include Suffolk, Massachusetts, and Albany, New York, in the Northeast; Warren, Ohio, Johnson, Kansas, and Porter, Indiana, in the Midwest; Denton, Texas, Wake, North Carolina, and Canadian, Oklahoma, in the South; and Yavapai, Arizona, and Honolulu, Hawaii, in the West.

Accelerating Bioindustry Through Research, Innovation, and Translation

Summary

America’s bioeconomy is entering a once-in-a-generation moment. Research and development (R&D) breakthroughs have brought us to a scientific tipping point; at the same time, health and security threats are inspiring a new level of strategic coordination. Although we now have a strong base of fundamental science, we lack the equally powerful industrial foundation needed to put the “economy” in bioeconomy. Bioindustry, encompassing less flashy products (chemicals, plastics, fuels) and bio-enabling tools and capabilities, often fails to capture the attention and investment needed to connect research with use cases, commercialize, and scale. But without solutions and capabilities that span multiple applications and sectoral silos, our bioeconomy will stall at the lab door.

Rapid progress in strengthening American bioindustry is possible, but it demands a coordinated and concerted effort that taps the federal government’s unique combination of scale and highly effective lab-to-market incentive mechanisms. Streamlined funding of open and cross-disciplinary research, prize and challenge mechanisms, and market shaping through innovative procurement have all proven highly effective in the face of market failures and applied technology gaps like those seen in our bioindustry.

To refine, tailor, and manage its unique lab-to-market toolkit in this space, the federal government should establish a single coordinating entity to accelerate bioindustry in close partnership with stakeholder agencies. The Bioindustrial Research, Innovation, and Translation Engine (BRITE), housed within National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), would do this by:

Challenge and Opportunity

After steadily gaining mindshare and momentum among policymakers, our bioeconomy has reached a once-in-a-generation moment. This has been amplified by the urgency of biothreats revealed during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the role that biotechnology and biopharmaceutical innovation played in the global response. While efforts to realize a comprehensive U.S. bioeconomy vision date back to 2012, the Biden Administration’s September 2022 Executive Order provides a clear and compelling new articulation of that vision and can serve as a platform for realizing it. Moreover, recent legislative actions, including the CHIPS and Science Law, Inflation Reduction Law, and various appropriations (see FAQ), have enabled a range of federal bioeconomy initiatives and investments.

The greatest barrier to meeting our bioeconomic moment is not one of fundamental science; it is the underdevelopment of America’s bioindustry. Bioindustry encompasses both the manufacturing of biochemicals, bioplastics, and biofuels as well as the tools, kits, and services that drive and enable the wider bioeconomy. There are very real technical, capability, and incentive barriers to bioindustrial progress, including:

Given these barriers, bioindustry is particularly susceptible to two “valleys of death”—one between a scientific breakthrough and a usable product and another between a market-ready product and deployment. In these valleys, typical innovation funders are disincentivized from high-risk / high-reward investment and struggle to achieve any sort of investment coherence or cohesion. A Congressional Research Service report notes that the very definition of bioeconomy varies widely across sectors and countries. Capital tends to isolate around one thematic area (e.g., climate, advanced materials, agriculture, health) rather than fueling systems-based, cross-cutting investments that grow the overall pie. This creates a high risk of duplicated effort and repetition of missteps. A Schmidt Futures task force report estimates that without a vibrant bioindustry, the U.S. risks losing out on at least $260 billion of annual economic opportunity that will otherwise go overseas. We will also face new economic and national security threats if we fail to establish resilient domestic bioeconomic supply chains and a robust competitive landscape.

The federal government stands alone in its ability to rapidly close the gaps that hold bioindustry back. Federal agencies are uniquely incentivized to bridge the valleys of death by tapping agencies’ unique portfolios of lab-to-market, demand-pull mechanisms. These include:

The barriers to bioindustrial progress—complex technical gaps, incentive and market failures, and misalignment of innovation culture—are daunting. Encouragingly, they are just the sort of barriers that these federal lab-to-market and demand-pull mechanisms were designed to overcome.

What are the broader benefits of accelerating our bioindustry?

Building a more robust industrial foundation for our bioeconomy benefits the entire nation but has particular potential to close economic gaps in regions historically left behind. A range of different production infrastructure, from dormant plants to breweries, can be retrofit more efficiently, especially in places outside traditional biotechnology hubs. Broadening the range of bioindustrial tools and processes, and moving to scale manufacturing, will create new job opportunities beyond advanced researchers in labs. There are also many advantages to locating biomanufacturing infrastructure in proximity to rural areas rich in feedstocks. The intersection of place-based innovation and bioindustry has already been brought to life through efforts like the U.S. Department of Agriculture Bioproduct Pilot Program and will no doubt accelerate through the NSF Regional Innovation Engines opportunity, which will align use-inspired research, translation, and workforce development in new self-sustaining innovation hubs across the country.

Plan of Action

Business as usual will not realize the full potential of—or avoid the many pitfalls awaiting—our national bioeconomy strategy. The pace and scale of bioindustrial progress require us to tap into all of the capabilities and resources noted above. In general, we need more coordinated action across the public and private sectors, including streamlined R&D partnerships to close gaps in health vs. industrial applications; competitions and challenges that translate breakthroughs to real-world use; market-shaping activities to achieve scale; and strategic coordination of sustainable funding to maximize investment leverage.

A new, whole-of-government entity should be established to marshal federal tools, best practices, and investments toward shared priorities that are critical to American bioindustrial leadership. The Bioindustrial Research, Innovation, and Translation Engine (BRITE) will encompass open innovation programs, market-shaping activities, and stakeholder engagement. BRITE can be housed within a new NIST Bio for America Program Office and convene relevant program owners from core agencies with bioeconomy mandates: National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Streamlined R&D partnerships

BRITE can take advantage of the growing body of ideas and insights coming from academic and commercial communities through open and accessible calls for projects. This could be achieved through an EZ-BAA vehicle, modeled after BARDA DRIVe’s open call for projects that address a broad set of health security problems. The BRITE EZ-BAA would offer up to $500,000 for research and commercialization projects addressing a set of announced areas of interest (AOIs). Early engagement with BRITE through this program would improve the efficiency and win rate of technology development—and incentivize success-enabling design principles, such as designing for future biomanufacturing scale versus pure scientific outcomes. Initial AOIs could focus on scientific and technical rate limiters for growth in nonhealth bio, including development of novel high-performance biomaterials with features optimized for specific industrial use cases, or tailored to replace carbon-based inputs, as well as foundry-style projects that scale known, high-potential platforms—like spider silk protein or mycelium—with a wide array of potential use cases.

Innovation competitions and challenges

Engaging the broader scientific community through a research BAA will deliver novel and surprising ideas but will not itself advance actionable ideas to solve concrete problems. To complement a research BAA, BRITE can launch, cosponsor, or administer prize competitions and grand challenges. Open innovation programs accelerate solution development for even the most complex and stubborn bioindustrial development challenges. They are most successful when a clear ‘Goldilocks’ problem can be defined—narrow enough to be addressable by the market, but broad enough that solutions are not presupposed or prescribed. BRITE team members would work with sponsoring agencies to identify “prizeable” issues and optimize problem statements for the prize mechanism. Initial prizes or challenge series could address such diverse problems as:

Once refined, problem statements can then be designed into single- or multistage competitions. Prize design parameters can be fine-tuned to the nature of the problem and the communities that have the potential to solve them. Using strategic design to balance the fidelity of solutions sought, scale and type of incentives on offer, and timeline for development or refinement maximizes the impact of prizes. One-off or series of single phase competitions can be used to quickly prime the pump and identify potential solutions and solvers. Multistage competitions that down-select to a high-potential cohort provide the added benefit of offering targeted technical assistance over and above prize funds. This form of support is often more valuable to solvers than money—and for bioindustrial challenges could include unique resources such as support for producing demonstration projects, access to third-party validation, and engagement with federal and external experts in science, standards, or regulations.

Market shaping

The quick and meaningful wins achieved through an EZ-BAA and open innovation programs need to be sustained by a robust bioindustrial marketplace. BRITE and partner agencies could draw upon nontraditional procurement mechanisms to amplify the ideas and products that emerge from research and innovation. Other Transaction Authorities could be developed to rapidly engage production capacity from a consortium of biomaterial demonstration and scale-up providers. Advance market commitments to fund procurement of biomaterials or production capacity can position agencies as tentpole customers for applied bioindustrial solutions. These could be executed through strategic national stockpiles, chemical reserves, or other critical product procurements.

Beyond procurement, BRITE can be a driving force across agencies to lower barriers to market entry development. Housed within NIST, BRITE would have a unique ability to directly translate research and innovation outcomes to inform new or revised biomanufacturing and bioindustrial standards. BRITE could also serve as a neutral party that supports alignment of incentives and development of interoperable platforms and standards, facilitating longer-term innovation while preserving private companies’ ability to succeed. Through relationships with various bioindustry regulators (Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, USDA), BRITE could facilitate clearer delineation and harmonization of regulatory responsibilities. This engagement could also better incorporate the current voice of science and technology in defining and refining bioindustry rules, experimental sandboxes, and optimization for different subsectors.

Finally, BRITE can shape the market from the grassroots, engaging a wider set of scientific and general communities in the growing bioindustry. As research and innovation activities ramp up, BRITE can convene prize winners to share insights and spur serendipitous collaborations. BRITE can also steer effective scientific communication on bioindustry, engage stakeholders more directly in the innovation process, and feed community insights back into future programs and priorities. BRITE can follow the example of accelerators like HHS’s LymeX, which actively engages clinical and scientific roundtables to inform prizes and strategy.

Case example: How BRITE activities coordinate for greater impact

The federal lab-to-market tools BRITE would foster are powerful in their own right. Applied in a coordinated fashion, they can rapidly bring transformative bioindustrial solutions to bear against intractable problems.

Consider how all facets of BRITE might contribute to a pressing, multifaceted problem like lead exposure:

Sustainable funding

Based on analogous programs, including DOE American Made Challenges, an initial appropriation or discretionary allocation of $100–200 million is needed to catalyze BRITE’s standup and early wins. This could be assembled by pooling agency funds authorized for bioeconomy activities and/or unspent from recent appropriations (see Table A in FAQ). Private-sector partners or existing public-private partnerships (PPPs) could also support initial funding, though a new PPP likely could not be executed in the required timeframe. In the longer term, BRITE funding can be supported by one or more fit-to-purpose PPPs and should be enshrined in annual appropriations, following the example of KidneyX. Consistent funding is important to show commitment to bioindustrial innovation, enable more multiyear programs or recurring prize series, and provide resilience in the event of budget conflict. A minimum $15 million annual appropriation to sustain BRITE innovation activities could easily be input into one or a combination of bills (Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/State, and Energy and Water).

Conclusion

We are fortunate as a country to have a strong bench of talent working hard to push what is possible in our bioeconomy. They deserve tools and capabilities2 that enable them to work smart, delivering a far greater return on the dollars we invest in our bio-driven future. It is not sustainable for the federal government to be the only customer driving bioindustrial progress. But as a catalytic force that bridges valleys of death and solves chicken-and-egg dilemmas, strategic government action to nurture bioindustry out of the lab and into markets will take us farther, faster. By fully utilizing the world-class mechanisms smart policymakers of the past have provided us, we can de-risk bioeconomic investments while yielding maximum benefit for our economy, security, and society.

Frequently Asked Questions
What authorities and funding sources would agencies use to work with or through BRITE?

Multiple departments and agencies have been charged with advancing U.S. bioindustry. While the latest and most fit-to-purpose authorities were established under Title IV of the CHIPS and Science Law (42 U.S.C. §19135), agencies can draw upon multiple authorities to support and incentivize bioindustrial research, innovation, and translation. The following table is far from exhaustive, but it highlights several such authorities, as well as existing funding agencies could leverage to act on them.


Table A. Example authorities and appropriations to support bioindustry



































Agency Bioindustry-relevant authorities Select bioindustry-related funding
(active or FY23 appropriations)
Department of Commerce

  • Title IV: NIST standards, facilities, and capabilities to advance engineering biology and biomanufacturing

  • Manufacturing USA (15 U.S.C. §278s)

  • NIST Working Capital Fund (15 U.S.C. §278b)

  • NIST: $33M for bioeconomy enablement and emerging technology standards 

  • EDA: $200M through ongoing Build Back Better Regional Challenge activities
Department of Energy

  • Title IV: Engineering biology research, development, demonstration, and commercial application and translation

  • Multiple research and Manufacturing USA programs (e.g., Agile BioFoundry, ABPDU)

  • Incentives, including loans, for innovative technology development
    (42 U.S.C. §16513)

  • $470M for Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E) 

  • $66M for Title XVII Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
Department of Agriculture

  • Title IV: Engineering biology R&D through Agricultural Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and Office of the Chief Scientist

  • BioPreferred Program (7 U.S.C. §8102)

  • Bioproduct Pilot Program (P.L. 117-58, Title V, Section 70501)

  • Regional Bioeconomy Development Grants (42 U.S.C. §16254; expired 2015, but could be renewed)

  • National Forest System: $20M to incentivize increased use of biomass from NFS lands
National Science Foundation

  • Title IV: Engineering biology and biomanufacturing research, plus support for research infrastructure

  • Regional innovation initiatives, likely including bioeconomy and bioindustry, run through new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP)

  • TIP likely to be funded from a portion of $7.8B Research & Related Activities appropriation
Department of Defense

  • Title IV: R&D in engineering biology and associated data and information sciences

  • BioMADE (Manufacturing USA institute)

  • $270 million from the Department of Defense (DOD) over five years for the TriService Biotechnology for a Resilient Supply Chain program;

  • $1 billion from DOD over five years to catalyze the establishment of a domestic biomanufacturing industrial base
Who would staff BRITE? What are the ideal characteristics of a program manager?

While initial stand-up of BRITE may require detail assignments from partner agencies, BRITE should have its own dedicated, permanent staff. Beyond strategic and operational leadership, program managers (PMs) would be needed to own particular topics or problem areas. The ideal PM profile would differ by function; for example, research PMs would have an applied research background and experience leading high-risk, high-reward activities in a government or industry capacity. Prize PMs would have experience with large-scale grant and prize authorities—as well as experience educating different agencies and functions (legal, political, communications) on the ins and outs of prize authorities. This expertise could also be accessed through support contracts or working with cross-agency centers of excellence in open innovation, such as NASA’s Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation.

Why should BRITE be housed within NIST? Why couldn’t these activities be carried out under an entity like ARPA-E, ARPA-H, or BARDA?

BRITE draws on analogous entities and initiatives from different agencies. Indeed, by leaning on various precedents, BRITE will be easier for agency stakeholders (particularly general counsels) to understand and will be able to enact faster than relying on a brand-new legislative mandate. That said, BRITE’s mission to accelerate bioindustry in underaddressed spaces is inherently cross-disciplinary. The outcomes spearheaded by BRITE will benefit multiple agencies’ bioeconomy-related objectives; but outside of Commerce, any other agency would naturally prioritize its particular sector and set of use cases, even if it failed to lift all bioindustrial boats. Furthermore, housing BRITE within a NIST bioeconomy program office or entity could inform more rapid and effective development of bioeconomy standards, frameworks, and systems interoperability. An inspiring analog is NIST’s Public Safety Communications Research Division.

How is it possible for agencies to sponsor prize competitions through BRITE without new legislation or authorization?

Any federal agency is authorized to run a prize competition under the America COMPETES Act, (see footnote 2) and federal prize activity has increased dramatically over the last decade. In addition to COMPETES, there are various agency-specific prize authorities (e.g., NSF, DOE, DOD, NASA, HHS). While agency-specific authorities sometimes have a narrow topic focus, they can add flexibility beyond COMPETES provisions (for example, DOD and NASA competitions can award monetary prizes to non-U.S. entrants, which is not possible under COMPETES). Multiagency collaboration on prizes is common—over a quarter of agency prizes were conducted with at least one other federal partner. In addition, many agencies receive expert support in prize administration from partner entities like GSA’s Challenge.gov and NASA’s Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation.

How will BRITE advance the field if only winners benefit from prize competitions? Are there ways to reward or support non-winners with good ideas?

Prizes confer many benefits beyond the direct cash payment and in-kind support awarded to top teams. The experience of entering a competition alone is often a helpful forcing function for teams to crystallize ideas and present them in a more compelling way. But prizes can also include design elements that advance the wider field beyond the winners. In multistage prizes, non-winning teams can partner with or even provide technical assistance and expertise to the teams that advance. Honorable mention or other award categories can also provide a lift. For example, the VA’s recent Mission Daybreak challenge issued small “Promise Awards” to teams that were not named finalists but showed potential, which provides them a boost in securing future funding and support. Finally, some or all of the technical assistance provided to winners (in the form of webinars, documents, templates, etc.) can be disseminated to the general public as an open resource.

Tilling the Federal SOIL for Transformative R&D: The Solution Oriented Innovation Liaison

Summary 

The federal government is increasingly embracing Advanced Research Projects Agencies (ARPAs) and other transformative research and engagement enterprises (TREEs) to connect innovators and create the breakthroughs needed to solve complex problems. Our innovation ecosystem needs more of these TREEs, especially for societal challenges that have not historically benefited from solution-oriented research and development. And because the challenges we face are so interwoven, we want them to work and grow together in a solution-oriented mode. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF)’s new Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships should establish a new Office of the Solution-Oriented Innovation Liaison (SOIL) to help TREEs share knowledge about complementary initiatives, establish a community of practice among breakthrough innovators, and seed a culture for exploring new models of research and development within the federal government. The SOIL would have two primary goals: (1) provide data, information, and knowledge-sharing services across existing TREEs; and (2) explore opportunities to pilot R&D models of the future and embed breakthrough innovation models in underleveraged agencies.

Challenge and Opportunity

Climate change. Food security. Social justice. There is no shortage of complex challenges before us—all intersecting, all demanding civil action, and all waiting for us to share knowledge. Such challenges remain intractable because they are broader than the particular mental models that any one individual or organization holds. To develop solutions, we need science that is more connected to social needs and to other ways of knowing. Our problem is not a deficit of scientific capital. It is a deficit of connection.

Connectivity is what defines a growing number of approaches to the public administration of science and technology, alternatively labeled as transformative innovation, mission-oriented innovation, or solutions R&D. Connectivity is what makes DARPA, IARPA, and ARPA-E work, and it is why new ARPAs are being created for health and proposed for infrastructure, labor, and education. Connectivity is also a common element among an explosion of emerging R&D models, including Focused Research Organizations (FROs) and Distributed Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). And connectivity is the purpose of NSF’s new Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP), which includes “fostering innovation ecosystems” in its mission. New transformative research and engagement enterprises (TREEs) could be especially valuable in research domains at the margins, where “the benefits of innovation do not simply trickle down.

The history of ARPAs and other TREEs shows that solutions R&D is successfully conducted by entities that combine both research and engagement. If grown carefully, such organisms bear fruit. So why just plant one here or there when we could grow an entire forest? The metaphor is apt. To grow an innovation ecosystem, we must intentionally sow the seeds of TREEs, nurture their growth, and cultivate symbiotic relationships—all while giving each the space to thrive.

Plan of Action

NSF’s TIP directorate should create a new Office of Solution-Oriented Innovation (SOIL) to foster a thriving community of TREEs. SOIL would have two primary goals: (1) nurture more TREEs of more varieties in more mission spaces; and (2) facilitate more symbiosis among TREEs of increasing number and variety. 

Goal 1: More TREEs of more varieties in more mission spaces

SOIL would shepherd the creation of TREEs wherever they are needed, whether in a federal department, a state or local agency, or in the private, nonprofit, or academic sectors. Key to this is codifying the lessons of successful TREEs and translating them to new contexts. Not all such knowledge is codifiable; much is tacit. As such, SOIL would draw upon a cadre of research-management specialists who have a deep familiarity with different organizational forms (e.g., ARPAs, FROs, DAOs) and could work with the leaders of departments, businesses, universities, consortia, etc. to determine which form best suits the need of the entity in question and provide technical assistance in establishment.

An essential part of this work would be helping institutions create mission-appropriate governance models and cultures. Administering TREEs is neither easy nor typical. Indeed, the very fact that they are managed differently from normal R&D programs makes them special. Former DARPA Director Arati Prabhakar has emphasized the importance of such tailored structures to the success of TREEs. To this end, SOIL would also create a Community of Cultivators comprising former TREE leaders, principal investigators (PIs), and staff. Members of this community would provide those seeking to establish new TREEs with guidance during the scoping, launch, and management phases.

SOIL would also provide opportunities for staff at different TREEs to connect with each other and with collective resources. It could, for example, host dedicated liaison officers at agencies (as DARPA has with its service lines) to coordinate access to SOIL resources and other TREEs and support the documentation of lessons learned for broader use. SOIL could also organize periodic TREE conventions for affiliates to discuss strategic directions and possibly set cross-cutting goals. Similar to the SBIR office at the Small Business Administration, SOIL would also report annually to Congress on the state of the TREE system, as well as make policy recommendations.

Goal 2: More symbiosis among TREEs of increasing number and variety

Success for SOIL would be a community of TREEs that is more than the sum of its parts. It is already clear how the defense and intelligence missions of DARPA and IARPA intersect. There are also energy programs at DARPA that might benefit from deeper engagement with programs at ARPA-E. In the future, transportation-infrastructure programs at ARPA-E could work alongside similar programs at an ARPA for infrastructure. Fostering stronger connections between entities with overlapping missions would minimize redundant efforts and yield shared platform technologies that enable sector-specific advances.

Indeed, symbiotic relationships could spawn untold possibilities. What if researchers across different TREEs could build knowledge together? Exchange findings, data, algorithms, and ideas? Co-create shared models of complex phenomena and put competing models to the test against evidence? Collaborate across projects, and with stakeholders, to develop and apply digital technologies as well as practices to govern their use? A common digital infrastructure and virtual research commons would enable faster, more reliable production (and reproduction) of research across domains. This is the logic underlying the Center for Open Science and the National Secure Data Service.

To this end, SOIL should build a digital Mycelial Network (MyNet), a common virtual space that would harness the cognitive diversity across TREEs for more robust knowledge and tools. MyNet would offer a set of digital services and resources that could be accessed by TREE managers, staff, and PIs. Its most basic function could be to depict the ecosystem of challenges and solutions, search for partners, and deconflict programs. Once partnerships are made, higher-level functions would include secure data sharing, co-creation of solutions, and semantic interconnection. MyNet could replace the current multitude of ad hoc, sector-specific systems for sharing research resources, giving more researchers access to more knowledge about complex systems and fewer obstacles from paywalls. And the larger the network, the bigger the network effects. If the MyNet infrastructure proves successful for TREEs, it could ultimately be expanded more broadly to all research institutions—just as ARPAnet expanded into the public internet. 

For users, MyNet would have three layers:

These functions would collectively require:

How might MyNet be applied? Consider three hypothetical programs, all focused on microplastics: a medical program that maps how microplastics are metabolized and impact health; a food-security program that maps how microplastics flow through food webs and supply chains; and a social justice program that maps which communities produce and consume microplastics. In the data layer, researchers at the three programs could combine data on health records, supply logistics, food inspections, municipal records, and demographics. In the information layer, they might collaborate on coding and evaluating quantitative models. Finally, in the knowledge layer, they could work together to validate claims regarding who is impacted, how much, and by what means.

Initial Steps

First, Congress should authorize and appropriate the NSF TIP Directorate with $500 million over four years for a new Office of the Solution-Oriented Innovation Liaison. Congress should view SOIL as an opportunity to create a shared service among emergent, transformative federal R&D efforts that will empower—rather than bureaucratically stifle—the science and technological advances we need most. This mission fits squarely under the NSF TIP Directorate’s mandate to “mobilize the collective power of the nation” by serving as “a crosscutting platform that collaboratively integrates with NSF’s existing directorates and fosters partnerships—with government, industry, nonprofits, civil society and communities of practice—to leverage, energize and rapidly bring to society use-inspired research and innovation.” 

Once appropriated and authorized to begin intentionally growing a network of TREEs, NSF’s TIP Directorate should focus on a four-year plan for SOIL. TIP should begin by choosing an appropriate leader for SOIL, such as a former director or directorate manager of an ARPA (or other TREE). SOIL would be tasked with first engaging the management of existing ARPAs in the federal government, such as those at the Departments of Defense and Energy, to form an advisory board. The advisory board would in turn guide the creation of experience-informed operating procedures for SOIL to use to establish and aid new TREEs. These might include discussions geared toward arriving at best practices and mechanisms to operate rapid solutions-focused R&D programs for the following functions:

Beyond these structural aspects, the board must also incorporate important cultural aspects of TREES into best practices. In my own research into the managerial heuristics that guide TREEs, I found that managers must be encouraged to “drive change” (critique the status quo, dream big, take action), “be better” (embrace difference, attract excellence, stand out from the crowd), “herd nerds” (focus the creative talent of scientists and engineers), “gather support” (forge relationships with research conductors and potential adversaries), “try and err” (take diverse approaches, expect to fail, learn from failure), and “make it matter” (direct activities to realize outcomes for society, not for science).

The board would also recommend a governance structure and implementation strategy for MyNet. In its first year, SOIL could also start to grow the Community of Cultivators, potentially starting with members of the advisory board. The board chair, in partnership with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, would also convene an initial series of interagency working groups (IWGs) focused on establishing a community of practice around TREEs, including but not limited to representatives from the following R&D agencies, offices, and programs: 

In years two and three, SOIL would focus on growing three to five new TREEs at organizations that have not had solutions-oriented innovation programs before but need them. 

SOIL would also start to build a pilot version of MyNet as a resource for these new TREEs, with a goal of including existing ARPAs and other TREEs as quickly as possible. In establishing MyNet, SOIL should focus on implementing the most appropriate system of data governance by first understanding the nature of the collaborative activities intended. Digital research collaborations can apply and mix a range of different governance patterns, with different amounts of availability and freedoms with respect to digital resources. MyNet should be flexible enough to meet a range of needs for openness and security. To this end, SOIL should coordinate with the recently created National Secure Data Service and apply lessons forward in creating an accessible, secure, and ethical information-sharing environment. 

Year four and beyond would be characterized by scaling up. Building on the lessons learned in the prior two years of pilot programs, SOIL would coordinate with new and legacy TREEs to refresh operating procedures and governance structures. It would then work with an even broader set of organizations to increase the number of TREEs beyond the three to five pilots and continue to build out MyNet as well as the Community of Cultivators. Periodic evaluations of SOIL’s programmatic success would shape its evolution after this point. These should be framed in terms of its capacity to create and support programs that yield meaningful technological and socioeconomic outcomes, not just produce traditional research metrics. As such, in its creation of new TREEs, SOIL should apply a major lesson of the National Academies’ evaluation of ARPA-E: explicitly align the (necessarily) robust performance management systems at the project level with strategy and evaluation systems at the program, portfolio, and agency levels. The long-term viability of SOIL and TREEs will depend on their ability to demonstrate value to the public.

Frequently Asked Questions
What is the transformative research model? What makes it different from a typical R&D model?

The transformative research model typically works like this:



  • Engage with stakeholders to understand their needs and set audacious goals for addressing them.

  • Establish lean projects run by teams of diverse experts assembled just long enough to succeed or fail in one approach.

  • Continuously evaluate projects, build on what works, kill what doesn’t, and repeat as necessary.


In a nutshell, transformative research enterprises exist solely to solve a particular problem, rather than to grow a program or amass a stock of scientific capital.


To get more specific, Bonvillian and Van Atta (2011) identify the unique factors that contribute to the innovative nature of ARPAs. On the personnel front, ARPA program managers are talented managers, experienced in business, and appointed for limited terms. They are “translators,” as opposed to subject-matter experts, who actively engage with allies, rivals, and others. They have great power to choose projects, hire, fire, and contract. On the structure front, projects are driven by specific challenges or visions—co-developed with stakeholders—designed around plausible implementation pathways. Projects are executed extramurally, and managed as portfolios, with clear metrics to asses risk and reward. Success for ARPAs means developing products and services that achieve broad uptake and cost-efficacy, so finding first adopters and creating markets is part of the work.

What kinds of TREEs could SOIL help to create?

Some examples come from other Day One proposals. SOIL could work with the Department of Labor to establish a Labor ARPA. It could work with the Department of Education on an Education ARPA. We could imagine a Justice Department ARPA with a program for criminal justice reform, one at Housing and Urban Development aimed at solving homelessness, or one at the State Department for innovations in diplomacy. And there are myriad opportunities beyond the federal government.

What kind of authority over TREEs should SOIL have? Since TREEs are designed to be nimble and independent, wouldn’t SOIL oversight inhibit their operations with an extra layer of bureaucracy?

TREEs thrive on their independence and flexibility, so SOIL’s functions must be designed to impose minimal interference. Other than ensuring that the TREEs it supports are effectively administered as transformative, mission-oriented organizations, SOIL would be very hands-off. SOIL would help establish TREEs and set them up so they do not operate as typical R&D units. SOIL would give TREE projects and staff the means to connect cross-organizationally with other projects and staff in areas of mutual interest (e.g., via MyNet, the Community of Cultivators, and periodic convenings). And, like the SBIR office at the Small Business Administration, SOIL would report annually to Congress on its operations and progress toward goals.

What is the estimated cost of SOIL and its component initiatives? How would it be funded?

An excellent model for SOIL is the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) system. SBIR is funded by redirecting a small percentage of the budgets of agencies that spend $100 million or more on extramural R&D. Given that SOIL is intended to be relevant to all federal mission spaces, we recommend that SOIL be funded by a small fraction (between 0.1 and 1.0%) of the budgets of all agencies with $1 billion or more in total discretionary spending. This would yield about $15 billion to support SOIL in growing and connecting new TREEs in a vastly widened set of mission spaces. 


The risk is the opportunity cost of this budget reallocation to each funding agency. It is worth noting, though, that changes of 0.1–1.0% are less than the amount that the average agency sees as annual perturbations in its budget. Moreover, redirecting these funds may well be worth the opportunity cost, especially as an investment in solving the compounding problems that federal agencies face. By redirecting this small fraction of funds, we can keep agency operations 99–99.9% as effective while simultaneously creating a robust, interconnected, solutions-oriented R&D system.

Empower the Geothermal Earthshot: Solve the Climate Crisis with Earth’s Energy

Summary

As a result of human activity, greenhouse gas emissions are increasing so rapidly that climate disaster is imminent. To avoid catastrophe, all economic sectors––industry, agriculture, transport, buildings, and electricity––require immediate energy and climate policy solutions. Only with a resilient and renewable, bipartisan, clean, and reliable partner can America fully decarbonize its economy and avert the devastating effects of climate change. As America’s clean energy transformation proceeds, there is one energy technology up for the task across all these sectors––geothermal. 

Geothermal is the energy source naturally produced by the Earth. It is a proven technology with decades of utilization across the United States, including New York, Idaho, North Dakota, California, Arkansas, New Mexico, and everywhere in between.

Government agencies and academic institutions have already identified more than enough untapped Earth-powered energy in the United States alone to meet the nation’s energy needs while also achieving its emissions goals. In fact, the total amount of heat energy in the Earth’s crust is many times greater than the energy available globally from all fossil fuels. 

Despite these benefits, geothermal represented just 0.4% of total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation in 2021 and only 1% of the residential and commercial building heating and cooling market. What is holding geothermal back is a lack of policy attention at both the federal and state levels. Geothermal has been drastically underfunded and continues to be left out of energy, climate, and appropriations legislation. By acting as the primary facilitator and coordinator for geothermal technology policy and deployment, the U.S. government can significantly accelerate the clean energy transformation. 

Our Empowering the Geothermal Earthshot proposal is a multibillion dollar interagency effort to facilitate the energy revolution America needs to finally solve the climate crisis and complete its clean energy transformation. This top-down support would allow the geothermal industry to fully utilize the power of the free market, commercialize innovation into mass production, and scale technologies.

Challenge and Opportunity

Geothermal energy––clean renewable energy derived from the unlimited heat in the Earth––is a proven technology that can contribute to achieving aggressive climate goals but only if it gets much-needed policy support. Geothermal urgently requires the same legislative and executive attention, policy momentum, and funding that all other energy technologies receive. The Biden Administration as well as Republicans and Democrats in Congress need to lift up the profile of geothermal on par with other energy technologies if we are to reach net-zero by 2050 and eventually 24/7 carbon-free energy.

On day one of his administration, President Biden charged his National Climate Task Force to utilize all available government resources to develop a new target for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a result, in April 2021 the Biden Administration announced an aggressive new GHG target: a 50% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030. To meet this challenge, the administration outlined four high-priority goals:

Pie chart showing Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector in the U.S. in 2020. Transportation is responsible for 27%; Electricity, 25%; Industry, 24%; Commercial; Residential, 13%; Agriculture, 11%.
Figure 1.

Pie chart showing Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector in the U.S. in 2020. Transportation is responsible for 27%; Electricity, 25%; Industry, 24%; Commercial; Residential, 13%; Agriculture, 11%.

  1. Invest in clean technology infrastructure.
  2. Fuel an economic recovery that creates jobs.
  3. Protect our air and water and advance environmental justice.
  4. Do this all in America.

Geothermal energy’s primary benefits make it an ideal energy candidate in America’s fight against climate change. First, geothermal electricity offers clean firm, reliable, and stable baseload power. As such, it easily complements wind and solar energy, which can fluctuate and produce only intermittent power. Not only does geothermal energy offer more resilient and renewable energy, but––unlike nuclear and biomass energy and battery storage––it does so with no harmful waste by-products. Geothermal energy does not depend on extractive activities (i.e., mining) that have a history of adversely impacting the environment and Indigenous communities. The underlying energy source––the literal heat beneath our feet––is local, is 100% American, and has demonstrated gigawatt-scale operation since the 1980s, unlike every other prospective clean energy technology. Geothermal energy offers a technology that we can export as a service provider and manufacturer to the rest of the world to reduce global GHG emissions, increase U.S. energy independence, and improve the country’s economy and national defense. 

Additionally, climate change continues to change outside air temperatures and weather patterns impacting building energy consumptions (e.g., heating and cooling), which are expected to increase. Geothermal heating and cooling meets these demands by providing reliable and distributed electricity generation, winter heating, and summer cooling. Geothermal heating and cooling offer solutions to other economic sectors that produce harmful carbon and methane emissions. 

Getting to net-zero by 2050––and eventually to 24/7 carbon-free energy––is a community problem, a public sector problem that affects America’s public health, economic survival, and national security. We can get here if geothermal is provided the same opportunities that the government has afforded all other energy technologies.

Geothermal Energy: The Forgotten Energy Technology

Today, geothermal power production is at the same developmental stage that oil production was 100 years ago. Geothermal power production has been proven at gigawatt scale, but in a limited range of locations where conventional hydrothermal systems are easily accessible. Petroleum drilling in the United States began in 1859 and expanded first in places where oil was visible, easily identifiable, and quickly accessible. In the 150 years since, continuous market support from governments and societies has allowed the fossil fuel economy not just to continue but to expand through technology innovation. Fossil fuel technologies have matured to the point where engineers regularly drill seven to eight miles underground, drill in deep ocean water, and utilize efficient recovery technologies such as steam-assisted gravity drainage.

Geothermal carries the same potential to drive new technologies of energy production and enable huge increases in energy recovery and output. However, unlike the petroleum industry, geothermal energy has never received comparable and effective policy support from the federal and state governments to drive this needed technology development, innovation, and deployment. As a result, the geothermal industry has been left behind in the United States. 

Pie chart of Federal Energy Subsidies between 1950 and 2010, showing a plurality of subsidies going to oil, while only a small sliver to geothermal.
Figure 2.

Pie chart of Federal Energy Subsidies between 1950 and 2010, showing a plurality of subsidies going to oil, while only a small sliver to geothermal.

Ironically, the fact that geothermal technologies have a long and successful track record has kept them out of the “new technology” focus that has been central to clean energy transition policy discussions.

Other technologies (e.g., hydro, solar, hydrocarbons, nuclear, biofuels, and wind) receive tens of billions of dollars each year to develop a path to continued, preferred, and widespread use, which generates commercialization, scalability, and profit. However, similar investment strategies have not been dedicated to geothermal energy infrastructure development. 

The United States needs critical capital investments to reach the vast amount of untapped Earth energy scientists have identified, expand the range of places where geothermal resources are possible, and lower the cost of geothermal drilling and production. Public investment will promote technologies such as heating and cooling systems that use individualized geothermal heat pumps (GHP) or district thermal systems. Significant public investment is needed in electricity generation technologies such as closed-loop, deep super hot rock, and enhanced systems (EGS). And of course, public and private investments are needed to help manufacturing and agricultural processes switch from fossil fuels to geothermal.

Investing in Our Future: Empowering the Geothermal Earthshot

Thankfully, investing in America’s energy infrastructure is a priority of our current presidential administration. As indicated in the April 2021 White House Fact Sheet and supported by Executive Order 14057 and the Department of Energy (DOE) Enhanced Geothermal Earthshot announced in September 2022, the Biden Administration realizes the need to marshal federal resources in a coordinated effort.

However, to fully realize and build upon the administration’s clean energy objectives, this proposal urges a holistic approach to empower geothermal deployment. The Enhanced Geothermal Earthshot falls short of the effort required to empower geothermal and scale a solution to draw down the climate crisis because it focuses on a single geothermal technology and involves just one federal agency. Instead, a whole-of-geothermal approach that harnesses the power of the entire federal government is necessary to create ambitious, positive, and widespread changes in America’s energy landscape and subvert the current fossil fuel status quo. The following action plan will usher in the geothermal era and ensure the United States meets its climate objectives and completes the clean energy transformation.

Plan of Action

The Biden Administration must set the targets and the agenda, propose policy and tax support, negotiate for appropriations, and issue regulatory support that allows commercialization and deployment of every possible Earth-powered technology solution. These steps will set up the market conditions for the private sector to commercialize and scale these proven technologies and new innovations. 

Creating policies and programs to support geothermal applications and technologies will accelerate the clean energy transformation and end our dependence on hydrocarbons. The U.S. government can usher in a new age of clean, renewable, and local energy through a combination of innovation, programs, and institutionalization. These are outlined in the recommendations detailed below.

Recommendation 1. Empower a Holistic Geothermal Earthshot

The Biden Administration should build upon and broaden the Enhanced Geothermal Earthshot to reduce the cost of EGS by 90% to $45 per megawatt hour by 2035. The administration should set a target for geothermal heat pumps and district thermal systems to reach 35% of U.S. energy consumption by 2035 and electricity generation to reach 10% of energy consumption by 2035. These objectives are in response to the administration’s carbon reduction goals for 2030 and 2050. To begin this initiative, President Biden––joined by the Secretaries of Energy, the Interior, Commerce, Defense, and Agriculture, as well as special climate and environment envoys and advisors and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, among others—should formally usher in a reimagined and holistic Geothermal Earthshot that leverages a whole-of-government approach.

Recommendation 2. Institutionalize and Coordinate Earth Energy Support

Create the Office of Earth Energy (OEE) at DOE through the president’s annual budget proposal. The OEE’s mission will be to coalesce federal and state governments, familiarize the public, and support all types of Earth-powered energy technologies. 

Existing DOE offices such as ONE and OFECM offer a proven template from which to model OEE. Geothermal’s potential to address the climate crisis and become a significant part of the cooling/heating and electricity mix in the United States requires significant growth of support within the federal government. The organizational structure of the federal government is imperative to spearhead geothermal development. Raising the awareness and profile of geothermal within the government requires higher-level offices and more senior-level personnel supporting, evaluating, and studying the industry. The three DAS subject-matter designations represent the three overarching applications of geothermal technologies.

Interagency coordination should be led by a Senior Director for Earth-Powered Energy within the National Security Council (NSC). Programs and initiatives involve executive agencies and offices, including DOE, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget, NSC, Domestic Policy Council, Department of State, and EPA, among others.

Recommendation 3. Accelerate Geothermal Innovation

The following innovation accelerator concepts can help unlock technical hurdles and unleash private sector thinking to expand the reach of geothermal energy applications. The needed primary research fits into three broad categories: streamlining existing geothermal energy development and reducing risk, technology innovations to support massively scaling the potential range and total energy available from the Earth, and technical refinements to optimize every Earth energy application.

For example, work is needed to reduce technical risk and predictability in siting geothermal wells to make drilling a geothermal well as predictable and repeatable as it is for oil and gas wells today. Reduced risk and greater predictability is critical to private sector investment support. 

Commercial and residential heat pumps and district heating systems need R&D support to improve deployability in urban settings and to maximize both heating and cooling efficiency.

Enhanced geothermal systems—those that expand traditional hydrothermal power generation to less permeable locations—have received modest public sector support for several decades but need greater and more focused application of technologies that were developed for oil and gas during the fracing expansion.

Achieving massive scalability for geothermal power means developing technologies that can operate well beyond traditional hydrothermal system locations. Closed-loop and other advanced geothermal technologies promise access to energy anywhere there is heat, but all are currently at the earliest stages of their technology lifecycles and operating without major public sector research support 

All of these use cases would benefit from a concerted, government-funded research effort, shared access to innovation and best practices, and a clear path to commercialization.

(A) Propose in the president’s annual budget a geothermal bureau, program, or focus area within the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) dedicated to promoting all types of geothermal innovations, from low- to high-temperature cooling/heating and electricity applications. ARPA-E “advances high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early for private-sector investment.” Use this program to support research into new or expanded ways to use Earth energy that are too early or speculative for private sector investment and bring them to the point of commercialization.

(B) Create a new venture capital entity to accelerate commercialization of geothermal innovations by aggressively investing in geothermal-related technologies. Model it on the existing In-Q-Tel organization that has been very successful in driving national security technology development. This would be a new venture capital funding entity focused on commercializing Earth power technology innovation from U.S. government-funded research and development initiatives (e.g., the ARPA-E projects described above) and on exploring technology solutions to problems that remain unsolved across government, industry, and society yet are critically important for dealing with climate change. 

(C) Create a public-private Geothermal Center of Excellence (GeoExcel) at a DOE national lab. A sustained and robust public-private research program is essential for innovation, and many agencies leverage private sector investment through publicly funded centers of excellence. Currently, geothermal research is conducted haphazardly and incoherently across U.S. government agencies and DOE national labs such as Idaho National Lab, Sandia National Labs, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, U.S. Geological Survey, National Renewable Energy Lab, Brookhaven National Lab, Argonne National Lab, National Energy Technology Lab, and many more. To augment research within its national lab apparatus, DOE should establish GeoExcel to develop the technology necessary to produce low-cost geothermal power, cooling/heating, and mineral recovery such as lithium, manganese, gold, and silica. GeoExcel would also conduct education outreach and workforce development. GeoExcel would be a multibillion-dollar public-private partnership competitively awarded with multiyear funding. It would interact closely with one or two DOE national labs as well as federal, state, regional, and municipal government agencies, research universities, community college, nonprofits, and the private sector.

Recommendation 4. Create Earth Energy-Specific Programs and Policies

The following programs, funding, and regulatory suggestions should be proposed in the president’s budget and funded or authorized through congressional appropriations or moving authorization legislation. Some recommendations can be achieved through updating rules and regulations.

Programmatic: DOE Demonstration Projects

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) appropriated $20 billion for demonstration projects, including those for hydrogen, direct air capture, and large-scale carbon capture. This funding provides vital capital to incentivize, commercialize, and scale public-private partnerships using the benefits of the free market to build major infrastructure projects that will expand clean energy and advance the energy transformation. The IIJA did not direct any funding specifically for geothermal technologies; yet geothermal provides the critical clean firm and renewable baseload energy that complements intermittent technologies, can be coupled to produce green hydrogen, and empowers direct air capture infrastructure. As part of its criteria for selecting applications for demonstration project funding, Congress should clarify and/or DOE should expressly include and announce that geothermal technology will receive significant demonstration appropriations funded through the IIJA.

Funding: Risk Mitigation and Management

Commercial investment in new technology hinges on risk assessment. Removing risk from new geothermal ventures will facilitate faster commercial-scale deployment and, in turn, lower risk as more projects are completed. Propose a $2 billion risk mitigation fund within the DOE’s OEE specific for district cooling/heating and electricity drilling and exploration projects. This geothermal risk mitigation fund would provide loans to cover a portion (i.e., 60%) of the drilling cost that can be converted into grants if development of the geothermal field is unsuccessful. To minimize losses, a premium can be charged to ensure a positive return based on risk and set limits on total wells covered and monetary claims to limit losses. 

This risk mitigation and management structure has been successfully implemented for geothermal projects in Kenya, Iceland, and Costa Rica, countries in the top five of geothermal energy production per capita. To further reduce risk, the OEE should only consider projects that have already completed some exploratory drilling. Before administering commercial debt financing, the OEE should also require these projects to receive concessional risk mitigation support prior to advancing with additional drilling, district cooling/heating system construction, or power plant construction.

Funding: Rural Development

Propose a $450 million Department of Agriculture Rural Development grant program to transition agricultural and industrial cool/heat applications from burning fossil fuels to Earth energy generation. This funding can be used to decarbonize over two million cooling and heating systems used in the agricultural sector in rural America. Agricultural activities such as food processing, pulp and paper manufacturing, vegetable dehydration, dairy processing, aquaculture, greenhouses, processing sugar, and much more can transition to the clean energy economy.

Funding: Community Development

Propose a $750 million grant program to be implemented by the Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration. Grants will be made for high- and low-temperature geothermal developers to partner with municipalities, electric or energy cooperatives, community choice aggregators, and public utilities servicing America’s communities to develop geothermal resources. This funding level could generate between 375 and 500 megawatts of electricity to power between 280,000 and 375,000 households or over 3,500 megawatts of cooling/heating energy and decarbonize two to three million households and commercial businesses around the country. It is important that the clean energy transition equitably and justly empower rural American communities along with urban and suburban communities.

Funding: Tribal Development

Fund a $275 million grant program through the proposed OEE at DOE or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) at DOI to support tribal nations to develop geothermal resources on their lands, such as electricity generation, industrial and agricultural decarbonization, residential and commercial GHPs or district cooling/heating installations, and recreation. This funding could be used to generate up to 183 megawatts of electricity or 1,375 megawatts of thermal energy for use on tribal lands. Native Americans used geothermal resources for thousands of years before European settlement. Today, tribal lands are the backbone of mineral exploitation, agriculture, industry, and power production in America. These OEE or BIA funds will facilitate the clean energy transition on tribal lands using geothermal resources.

Funding: Military Construction

Propose a $2.6 billion program for distributed geothermal power and cooling/heating projects on military installations across the United States and abroad. The Air Force recently selected two military installations to deploy geothermal energy. In an increasingly contested clean energy economy, we should build secure and resilient military infrastructure using local Earth energy technologies directly on military installations. DOD can use the funding to generate a combination of up to 1,733 megawatts of electricity or 13,000 megawatts of thermal energy to offset its massive carbon footprint from 500 fixed installations, which includes 300,000 buildings. This investment will help all service branches and DOD reach the Biden Administration’s renewable energy generation goals. This funding begins the vital transformation to secure the energy infrastructure of military installations through energy independence and protect our national security interests at home and abroad. Energy and mineral security are paramount for our national security. 

Funding: Smithsonian Institution

Geothermal energy is a story of the forgotten energy technology. Propose $25 million for the Smithsonian Institution to memorialize and narrate the history and future of geothermal energy in the United States. Museums familiarize and educate policymakers and the public about the past, present, and future of America. Permanent exhibitions in museums along the National Mall in Washington, DC, will help promote the potential of geothermal resources to policymakers as is already done with other energy technologies featured by the Smithsonian Institution.

Funding: Workforce Development and Community Colleges

The future of the clean energy transformation rests in the education of Americans and a smooth workforce transition of oil and gas professionals into the clean energy economy. Community colleges play a vital role in this transition. Allocate $300 million for the Department of Education to award grants to technical and vocational programs to develop and build geothermal-specific skill sets and needs into curriculums. These geothermal programs will build upon and expand existing programs such as drill rig crew member training programs like that at Houston Community College in Texas or cooling/heating apprenticeship programs like those at Mercer Community College in New Jersey or Foothills College in California. The objective of these grants is to amplify the capabilities of geothermal technologies and deepen the knowledge of professionals who install, sell, market, or manufacture products that could transition to geothermal technologies and away from burning fossil fuels.

Funding: Convert Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells

Expand the authorities of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund within the EPA to include the conversion of existing and abandoned oil and gas fields into geothermal wells. The LUST Trust Fund is financed by a 0.1 cent tax on each gallon of motor fuel sold nationwide. Oil and gas wells can be retrofitted or reworked to provide geothermal cooling/heating for low-to-no-carbon direct use opportunities or generate power. Due to the years of development at these sites, the reservoir is well understood, thereby lowering risks and cost of exploration. Alternatively, this program could be a direct grant program funded through the proposed OEE within DOE or through EPA.

Regulatory: Geothermal Permitting Application Processing

Applications to conduct geophysical exploration are currently reviewed by the district office within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at DOI that has geographic jurisdiction over the specific geothermal project. Yet many district offices are unfamiliar with the technical aspects of geothermal development, causing significant delays in the review process. Fund $15 million for a national office with a dedicated geothermal team to develop training materials and standard operating procedures and to provide technical support to district offices to ensure timely review of geothermal power and cooling/heating projects on federal lands. Programs that cross-train staff will also improve the ability to coordinate between different agencies and offices.

Regulatory: Categorical Exclusions for Geothermal Projects

Several activities involved in geothermal resource development have no significant environmental effects yet lack an existing categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act. BLM’s regulations include only one categorical exclusion for geophysical exploration when no temporary or new road construction is required (43 CFR 4 3250); however, it does not cover resource confirmation activities. As a consequence, federal agencies take several months to approve what could be done in a matter of days via a categorical exclusion. Congress has recognized the need to improve the permitting process for geothermal production and introduced several bills to authorize categorical exclusions (i.e., S. 2949, S. 2824, and H.R. 5350).

Tax Support: Cooling and Heating

Propose a 40% tax incentive for residential and commercial building installation of geothermal heat pumps and extend the lifespan of these incentives through 2050, the date set to reach net zero emissions economy-wide. Additionally, the Biden Administration should publicly clarify or amend Presidential Determination No. 2022-18 of Section 303 of the Defense Production Act to include geothermal heat pumps.

Tax Support: Power

Geothermal electricity generation has traditionally been capital-intensive, and investment decisions depend in part on the predictability of tax incentives. This trend is best illustrated by the 1978 passage of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). This legislation’s tax consequences created more favorable conditions and a more robust market for renewable-energy suppliers. As a result, PURPA allowed the United States to rapidly increase its geothermal capacity throughout the 1980s.

Rapid deployment and growth after the passage of PURPA illustrates the impact of public policy on geothermal innovation and investment. However, renewable energy tax incentives provided in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had intermittent energy and battery storage in mind when drafted. These tax incentives do not adequately support geothermal power development due to sunset clauses. The president’s budget as well as congressional appropriators and authorizers should extend the availability of the 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and 2.6 cents per kWh for the Production Tax Credit (PTC) using a market approach akin to that proposed in the bipartisan Energy Sector Innovation Credit (ESIC) Act authored by Senators Whitehouse (D-RI), Crapo (R-ID), Barrasso (R-WY), Bennet (D-CO), and Hickenlooper (D-CO) as well as Representatives Reed (R-NY) and Panetta (D-CA). 

Chart showing eletricity generation capacity from geothermal development in the U.S. from 1970 to 2020. In that time, geothermal generation capacity has grown from 0 megawatts to nearly 4,000 megawatts.
Figure 3.

Chart showing eletricity generation capacity from geothermal development in the U.S. from 1970 to 2020. In that time, geothermal generation capacity has grown from 0 megawatts to nearly 4,000 megawatts.

The ITC and PTC are written with intermittent energy technologies in mind. Geothermal requires a tax incentive structure that does not sunset after two or 10 years but rather automatically scales down credits as geothermal technologies’ market penetration ramps up. The ESIC scale down should begin when geothermal reaches 10% market penetration instead of 2%. This empowers the free market to play a major role in commercialization and scaling geothermal technologies and provides much-needed predictability and planning for the geothermal industry. It also ensures taxpayer dollars do not subsidize market-mature technologies as they currently do for all other energy technologies such as hydrocarbon, solar, wind, and nuclear projects.

Conclusion 

We can find geothermal energy just below our feet, literally everywhere. It provides 24/7 carbon-free power, cooling, and heating that is safe, resilient, local, and American. A public-private partnership that leverages public-sector investment with private-sector know-how can make geothermal technology a viable replacement for hydrocarbons and a powerful solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We must empower and broaden the Enhanced Geothermal Earthshot through the programs and recommendations listed in this plan of action. In doing so, a reimagined and holistic Geothermal Earthshot can leverage the position and influence of the federal government through a whole-of-government approach, allowing the free market to seize on this momentum to scale and commercialize geothermal energy solutions. This will expand the rapidly emerging technologies that make widespread Earth-energy harnessing possible. As the need for firm, scalable, renewable, stable baseload energy only becomes more urgent, these geothermal innovations make the possibility of continuous, reliable, global clean energy a reality.

Frequently Asked Questions
Many clean energy options require critical minerals that are difficult to obtain or come with security concerns. Does geothermal energy carry this same drawback?

No. Unlike some other clean energy technologies that require vital minerals extracted or refined in authoritarian countries including Russia and China, Earth energy technologies and innovations reduce the clean energy economy’s reliance on these foreign-extracted minerals. Resilience from domestic geothermal energy secures our supply chains, conserves from destruction vital forests and habitats from Brazil to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and generates high-paid and sought-after union jobs here in the United States.

In the switch to geothermal energy, how do we ensure that the American workforce isn’t left behind?

The clean energy transformation brings with it a workforce transition. Geothermal technologies offer displaced fossil fuel workers employment opportunities that respect their professional experiences, maintain their community heritage, and preserve their place-based sense of self. Mechanical engineers, drill rig apprentices, drill supervisors, geophysicists, and project managers from the oil, gas, and coal industries all possess skills and training transferable to geothermal jobs—typically, six-figure salaried jobs. 


Workers are tired of hearing “trust us” refrains from politicians, the private sector, and government agencies that claim a new job will be found for them. These jobs need to be ready before an individual’s job disappears and not rely on potential tourism or the prospect of relocation to another community.

Do rural communities stand to benefit from geothermal energy production?

Geothermal provides solutions to the oil and gas workforce as it transitions to a clean energy economy and protects the integrity and honor of rural American communities once prominent in the fossil fuel economy such as Eddington in Maine, Page in Arizona, Colstrip in Montana, River Rouge in Michigan, St. James in Louisiana, and Winfield in West Virginia. All of these communities have had environmental and public health issues due to hydrocarbons or are experiencing major loss of employment due to closing hydrocarbon-burning power plants.


Rural America is poised to win big in the ongoing clean energy transformation once policymakers harness the vast geothermal potential everywhere under our feet.

Why is addressing residential and commercial cooling needs such a concern, and how can geothermal energy help?

Recent heat waves around the world, with record temperatures that threaten food production and even human survival, highlight an important fact: with global warming comes an increasing need for sustainable cooling strategies. 


 


Traditional air-conditioning removes dangerous heat from buildings and provides life-saving shelter and comfort. Unfortunately, air-conditioning systems worsen two other problems.


 


First, heat is not so much removed or eliminated as it is moved from one location to another. When a building interior is cooled, that thermal energy is transferred to the exterior surroundings. In dense urban areas, this effect increases local temperatures, exacerbating the heat wave in places that are already heat islands as a result of urbanization. 


 


Second, air-conditioning requires significant electricity, placing additional stress on electric grids and generation systems that are already struggling to decrease fossil fuel dependence and cope with the electrification needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 


 


Thankfully, this increased demand can be partially offset by daytime solar generation. But nighttime cooling has become a necessity in many places. Geothermal technology has a major role to play here too. Geothermal (i.e., ground source) heat pumps are far more efficient than their air-source counterparts, especially at high and low temperatures. 



A ground-source cooling system can reduce building interior temperatures without heating the surrounding air space. But the capital costs for these systems are high. Public-sector support is needed via tax credits and the Defense Production Act to incentivize adoption now plus simultaneous investments in technology to streamline implementation and decrease cost over time.

What can geothermal energy provide that solar and wind energy cannot?

Intermittent energy technologies have proven they can scale and compete with fossil fuels. But wind and solar, along with battery storage, only get us part of the way through the clean energy transformation. These technologies have made enormous strides in cost-effectively replacing fossil fuels for power generation, but their intermittent nature means they cannot get us “the last mile” to total electrification. They also cannot provide scalable and distributed cooling/heating benefits to decarbonize the built environment or agriculture processes that produce harmful emissions by burning fossil fuels.

How much power and heat can geothermal produce?

A report published by a consortium of scientists and led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate conventional geothermal could provide 100,000 megawatts of electricity in the United States––enough energy to power 16 million U.S. households––while the Department of Energy estimates geothermal heating and cooling could reach 28 million U.S. households through the use of geothermal heat pumps. These are conservative estimates using proven technologies. Innovative technologies will exponentially grow these estimates with the right and much needed policy support.

What are the agriculture, industry, and manufacturing applications of geothermal?

Because geothermal energy is a reliable, carbon-free, and renewable source of power, it has wide-ranging applications that meet America’s key agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial needs, including aquaculture farming; dairy production; processing pulp and paper; mineral recovery for use in battery, wind turbine, and solar panel manufacturing; vegetable processing and drying; and zero-carbon electricity generation, to name a few. Find out more uses of geothermal on page 22 in the DOE’s GeoVision report.

Establishing White House Initiative for STEM Educational Equity and Excellence at the U.S. Department of Education

Summary

Now more than ever, children need—and deserve—access to a well-rounded and high-quality education that affirms their identity and provides them with the critical thinking and problem-solving skills that will enable them to access economic opportunities and contribute to solving global challenges. A well-rounded education must include science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (STEM)1, and especially STEM learning experiences both in and out of school that provide students with joyful, hands-on, problem/project-based learning. 

The U.S. Department of Education has an incredible opportunity to support our nation’s youth to succeed and thrive. As the acute phase of the pandemic has receded, we must turn our attention from reopening schools to reimagining learning experiences, including a critical focus on youth who have been traditionally undersupported in STEM.  

Recent legislation has underscored that the Department of Education is often left out of the conversations around STEM education. With historic amounts of funds left unspent, the department must step up its leadership on STEM education.  

We are missing out on the brilliance of many young people, especially girls and children of color, because they are not afforded the STEM opportunities they deserve.  This lack of access has far reaching impacts on our national security and economy in addition to preventing individual young people from having access to skills to enable them to pursue a lifetime of choices and opportunities. 

There has been some exciting momentum around STEM educational equity. On Monday December 12th, the Biden-Harris administration announced the formation of the STEM Opportunity Alliance.  This announcement followed quickly on the heels of the Department of Education’s YOU Belong in STEM, which is an important step to show the Department’s support for STEM learning.  

Given the recent momentum and the hundreds of non-government entities stepping up to address STEM equity and excellence, now is the time for the Department of Education to implement and design a sustainable structure to codify a focus on STEM education to build on the momentum from the. The Biden-Harris Administration should sign an executive order to create a new White House Initiative for STEM Educational Equity and Excellence (STEM E3) to ensure our nation’s youth are provided with a truly well-rounded education full of rigorous and joyful STEM learning experiences. This new initiative would be charged with both ensuring that we close persistent equity gaps in STEM education and that we find continual ways to ensure our children are learning skills that are relevant to their lives and their communities and enable them to access economic opportunities.

Challenge and Opportunity

The events of the last few years have placed increased urgency on our need to address the critical access and equity gaps that have persisted for far too long. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored our need for a scientifically literate citizenry. The recent passage of the CHIPS + Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act have created decades of employment opportunities—but too many of our nation’s children will be excluded from them unless we significantly invest in providing a strong, well-rounded STEM education to every child.

Despite students’ interest in STEM and natural proclivity toward problem-solving, too many have been excluded from STEM learning experiences both in and out of school. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results consistently show that students of color, students who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, students with disabilities, and English language learners are not well served by our current system. On the 2018 NAEP Technology and Engineering Literacy Assessment, 13 percent of 8th-grade students with disabilities scored at or above proficient compared to 53 percent of students without a disability. A much greater percentage of white 8th-graders scored at or above proficient (59%) compared to Black students (23%), Hispanic students (31%), and American Indian/Alaska Native students (29%). On the 2018 TEL assessment, 30 percent of students who are eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch scored at or above proficient compared to 60 percent of those who are not eligible for the program. These equity gaps also play out in math, with 12th-grade students of color, students with disabilities, and English language learners lagging far behind their white peers in leaving high school proficient in math. 

While progress is being made to provide more students with high-quality STEM learning during out-of-school time, access is unequal. Children whose families have lower incomes are often the ones missing out on these engaging and enriching opportunities. It is estimated that some  25 million children would like to access an afterschool program but unare able to access any program, let alone a STEM-focused one.

We must change this reality quickly. Prioritizing STEM education must be an urgent priority. Luckily, the U.S. government has built up significant infrastructure to better align federal resources to support this issue. The Federal Coordination on STEM (FC-STEM) effort aligns agencies to support the implementation of key priorities related to STEM. And states, districts, schools, and their partners have a historically high number of resources available due to the multiple rounds of COVID relief support appropriated by Congress. For example, the American Rescue Plan provided $122 billion to support PreK–12 education—and much of these resources are unspent.

While STEM is prioritized across federal agencies, we need a consistent and sustained focus from the U.S. Department of Education on STEM Educational Equity and Excellence that prioritizes supporting states, districts, and their partners to use their COVID relief dollars to design and implement more and better STEM educational experiences and prioritize the needs of students who have long been excluded from these opportunities. STEM education needs to be prioritized consistently, and the U.S. Department of Education must establish a structure that persists between administrations and can support deploying financial resources, technical assistance and other tools to support states, districts, and their partners to increase access to, participation in, and success in STEM learning both in and out of school. 

On September 9, 2022, Vice President Harris called on the U.S. Department of Education to come up with a plan to staff a STEM Office in the U.S. Department of Education. 

This is a critical first step, and it must be quickly followed by an executive order to stand up a new White House Initiative for STEM Educational Equity and Excellence (STEM E3).

Plan of Action

President Biden and Vice President Harris should sign an executive order2 establishing a White House Initiative for STEM Educational Equity and Excellence (STEM E3) that could stand alongside the Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives; White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans; White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics; White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities; and the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaskan Native Education.

STEM E3 would be structured similarly to the other White House Initiatives. It would be housed in the Office of the Secretary in the U.S. Department of Education and would be staffed by a combination of appointees and civil servants, bolstered with field leaders in STEM education through temporary assignments like fellows or individuals part of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program (IPAs) to bring in expertise on critical priorities such as informal learning, equity, data science, etc.

Given the ever-changing nature of STEM education and workforce, STEM E3 should be structured as a nimble hub of talent that can staff up or down depending on the high-priority issue areas. For example, a fellow could be placed to focus on PreK–12 math acceleration given the urgent need to recover from lost instructional time, or fellows could provide subject matter expertise in PreK-12 STEM teaching and learning and/or education policy. Subject-matter experts could be provided from existing programs such as the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellows, FAS Impact Fellows, and STEM Next Opportunity Fellows.

We recommended beginning with an appointed executive director and at least two civil servants, one who would lead on PreK-12 and one who would lead on postsecondary, higher education, and workforce connections. It is critical to ensure a mix of appointed leadership and civil servant staff along with fellows who can support the sustainability of the initiative between administration changes. Structuring this as a White House Initiative would also enable greater collaboration since so many of the established initiatives have STEM as a priority.

The executive order would outline the charge of STEM E3 and establish the Secretary of Education as its chair. The Secretary would appoint an executive director. The initial charges for STEM E3 would include developing a STEM plan for the department that:

The executive order would also codify the Department’s participation in the Federal Coordination on STEM Education (FC-STEM) as the primary vehicle for supporting interagency work on STEM education and give it the discretion to add Interagency Working Groups on necessary and applicable topical areas, for example, supporting early grades science instruction and increasing access to STEM learning out of school.

The executive order would also establish a Presidential Advisory Commission on Advancing STEM Educational Equity and Excellence made up of external advisors appointed by the President to advise on key issue areas and to support implementation of STEM work and priorities.

The estimated cost to the Department is about $5 million annually to support three full-time employees, as well as travel and events.

Conclusion

A relatively modest investment of just $5 million per year has the potential to impact generations of children, families, and their communities by increasing access to, participation in, and success in STEM learning. The time is now to establish a permanent and consistent focus on STEM educational equity and excellence at the U.S. Department of Education.

Frequently Asked Questions
How much will this proposal cost?

It is estimated that to support a small team (3 FTEs plus Fellows) it would cost approximately $5M annually. This cost would cover salary, benefits, travel, technology needs and also a modest events and programming budget. 

Why should ED play a larger role in STEM Education?

The US Department of Education’s mission is to “promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” STEM education is critical for supporting students’ global competitiveness.  As outlined above, STEM education is not equally accessible to all students. The Department has a critical role to play in supporting STEM education and closing persistent access gaps in STEM.

Why a White House Initiative versus staffing a team or office within the Office of the Deputy Secretary or Office of the Undersecretary?

STEM education cuts across PreK-12 and higher education priorities.  Existing White House Initiatives have prior experience coordinating efforts across the department and across student learning experiences from cradle to career.  Standing up a new White House Initiative would enable a more holistic and crosscutting view of STEM at the Department.  It would also support further coordination between the other White House Initiatives as well. STEM is a priority in the governing documents of many of the current White House Initiatives and it would support collaboration and coherence to have a White House STEM Initiative with the same reporting structure.

How could STEM E3 be sustained across administrations?

One of the critical structure elements of STEM E3 is that the Executive Director of the Initiative is a politically appointed role, enabling each administration to select someone that aligns with their priorities and campaign promises.  There should be at least one career staff member to provide continuity and sustainability across administrations.  The flexible capacity of Fellows or IPAs allows the team to bring in expertise aligned to the priorities of each administration.

Strengthening and Diversifying the Biomedical Research Workforce Through a National Institutes of Health and Department of Education Collaboration

Summary

Our nation’s health and the future of scientific research depend on greater inclusion of underrepresented individuals in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields—and in the biomedical sciences in particular. Our nation’s scientists are a homogeneous group: majority white, despite the U.S. population rapidly increasing in diversity. A biomedical science workforce that reflects our nation’s demographics is required to address growing equity gaps and distinct health needs that accompany our diversifying country. This cannot be accomplished without inclusive and practical biomedical educational programs that begin at the PreK–12 level and continue through all levels of higher education, emphasizing Minority Serving Institution (MSI) research programs. 

The lack of diversity in biomedical science is unacceptable, especially for an administration deeply committed to equity across its policy agenda. The Biden-Harris Administration must act to address this issue in the biomedical sciences at all levels: from PreK-12 education to research careers. Using the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration’s program Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program (MSIPP) as a model, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should establish a Biomedical Research Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program (BioMSIPP) to build a sustainable pipeline between NIH’s institutes and centers and biomedical science students at MSIs. 

Educational interventions are also crucial at earlier stages of education than higher education. BioMSIPP would also include a grant program that funds participating MSIs to produce PreK-12 educational resources (i.e. SEPA tools) and to create a high school to undergraduate bridge program to further link educational interventions with biomedical research careers. We also propose that the Department of Education’s White House Initiative for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), and other MSIs, create community-based engagement plans to assess the needs of individual communities and generate data to aid in future programming. Simultaneously, the Department of Education (ED) should launch a Bright Spots campaign to highlight efforts taking place across the country, building examples for policymakers as roadmaps to bolster biomedical science education and excellence.

Challenge and Opportunity

On June 25, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order establishing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) as national priorities. This order authorized the reestablishing of a coordinated government-wide DEIA Initiative and Strategic Plan. From there, over 50 federal agencies, including ED, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and NIH, released equity action plans, which can be strengthened by supporting meaningful partnerships with MSIs.

MSIs offer broad access to higher education for students who would otherwise not have the opportunity, such as underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities, low-income students, first-generation-to-college students, adult learners, and other post-traditional or nontraditional students. Furthermore, these institutions set an example of DEIA through diverse leadership, administration, and faculty, which is not seen at predominately white institutions (PWIs). The federal government should support institutions that foster diverse talent and the pipelines that feed these institutions through MSI-guided programming for PreK–12 students.

Despite a marginal increase in racially diverse doctorate graduates, there is still a substantial gap in the number of historically marginalized groups that enter and stay in the biomedical enterprise. While there are training programs (see Table 1) to diversify the biomedical sciences at federal agencies such as NIH and NSF, these programs have failed to substantially change the national percentage of racially diverse biomedical scientists. This is in part because the structure of these programs often does not support MSIs in building research capacity, an essential aspect in raising the research classification of an institution determined partly by research spending. In addition, current federal programs do not effectively capture the full spectrum of diverse students since they leave out engagement at the PreK–12 years. 

Early exposure to STEM careers is essential to increased STEM participation and success. In fact, getting children involved in STEM-related activities at a young age has been demonstrated to bolster enrollment in STEM degrees and participation in STEM-related careers. Programs focused on STEM education at the PreK–12 level encourage learning in engineering, technology, and computer-based skills. We propose a focused approach in the field of biomedical science. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, STEM-related occupations are estimated to grow by 10.8 percent in the next 10 years, and biomedical science is estimated to see exponential growth at 17 percent. A sustainable and diverse STEM ecosystem requires education interventions focused on biomedical sciences at an early age. Currently, interventions primarily focus on undergraduate and graduate students, leaving out formative PreK–12 years (Table 1). ED has programs to immerse PreK–12 students into STEM and to support STEM capacity at MSIs through the Title III Higher Education Act, but none focused specifically on biomedical science. 

Department or AgencyProgramPreK-12 programs in the biomedical sciences? 

National Institutes of Health		Maximizing Access to Research CareersNo
National Institutes of HealthMinority Biomedical Research Support ProgramYes (supplement)
National Institutes of HealthResearch Infrastructure in Minority Institutions No
National Institutes of HealthHigh School Scientific Training and Enrichment Program 2.0Yes (high school seniors in DC, VA, or MD only)
National Science FoundationCenters of Research Excellence in Science and Technology Yes (supplement)
National Science FoundationHBCU Research Infrastructure for Science and EngineeringNo
National Science FoundationHispanic Serving Institutions ProgramNo
National Science FoundationDiscovery Research Pre-KYes
Department of DefenseResearch and Education Program for Historically Black Colleges and Universities / Minority-Serving InstitutionsNo
Department of DefenseHistorically Black Colleges and Universities / Minority Serving Institution Science ProgramNo
Department of DefenseHispanic Serving Institutions ProgramNo
Table 1. Federal Programs that Support STEM at MSIs and the Availability of PreK–12 Biomedical Science Programs

Plan of Action

The U.S. Department of Education and the National Institutes of Health should collaborate to create a program that strengthens the biomedical science pipeline. NIH and ED are committed to diversity and inclusion in their respective strategic plans. Leveraging their combined resources to strengthen and diversify the biomedical sciences would work toward the DEIA goals set in their strategic plans and prioritized by the Biden-Harris Administration at large. More importantly, it would take an essential step toward creating a biomedical workforce that represents and serves the diverse makeup of the U.S. population. 

We propose a new program to address the disparities in the biomedical science education pipeline through NIH and ED collaboration by:

Recommendation 1. Establish a Biomedical Research Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program (BioMSIPP) to serve as a direct pipeline from MSIs to the research capacity resources at the Department of Education and the research laboratories at the National Institutes of Health.

The Department of Energy established the Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program to build a “sustainable pipeline between the Department of Energy’s (DOE) sites/labs and minority-serving institutions in STEM disciplines.” This program is an example of direct measures to invest in university research capacity and workforce development through relationships between the federal government and institutions that serve historically marginalized populations. The program consists of a network of DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) national laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and MSIs through enrichment activities that span from PreK–12 to the postdoctoral level. We recommend that ED and NIH collaboratively fund and implement a similar program that includes a network of highly-funded NIH laboratories, nonprofit organizations, MSIs, and PreK–12 schools that serve historically marginalized communities.

The program should be implemented under ED, with support from NIH’s research resources and laboratories. The Higher Education Act of 2022 requires ED to provide grants for activities such as research capacity building and institutional support. Further, research capacity grants funded through ED allow for hiring administrative staff to support project management. Opening the capability of funding to include staff to support project management circumvents the eligibility requirement where the sponsoring institution must assure support for the proposed program, a possible barrier to entry. 

Recommendation 2. The Department of Education’s White House initiatives for HBCUs, HSIs, and other MSIs should create community-based engagement plans to assess individual community needs and generate data to aid in future programming. 

Diversity in the biomedical sciences is an ever-evolving conversation. Currently, the White House Initiatives for HBCUs and HSIs have working groups that collaborate with other federal agencies to develop best practices to diversify the STEM workforce. First, we charge the White House to expand these working groups to include the entire spectrum of MSIs, as well as to include representation from NIH, providing a crucial biomedical science perspective. Next, the working groups should write a report on best practices to engage with historically marginalized PreK–12 school districts in the biomedical sciences, and in particular, approaches to train teachers in teaching biomedical sciences to historically underrepresented students. 

Recommendation 3. The Department of Education, along with the National Institutes of Health, should launch a Bright Spots campaign to highlight efforts that are taking place across the country to bolster biomedical science education and excellence.

Bright Spots campaigns highlight transformative work done by school districts, nonprofits, and federal agencies in education. NIH and ED both have repositories for science education resources. The NIH funds the Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) program, which awards grants to create resources that target state and national PreK–12 standards for STEM teaching and learning and are rigorously evaluated for effectiveness. Likewise, ED funds the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement program to aid MSIs in enhancing their STEM education programs.

We propose that ED and NIH launch a campaign similar to the Bright Spots in Hispanic Education Fulfilling America’s Future spearheaded by the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. Moreover, we charge both agencies with disseminating the campaign via webinars, conference exhibitions, and outreach to educational societies.

Conclusion

ED and NIH are at the forefront of our nation’s biomedical science enterprise and have access to funding, cutting-edge research, and technology that could greatly enhance research and education at every level of the educational spectrum, specifically by increasing diversity. To ensure that the biomedical workforce reflects our nation, we must increase the research capacity and resources available to MSIs, promote collaborative research and technology transfer between investigators from MSIs and NIH, and provide key educational resources for student enrichment and career development. Through these recommendations, we hope to close the achievement gap and propel PreK–12 students into achieving careers in the biomedical sciences.

Frequently Asked Questions
Why Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs)?

Addressing national priorities in innovation demands a larger-scale effort to support incoming students’ education and workforce training. MSIs are an underutilized and underfunded resource for training and strengthening the biomedical research workforce.

How does this proposal differ from existing programs to increase diversity in STEM?

Existing programs at the DoD, NIH, and NSF are limited either to the undergraduate level or to a specific geographic location. Our recommended program is designed for Pre–K to the postdoctoral level, like MSIPP.

How much will this program cost?

We estimate that BioMSIPP will cost about the same as the MSIPP program, which currently costs the Department of Energy $38.8 million.

How does this ensure that students from across the country have access to NIH-funded institutions?

Saving 3.1 Million Lives a Year with a President’s Emergency Plan to Combat Acute Childhood Malnutrition

Summary

Like HIV/AIDS, acute childhood malnutrition is deadly but easily treatable when the right approach is taken. Building on the success of PEPFAR, the Biden-Harris Administration should launch a global cross-agency effort to better fund, coordinate, research, and implement malnutrition prevention and treatment programs to save millions of children’s lives annually and eventually eliminate severe acute malnutrition.

Children with untreated severe acute malnutrition are 9 to 11 times more likely to die than their peers and suffer from permanent setbacks to their neurodevelopment, immune system, and future earnings potential if they survive. Effective programs can treat children for around $60 per child with greater than 90 percent recovery rates. However, globally, only about 25–30 percent of children with moderate and severe acute malnutrition have access to treatment. Every year, 3.1 million children die due to malnutrition-related causes, and 45% of all deaths of children under five are related to malnutrition, making it the leading cause of under-five deaths. 

In 2003, a similar predicament existed: the HIV/AIDS epidemic was causing millions of deaths in sub-Saharan Africa and around the world, despite the existence of highly effective treatment and prevention methods. In response, the Bush Administration created the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR has proven a major global health success, saving an estimated 30 million lives since 2003 through over $100 billion in funding. 

The Biden-Harris Administration should establish a President’s Emergency Plan for Acute Childhood Malnutrition (PEPFAM) in the Office of Global Food Security at the State Department to clearly elevate the problem of acute childhood malnutrition, leverage new and existing food security and health programs to serve U.S. national security and humanitarian interests, and save the lives of up to 3.1 million children around the world, every year. PEPFAM could serve as a catalytic initiative to harmonize the fight against malnutrition and direct currently fragmented resources toward greater impact.

Challenge and Opportunity

United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2.2 outlines goals for reducing acute malnutrition, ambitiously targeting global rates of 5 percent by 2025 and 3 percent (a “virtual elimination”) by 2030. Due to climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and conflicts like the war in Ukraine, global rates of malnutrition remain at 8 percent and are forecast to become worse, not better. Globally, 45.4 million children suffer from acute malnutrition, 13.6 million of whom are severely acutely malnourished (SAM). If current trends persist until 2030, an estimated 109 million children will suffer from permanent cognitive or physiological stunting, despite the existence of highly effective and relatively cheap treatment. 

Providing life-saving treatment around the world serves a core American value of humanitarianism and helps meet commitments to the SDGs. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) recently announced a commitment to purchase ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF), a life-saving food, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, demonstrating a prioritization of global food security. Food security is also a priority for the Biden Administration’s approach to national security. The newly released National Security Strategy dedicates an entire section to food insecurity, highlighting the urgency of the problem and calling on the United States and its global partners to work to address acute needs and tackle the extraordinary humanitarian burden posed by malnutrition. The Office of Global Food Security at the U.S. Department of State also prioritizes food security as an issue of national security, leading and coordinating diplomatic engagement in bilateral, multilateral, and regional contexts. At a time when the United States is competing for its vision of a free, open, and prosperous world, addressing childhood malnutrition could serve as a catalyst to achieve the vision articulated in the National Security Strategy and at the State Department.

“People all over the world are struggling to cope with the effects of shared challenges that cross borders—whether it is climate change, food insecurity, communicable diseases, terrorism, energy shortages, or inflation. These shared challenges are not marginal issues that are secondary to geopolitics. They are at the very core of national and international security and must be treated as such.” 

U.S. 2022 National Security Strategy 

Tested, scalable, and low-cost solutions exist to treat children with acute malnutrition, yet the platform and urgency to deliver interventions at scale does not. Solutions such as community management of acute malnutrition (CMAM), the gold standard approach to malnutrition treatment, and other intentional strategies like biofortification could dramatically lower the burden of global childhood malnutrition. Despite the 3.1 million preventable deaths that occur annually related to childhood malnutrition and the clear threat that food insecurity poses to U.S. national security, we lack an urgent platform to bring these low-cost solutions to bear. 

While U.S. government assistance to combat food insecurity and malnutrition is a priority, funding and coordination are not centralized. The U.S. has committed over $10 billion to address global food insecurity, allocating dollars to USAID, Feed the Future, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and others. Through the recently signed Global Malnutrition Prevention and Treatment Act of 2021, Congress took a step forward by authorizing USAID to have greater authority in targeting nutrition aid to areas of greatest need and greater flexibility to coordinate activities across the agency and its partners. In accordance with the agency’s Global Nutrition Coordination Plan, Congress also established the Nutrition Leadership Council, chaired by the Bureau for Resilience and Food Security to coordinate and integrate activities solely within USAID. Multilateral and private sector partners also dedicate resources to food security: the Gates Foundation committed $922 million toward global nutrition and food systems, and UNICEF created a Nutrition Match Fund to incentivize funding to combat severe acute malnutrition. These lines of effort are each individually important, but could be more impactful if aligned. A President’s Emergency Plan for malnutrition could harmonize these separate funding streams and authorities and mobilize multilateral and private sector partners to prevent and treat malnutrition and food insecurity.

Drawing on the strengths of the PEPFAR model to combat HIV/AIDS at scale while driving down costs for treatment, PEPFAM could revolutionize how resources are spent while scaling sustainable and cost-effective solutions to childhood malnutrition, saving millions of lives every year. Under this model, significantly more—and, optimally, all—children suffering from acute malnutrition would have access to treatment. This would make dramatic progress toward global food security and U.S. national security priorities.

Plan of Action

President Biden should declare a global childhood malnutrition emergency and announce the creation of the President’s Emergency Plan for Acute Childhood Malnutrition. Using PEPFAR as a model, PEPFAM could catalyze cost-effective solutions to save millions of lives every year. When President Bush mobilized support for PEPFAR in his 2003 State of the Union, he declared, “We must remember our calling, as a blessed country, is to make the world better,” and called for interagency support for an “Emergency Plan” for HIV/AIDS relief and Congressional support to commit $15 billion over the next five years to launch PEPFAR.

President Biden should follow a similar path and announce PEPFAM in a similarly high-profile speech—the 2023 State of the Union address, for example—to elevate the problem of acute childhood malnutrition to the American people and the U.S. government and offer a clear call to action through an executive order directing an interagency task force to develop a 24-month strategic plan within 180 days. The initial stages of PEPFAM and corresponding executive branch activities can be guided by the following recommendations.

Recommendation 1. Name a White House PEPFAM czar and task the Office of Global Food Security at the State Department to coordinate cross-agency support, intended personnel, agencies, and roles involved.

A Senior Advisor on the White House’s National Security Team at the Office of Science and Technology Policy would serve as the White House czar for PEPFAM and would (1) steer and lead the initiative, (2) organize an interagency task force, and (3) coordinate PEPFAM’s strategic focus by engaging multiple federal agencies, including: 

The Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator and Health Diplomacy at the State Department (OGAC) manages the high-level execution of PEPFAR by dictating strategic direction and coordinating agencies. The PEPFAM executive order will set up a similar infrastructure at the Office of Global Food Security at the State Department to: 

USAID is also well positioned to play a leading role given its current support of global food and nutrition programming. Several of USAID’s portfolios are central to PEPFAM’s aims, including Agriculture and Food Security, Nutrition, Global Health, Water and Sanitation, and Humanitarian Assistance. The offices that support these portfolios should provide technical expertise in the realm of food and nutrition, existing connections to good program implementers in various country contexts, monitoring and evaluation capacity to track implementer’s progress toward goals, and strategic direction. 

The Office of Global Food Security and the PEPFAM czar should delegate authority for the program across government agencies, private partners (e.g., Gates Foundation), and multilateral organizations (e.g., World Food Programme). The Office would coordinate interagency action to support PEPFAM’s implementation and evaluation as well as identify agencies that are best placed to lead each component of the effort. 

Recommendation 2. Present initial, strategic action plan to build and sustain PEPFAM.

The PEPFAM interagency task force, described above, should develop a strategic plan targeting an initial set of actions to align with existing global food security and childhood malnutrition priorities and identify opportunities to redirect existing resources toward scalable, high-impact solutions like CMAM. USAID already invests millions of dollars each year in initiatives like Feed the Future that support global food security while overseeing cross-agency implementation and harmonization of the Global Food Security Strategy. These efforts and funding should be rolled under the umbrella of PEPFAM to better align treatment and prevention interventions, strategically coordinate resources across the government, and improve a focus on impact.  

Recommendation 3. Announce discrete, evidence-driven goals for PEPFAM.

These goals include:

Recommendation 4. Establish a coordination framework between PEPFAM, multilateral agencies, and private sector partners to mobilize and harmonize resources.

The Office of Global Food Security and USAID should build on current momentum to bring multilateral and private partners behind PEPFAM. USAID has recently announced a series of partnerships with large philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation, Aliko Dangote Foundation, and Eleanor Crook Foundation (to name a few), as well as other countries and multilateral organizations at UNGA. Much like with PEPFAR, PEPFAM could rely on the support of external partners as well as federal funds to maximize the impact of the program. 

Recommendation 5. Create an international council to set technical standards so that money goes to the most effective programs possible. 

The Office of Global Food Security, USAID, and PEPFAM should spearhead the development of an international technical council (that could be housed under the UN, the World Health Organization, or independently) to set standards for malnutrition prevention and treatment programming. Malnutrition treatment is already cost-effective, but it could be made even cheaper and more effective through innovation. Even when promising new interventions are identified, the process of disseminating and scaling of existing, proven best practices innovations doesn’t function optimally. 

Treatment guidelines issued by the WHO and national governments are slow to be updated, meaning that highly effective interventions can take years to be adopted and, even then, are adopted in a piecemeal fashion. Other implementers may be too wedded to their operational practices to consider making a change unless standards are updated or innovations from other implementers are actively socialized. 

An international technical council would disseminate and scale best practices discovered in the processes of implementation and research. If funders like the U.S. government commit to only funding organizations that promptly adopt these standards, they can maximize the impact of existing funding by ensuring that every dollar goes toward the most cost-effective ways of saving lives. This body could ideally speed the sharing and implementation of practices that could allow more children to be treated effectively, at lower costs.

Recommendation 6. Direct existing child malnutrition assistance through PEPFAM to ensure coordinated impact and seek permanent funding from Congress for PEPFAM.

The executive order will create the momentum to establish PEPFAM, but legislative authorization is required to make it sustainable. The strategic plan should lay out efforts to build Congressional support for funding legislation.

Congress will play a key role in PEPFAM implementation by appropriating funds. Under PEPFAR, Congress appropriates money directly to OGAC at the Department of State, which disburses it to other agencies. In 2003, Congress supported President Bush’s request for $15 billion in PEPFAR funding by passing the Leadership Act that authorized yearly contributions to the Global Fund from 2004 to 2008. Congress has subsequently reauthorized the program through FY2023. Each year, the OGAC presents a request of funding needed for recipient countries and programs to the President, who then forwards the request to Congress for reauthorization. The PEPFAM process should mirror this structure.

At the UNGA in 2022, President Biden announced over $2.9 billion in new assistance to address global food insecurity, building on the $6.9 billion in U.S. government assistance already committed in 2021. Last year, President Biden also announced a $10 billion, multiyear investment to promote food systems transformation, including a $5 billion commitment to Feed the Future specifically. Instead of fractured funding to different initiatives, these funds should be harmonized under PEPFAM, with dollars allocated to the PEPFAM task force to create a centralized two-year strategy to combat malnutrition. 

Conclusion 

This program would have a series of positive effects. First, and most obviously, PEPFAM would save up to 3.1 million lives every year and bring together resources and goals around food security that are currently fractured across the federal government, increasing the effectiveness of U.S. aid dollars globally. Second, PEPFAM, like PEPFAR, would make existing interventions more effective by unlocking cost savings and innovation at scale. Third, at a time when the United States is competing for its vision of a free, open, and prosperous world, PEPFAM could play a key role in achieving the mission of the National Security Strategy.
Over time, more comprehensive treatment coverage and prevention efforts could also lead to the elimination of severe acute malnutrition by preventing cases and catching those that approach moderate acute malnutrition or have already fallen into it. PEPFAM would save an estimated 27.9 million lives over the same time scale as PEPFAR. Millions of children die every year while a cheap and effective solution exists. PEPFAM could change that.

Frequently Asked Questions
How does PEPFAM compare to PEPFAR in terms of funding and effectiveness at scale?

From 2003 to present day, PEPFAR has spent billions of dollars and saved millions of lives. This table compares the estimated costs and outcomes of PEPFAR with PEPFAM. Because malnutrition treatment is cheaper than HIV/AIDS treatment and there is a higher caseload, there is a high-leverage opportunity to save lives.






























  PEPFAR (HIV/AIDS) PEPFAM (Childhood Malnutrition)
Average Cost of Treatment per Person $367,134 $60
Number of Cases 38.4 million 45.4 million
Program Cost (estimated yearly) $5.7 billion (USD) $4 billion (USD)
Lives Saved (estimated yearly) 1.6 million  1.5 million 

 


Costs for PEPFAM are difficult to project precisely, because the program is likely to become more cost-effective over time as efforts to prevent cases start to work and research and development result in cheaper and more effective treatment. The projections above operate under the most pessimistic assumptions that no improvements to cost or effectiveness are made over time. This graph illustrates a similar the expansion of PEPFAR services, even under flat budgets thanks to this same self-improvement over time. 


PEPFAR funding graph


Source: Department of State


PEPFAM is similar: more comprehensive treatment coverage and prevention efforts could lead to the elimination of severe acute malnutrition by preventing cases and catching those that approach moderate acute malnutrition or have already fallen into it. That means that the program should become cheaper over time, as more cases are identified earlier when they are cheaper to treat, and more cases are prevented, both by prevention programs and general economic development. Research and innovation can similarly cut down on the costs and improve the effectiveness of malnutrition treatment and prevention over time.

Why should the U.S. declare food security and childhood malnutrition a global emergency?

The lack of attention to childhood malnutrition in non-emergency/non-crisis zones results in millions of preventable deaths each year. Declaring an emergency would put pressure on other organizations, media outlets, and NGOs to devote more resources to food security. The international community is keen to respond to food crises in emergency contexts, especially among children. USAID and the UN recently committed millions of dollars for the procurement of ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) to combat emergency risks like the war in Ukraine and conflicts in places like Ethiopia. But the unfortunate truth is that even outside of newsworthy emergencies, acute malnutrition remains a daily emergency in many places around the world. Malnutrition rates are just as high in states and countries that neighbor emergency zones as in the crisis-hit places themselves, partially as a result of movement of internally displaced people. While funding acute malnutrition in relatively mundane circumstances (e.g., poverty-stricken states in Nigeria) may make less headlines than emergency food aid, it’s equally needed.

How much U.S. global health funding is currently put toward nutrition?

Currently, only 1 percent of U.S. global health spending is put toward nutrition. Only 25–30 percent of children globally have access to treatment as a result of underfunded programs and a subsequent lack of resources and geographic coverage.

What is the current state of investment in quality treatment implementation?

Treatment is only effective if implemented well. Right now, funding goes to a range of programs that fail to meet Sphere Standards of 75 percent recovery rates. Large-scale funders like UNICEF have internal commitments to spend a certain amount of their budgets on ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) a year, which means that their hands are tied when working in contexts with poor implementing partners (e.g., corrupt governments). At the same time, NGOs like Alliance for International Medical Action and Médecins Sans Frontières achieve recovery rates of more than 95 percent. More investment in quality implementation capacity is needed; otherwise, scarce existing resources will continue to be wasted.

Is there a robust evidence base for malnutrition prevention?

There’s a growing movement to implement interventions that catch children on the border of malnutrition or improve conditions that lead to malnutrition in the first place (e.g., infant and young child feeding circles, exclusive breastfeeding counseling). These programs are exciting, but the evidence base for impact at this point is minimal. It’s much cheaper to catch a child before they fall into malnutrition than it is to treat them, not to mention the health benefits to the child from averting the disease. More work needs to be done to test and validate the most cost-effective prevention methods to ensure that only those that actually generate impact are scaled.

What agencies play a role in PEPFAR?

See: Institute of Medicine, Evaluation of PEPFAR

Where are current efforts to combat malnutrition focused?

Childhood malnutrition sits at the intersection of public health and nutrition/agricultural programming. Current efforts are spread across the U.S. government and multilateral partners with little coordination toward desired outcomes. Funding that hypothetically targets childhood malnutrition can come from a variety of players in the U.S. government, ranging from Department of Defense to USAID to the Department of Agriculture. While some coordination through programs like Feed the Future exist at USAID, these programs are not yet results- or outcome-based. Coordination should involve measuring the impact of collective aid across agencies on an outcome like recovery rates or the number of children suffering from malnutrition in a given geographic area.

What outcomes does PEPFAM target?

Digital Ethics for All: Implementing a National Digital Framework for K–12 Education

Summary 

With the growing prominence of technology and social media in our lives, children of all ages should be made aware of and trained on the ethics of responsible technology usage. Creating a National Digital Ethics Framework for PreK–12 students will enable them to think critically, behave responsibly, and maintain mental health wellness in a digitally transforming world.

Technology is at the forefront of spreading information: news is read on mobile devices, teachers use applications and open-source software in classrooms, and social media defines the lives and status of youth. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased technology use among tweens (8–12 years) and teens, with millions of students using digital entertainment such as TikTok, Instagram, and streaming services. But social media is not the only way students are introduced early to technology; online meetings through applications such as Zoom and Webex became the face of communication, and internet access is required for homework, assignments, and learning in all levels of schooling.

We are not adequately preparing our youth to create a positive digital footprint or have basic internet safety awareness. Implementing internet safety and digital ethics curriculum is imperative, and there is no better time to start than now.

A National Digital Ethics Framework would allow students not just to follow protocols and procedures but also to think critically, behave responsibly, and maintain mental health wellness in a digitally transforming world. This can go further to include concepts like leaving a digital footprint, wherein students engage with technology and media to create content, seek information, communicate ideas, and use open-source platforms in a meaningful and safe manner.

Challenge and Opportunity

Children start interfacing with technology as early as 3–4 years old, and they become increasingly dependent on it through their formative years as digital and social media platforms become ever more indispensable tools for navigating the world. Kids aged 8 to 12 spend an average of six hours per day using entertainment media. By the time they’re teenagers, 95 percent of youth in the United States will have their own mobile device and will, on average, spend almost nine hours a day texting, playing games, posting to social media, watching videos, and more. As tweens and teens move into the middle and high school years, they have ongoing, 24/7 access to friends

and peers via apps and mobile devices, with 45 percent of teens saying they’re online “almost constantly.”

On average, parents allow independent internet usage at 8 years old, and the average age that children sign up for social media is 12.6 years old. In 2021, 59 percent of U.S. tween/teenage students had been cyberbullied or threatened online; we cannot expect a 12-year-old to know how to deal with these dangers on their own.

Despite our increasing reliance on technology, it is not reflected in the learning experiences of PreK–12 students. Digital ethics and internet safety need to be heavily emphasized and implemented in the classroom. This can include simple practices like how to distinguish useful information from spam, using reputable and legitimate sites for references, and understanding copyright issues while quoting information and images from the internet. Digital ethics is a critical 21st-century skill that can be taught alongside computer science courses in schools or in conjunction with coursework that requires students to engage with the internet while seeking information.

Students need increased fluency in information literacy, cyberbullying prevention, online safety, digital responsibility, and emotional well-being. There is currently an internet safety requirement for schools under the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) to “educate minors about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social networking websites, in chat rooms, and cyberbullying awareness.” The requirements state that this education can be held through school assemblies or via presentations provided by Netsmartz. The presentations highlight important topics, but they are not particularly specific or relevant to today’s environment. Simple internet safety such as avoiding clicking on links sent through spam emails, how and when to use the “block” button on social media platforms, and how to create smart passwords are not covered in the current curriculum.

Developing a federal framework will give teachers a clear path to implementation. The vagueness of current internet safety education requirements means that this education is easily overlooked or not presented thoroughly. Integrating this curriculum into CIPA would allow for easier implementation while leveraging existing resources. In order to implement this at the PreK–12 level, teachers will have to be trained on how to deliver this curriculum. Instead of trying to restrict social media usage and heavily monitor or block internet activity, schools should consider this as an opportunity to help students navigate a digitally transforming world in an informed way.

Plan of Action

Recommendation 1. In order to achieve the goal of digital ethics for all learners, the federal government can take a number of steps to keep kids safer in online settings.

At a federal level, CIPA is a great avenue to authorize these standards. The act currently applies its internet safety education requirements to “schools and libraries that receive discounts for Internet access through the E-rate program,” which makes certain communications tools affordable for these institutions. Although this does not cover all schools in the United States, schools with less ability to finance technology have the greatest need for digital literacy and internet safety education. By implementing this curriculum under CIPA’s current education suggestions (which are guidelines, not a specific way to conduct internet safety education), then it is likely to be implemented in schools that qualify for CIPA discounts.

Recommendation 2. As the digital ethics framework rolls out, agencies should work with critical stakeholders.

Efforts should directly engage elementary and middle school students and their teachers in designing frameworks, professional learning, and so on. Other stakeholders include state-level legislators that will be responsible for operationalizing and implementing the framework and school district boards that approve learning in each school district/school. Teachers are also key stakeholders, as they will have to receive and implement the information given to them as listed in the standards and may be subject to training.

Recommendation 3. Allocate federal funding to NIST to develop the Digital Ethics Framework and provide temporary staff through fellows with subject matter expertise on how to develop a digital ethics framework.

It will require approximately $1 million to develop the framework. The other actions as part of Digital Ethics for All utilize existing funds but could be bolstered and more quickly executed with the addition of subject matter experts through fellow placements or other staffing mechanisms. It is estimated that one fellow at NSF and one fellow at the U.S. Department of Education would cost approximately $500,000 annually in addition to the above costs. 

Conclusion

Having access to a curriculum rooted in digital ethics, internet safety, and technology career paths is essential for students growing up in a society where access to technology is introduced earlier than the concept of computer science. Although computer science curriculum is being widely pushed for at the high school level, we must make sure to educate elementary and middle school youth as well. A National Digital Ethics Framework is not just an advantage—it is imperative in order to protect our students and their future.

Frequently Asked Questions
Who are the key members needed to develop this curriculum?

Organizations that are developing curriculums centered around digital tools and computer science, such as Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) and CSforAll, could be tapped in order to pull topics or ideas from the standards they have already created. Their standards have been implemented in various states, so leveraging their existing resources will make it easier to develop a national curriculum that is suited for approval and implementation.

Which experts should be tapped to develop appropriate standards that are likely to be approved?

Subject matter experts are crucial for this initiative. Their perspective will be important to determine which standards have the best chance of being approved at the state and local level and how CIPA’s current curriculum can be modified. Subject matter experts will be fellows from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education. The National Institute of Standards and Technology will also be consulted.

Would it be easier to implement this at a federal level or a state level?

Due to the incorporation of this curriculum into CIPA’s current standards, it would be quicker to implement at a federal level. However, if digital ethics cannot be incorporated into CIPA, it could also be addressed at a state level, similar to the initiatives run by CSTA and CSforAll, where their independent curriculum and standards are adopted by states that want to implement technology standards.

What qualifies you to develop a guideline to implement this curriculum?

In my own experience as a student and as the CEO and founder of Likeable STEM (an educational technology training company), I have observed that students lack resources to teach them about simple topics such as phishing scams, how to write appropriate emails, cybersecurity/password creation, social media profiles, etc. For the past six years, through Likeable STEM, I have taught these crucial topics to elementary, middle, and high school students and created independent curriculum on digital ethics.

Does this curriculum have bipartisan legislative appeal?

Computer science education has been a bipartisan concern, with both the Democratic and Republican Parties introducing educational principles to support STEM growth and computer science career opportunities. However, one problem area would be the current crackdown on educational topics in states such as Florida. Digital ethics does not have roots in either political party, so it should be likely to be supported by both parties.

Investing in Digital Agriculture Innovation to Secure Food, Yields, and Livelihoods

Summary 

Smallholder farmers and their households account for more than 2 billion people—almost one-third of humanity and more than two-thirds of the world’s poor. Smallholder farmers are the economic engine of local livelihoods and critical local sources of nutrition and food security. Their persistently low agricultural productivity is a major driver of global poverty and food insecurity. Many known agricultural practices and technologies could improve farmers’ yields and incomes, but systemic barriers and information gaps hamper their adoption. Today, with the rapid growth of mobile phone penetration throughout the developing world, we are in a unique moment to deploy new digital technologies and innovations to improve food security, yields, and livelihoods for 100 million smallholder farmers by 2030.

To spearhead USAID’s leadership in digital agriculture and create a global pipeline from tested innovation to scaled impact, USAID should launch a Digital Agriculture for Food Security Challenge, establish a Digital Agriculture Innovation Fund, and convene a Digital Agriculture Summit to jump-start the process. 

Challenge and Opportunity

Two-thirds of the world’s ultra-poor depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Low productivity growth in this sector is the biggest obstacle to poverty reduction and sustainable food security. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2022 report on The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World estimates that around 2.3 billion people—nearly 30% of the global population—were moderately or food insecure in 2021 and as many as 828 million were affected by hunger. Improving smallholder farmer incomes and local food security is critical to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, particularly ending poverty (SDG 1) and eliminating hunger (SDG 2). Yet smallholder farmers typically harvest only 30%–50% of what they could produce. Smallholder farmers are particularly at risk from climate-driven shocks, and fundamental changes to growing conditions make climate adaptation a key challenge to improving and securing their yields.

More than $540 billion is spent in the agricultural sector each year through public budgets, mostly subsidies on farm inputs and outputs. Of USAID’s over $1 billion annual budget for agricultural aid, much attention is given to direct nutrition and economic assistance as well as institution and market-shaping programs. By contrast, efforts in climate adaptation and food security innovation like the Feed the Future Innovation Labs and Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate) rely on traditional, centralized models of R&D funding that limit the entry and growth of new stakeholders and innovators. Not enough investment or attention is paid to productivity-enhancing, climate-adaptation-focused innovations and to translating R&D investment into sustainable interventions and scaled products to better serve smallholder farmers. 

USAID recognizes both the challenge for global food security and the opportunity to advance economic security through evidence-driven, food-system level investments that are climate-driven and COVID-conscious. As directed by the Global Food Security Act of 2016, the U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) 2022–2026 and its counterpart Global Food Security Research Strategy (GFSRS) highlight the potential for digital technologies to play a pivotal role in the U.S. government’s food system investments around the world. The GFSS describes “an ecosystem approach” that prioritizes the “financial viability of digital products and services, rather than one that is driven predominantly by individualized project needs without longer-term planning.” A core part of achieving this strategy is Feed the Future (FTF), the U.S. government’s multi-agency initiative focused on global hunger and food security. Administrator Samantha Powers has committed $5 billion over five years to expand FTF, creating an opportunity to catalyze and crowd in capital to build a thriving, sustainable global agriculture economy—including innovation in digital agriculture—that creates more resilient and efficient food systems.

However, USAID stakeholders are siloed and do not coordinate to deliver results and invest in proven solutions that can have scaled sustainable impact. The lack of coordination means potential digital-powered, impactful, and sustainable solutions are not fostered or grown to better serve USAID’s beneficiaries globally. USAID’s Bureau for Resilience and Food Security (RFS) works with partners to advance inclusive agriculture-led growth, resilience, nutrition, water security, sanitation, and hygiene in priority countries to help them accelerate and protect development progress. USAID’s FY 2023 budget request also highlights RFS’s continued focus on supporting “partner countries to scale up their adaptation capacity and enhance the overall climate resilience of development programming.” The FTF Innovation Labs focus on advanced agricultural R&D at U.S. universities but do not engage directly in scaling promising innovations or investing in non-academic innovators and entrepreneurs to test and refine user-centered solutions that fall within FTF’s mandate. USAID’s emerging Digital Strategy and Digital Development Team includes specific implementation initiatives, such as a Digital Ecosystem Fund and an upcoming Digital Vision for each sector, including agriculture. USAID is also planning to hire Digital Development Advisors, whose scope aligns closely with this initiative but will require intentional integration with existing efforts. Furthermore, USAID country missions, where many of these programs are funded, often do not have enough input in designing agriculture RFPs to incorporate the latest proven solutions and digital technologies, making it harder to implement and innovate within contract obligations.

This renewed strategic focus on food security through improved local agricultural yields and climate-resilient smallholder farmer livelihoods, along with an integration of digital best practices, presents an opportunity for USAID and Feed the Future. By using innovative approaches to digital agriculture, FTF can expand its impact and meet efficiency and resilience standards, currently proposed in the 2022 reauthorization of the Global Food Security Act. While many known agricultural practices, inputs, and technologies could improve smallholder farmers’ yields and incomes, adoption remains low due to structural barriers, farmers’ lack of information, and limitations from existing agriculture development aid practices that prioritize programs over sustainable agricultural productivity growth. Today, with the rapid pace of mobile phone penetration (ranging between 50% and 95% throughout the developing world), we are in a unique moment to deploy novel, emerging digital technologies, and innovations to improve food security, yields, and livelihoods for 100 million smallholder farmers by 2030.

There are many digital agriculture innovations – for example digital agricultural advisory services (DAAS, detailed below) – in various stages of development that require additional investment in R&D. These innovations could be implemented either together with DAAS or as stand-alone interventions. For example, smallholder farmers need access to accurate, reliable weather forecasts. Weather forecasts are available in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but additional work is needed to customize and localize them to farmers’ needs and to communicate probabilistic forecasts so farmers can easily understand, interpret, and incorporate them in their decision-making. 

Similarly, digital innovations are in development to improve farmers’ linkages to input markets, output markets, and financial services—for example, by facilitating e-subsidies and mobile ordering and payment for agricultural inputs, helping farmers aggregate into farmer producer organizations and negotiate prices from crop offtakers, and linking farmers with providers of loans and other financial services to increase their investment in productive assets.

Digital technologies can also be leveraged to mobilize smallholder farmers to contribute to climate mitigation by using remote sensing technology to monitor climate-related outcomes such as soil organic carbon sequestration and digitally enrolling farmers in carbon credit payment schemes to help them earn compensation for the climate impact of their sustainable farming practices.

Digital agricultural advisory services (DAAS) leverage the rapid proliferation of mobile phones, behavioral science, and human-centered design to build public extension system capacity to empower smallholder farmers with cutting-edge, productivity-enhancing agricultural knowledge that improves their food security and climate resilience through behavior change. It is a proven, cost-effective, and shovel-ready innovation that can improve the resilience of food systems and increase farmer yields and incomes by modernizing the agricultural extension system, at a fraction of the cost and an order of magnitude higher reach than traditional extension approaches.

DAAS gives smallholder farmers access to on-demand, customized, and evidence-based agricultural information via mobile phones, cheaply at $1–$2 per farmer per year. It can be rapidly scaled up to reach more than a hundred million users by 2030, leading to an estimated $1 billion increase in additional farmer income per year.

USAID currently spends over $1 billion on agricultural aid annually, and only a small fraction of this is directed to agricultural extension and training. Funding is often program-specific without a consistent strategy that can be replicated or scaled beyond the original geography and timeframe. Reallocating a share of this funding to DAAS would help the agency achieve strategic climate and equity global food security goals. 

Scaling up DAAS could improve productivity and transform the role of LMIC government agricultural extension agents by freeing up resources and providing rapid feedback and data collection. Agents could refocus on enrolling farmers, providing specialized advice, and improving the relevance of advice farmers receive. DAAS could also be integrated into broader agricultural development programs, such as FAO’s input e-subsidy programs in Zambia and Kenya.
DAAS: A highly scalable tool to achieve global food security and climate resilience

Plan of Action

To spearhead USAID’s leadership in digital agriculture and create a global pipeline from tested innovation to scaled impact, USAID, Feed the Future, and its U.S. government partners should launch a Digital Agriculture for Food Security Challenge. With an international call to action, USAID can galvanize R&D and investment for the next generation of digitally enabled technologies and solutions to secure yields and livelihoods for one hundred million smallholder farmers by 2030. This digital agriculture moonshot would consist of the following short- and long-term actions:

Recommendation 1: Allocate $150 million over five years to kickstart the Digital Agriculture Innovations Fund (DAI Fund) to fund, support, and scale novel solutions that use technology to equitably secure yields, food security, and livelihoods for smallholder farmers. 

The fund’s activities should target the following:

The fund’s investment priorities should align with stated GFSS and GFSRS objectives, including solutions focused on climate-smart agricultural innovation, enhanced nutrition, and food systems, genetic innovation, and poverty reduction. Program activities and funding should coordinate with FTF implementation in strategic priority countries with large agricultural sectors and mature, low-cost mobile networks such as Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Nigeria, and Pakistan. It should also collaborate with the FTF Innovation Lab and the AIM for Climate Initiative networks.

Recommendation 2: Convene the Digital Agriculture Summit to create an all-hands-on-deck approach to facilitate and accelerate integrated digital agriculture products and services that increase yields and resilience. 

USAID will announce the dedicated DAI Fund, convening its interagency partners—like the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Development Finance Corporation (DFC), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), US Africa Development Foundation (USADF) as well as philanthropy, private sector capital, and partner country officials and leaders to chart these pathways and create opportunities for collaboration between sectors. The Summit can foster a community of expertise and solidify commitments for funding, in-kind resources, and FTF country partnerships that will enable DAI Fund solutions to demonstrate impact and scale. The Summit could occur on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly to allow for greater participation and collaboration with FTF country representatives and innovators. Follow-up activities should include:

Conclusion

With the exponential adoption of mobile phones among smallholder farmers in the past decade, digital agriculture innovations are emerging as catalytic tools for impact at an unprecedented scale and social return on investment. Devoting a small percentage (~2%–5%) of USAID’s agricultural aid budget to DAAS and other digital agriculture innovations could catalyze $1 billion worth of increased yields among 100 million smallholder farmers every year, at a fraction of the cost and an order of magnitude higher reach than traditional extension approaches.

Achieving this progress requires a shift in strategy and an openness to experimentation. We recommend establishing a Digital Agriculture Innovation Fund to catalyze investment from USAID and other stakeholders and convening a global Digital Agriculture Summit to bring together subject matter experts, USAID, funders, and LMIC governments to secure commitments. From our experience at PxD, one of the world’s leading innovators in the digital agriculture sector, we see this as a prime opportunity for USAID to invest in sustainable agricultural production systems to feed the world and power local economic development for marginalized, food-insecure smallholder farmers around the world.

More from Jonathan Lehe, Gautam Bastian, and Nick Milne can be found at Precision Development.

Frequently Asked Questions
What might a commitment from the Digital Agriculture Summit look like?

Using the reach and power of the US government and its leaders as a platform to convene, multi-sector stakeholders can be brought together to outline a common agenda, align on specific targets, and seek commitments from the private sector and other anchor institutions to spur collective, transformational change on a wide range of issues aligned to the goals and interests of the federal agency and Administration’s priorities. External organizations respond to these calls-to-action, often leading to the development of partnerships (formal and informal), grand challenges, and the building of new coalitions to make financial and in-kind commitments that are aligned with achieving the federal government’s goals. A commitment could be modeled after how the State Department’s convened the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves:



  • a financial contribution (e.g.) the U.S. pledged nearly $51 million to ensure that the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves reaches its ‘100 by 20,’ which calls for 100 million homes to adopt clean and efficient stoves and fuels by 2020.

  • shared expertise: the organization mobilizes experts in a variety of issues: gender, health, security, economics, and climate change to address significant risk factors. The U.S. will also offer assistance to implement cookstoves.

  • research and development: the U.S. is committed to an applied research and development effort that will serve as the backbone of future efforts in the field that includes analyzing health and environmental benefits of using clean stoves, developing sustainable technologies, and conducting monitoring to ensure success of the Alliance’s goals. 

How should the Challenge be designed? What existing models could it mimic?

USAID is a leader in the US government in running open innovation challenges and prizes. Other U.S. government agencies, foreign government aid agencies, and philanthropies have also validated the potential of open innovation models, particularly for technology-enabled solutions. USAID’s Grand Challenges for Development (GCDs) are effective programmatic frameworks that focus global attention and resources on specific, well-defined international development problems and promote the innovative approaches, processes, and solutions to solving them.


Conceived, launched, and implemented in coordination with public and private sector partners, Grand Challenges for Development (see list below) emphasize the engagement of non-traditional solvers around critical development problems. The Grand Challenges for Development approach is a complement to USAID’s current programming methods, with each GCD is led by experts at the bureau level. These experts work directly with partners to implement the day-to-day activities of the program. The Grand Challenges for Development programs show how the power of the framework can be leveraged through a variety of modalities, including partnerships, prizes, challenge grant funding, crowdsourcing, hack-a-thons, ideation, and commitments. The Digital Agriculture for Food Security Challenge could mimic a GCD program like Saving Lives at Birth by providing consistent funding, resources, and energy toward new meaningful, cost-effective breakthroughs to improve lives where solutions are most needed.

Why should USAID and the U.S. Government lead on digital agriculture rather than national/local governments, the private sector, or other stakeholders?

Information provision, including DAAS, is a difficult product for private sector entities to deliver with a sustainable business model, particularly for smallholder farmers. The ability and willingness to pay for such services is often low among resource-poor smallholder farmers, and information is easily shareable, so it is hard to monetize. National or local governments, on the other hand, have an interest in implementing digital solutions to complement in-person agricultural extension programs and subsidies but tend to lack the technical capacity and experience to develop and deliver digital tools at scale. 


USAID has the technical and institutional capacity to provide digital agriculture services across its programs. It has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural extension services over the past 60 years and has gained a strong working knowledge of what works (and what doesn’t). Digital tools can also achieve economies of scale for cost relative to traditional in-person agriculture solutions. For instance, in-person extension requires many expenses that do not decrease with scale, including fuel, transportation, training, and most importantly the paid time of extension agents. 


One estimate is that extension agents cost $4,000 to $6,000 per year in low-income countries and can reach between 1,000 to 2,000 farmers each—well above the World Bank recommended threshold of 500 farmers per agent—bringing annual costs to $2–$6 per farmer per year. This estimate assumes a farmer-to-agent ratio well above the World Bank’s recommended threshold of 500:1. In other contexts, it has been estimated as high as $115. We estimate a cost-effectiveness of $10 in increased farmer income for every $1 invested in programs like DAAS, which is an effective return on American foreign development assistance.

What is the long-term sustainability and scaling model for digital agriculture solutions?

Digital solutions require not only the up-front cost of development and testing but also maintenance and upkeep to maintain effectiveness. Scaling these solutions and sustaining impact requires engaged public-private partnerships to reduce costs for smallholder famers while still providing positive impact. Scaling also requires private capital – particularly for new technologies to support diffusion and adaptation –  but is only unlocked by de-risking investments by leveraging development aid.


As an example, PxD engages directly with national governments to encourage adoption of DAAS, focusing on building capacity, training government staff, and turning over systems to governments to finance the operation and maintenance of systems into perpetuity (or with continued donor support if necessary). For instance, the State Government of Odisha in India built a DAAS platform with co-financing from the government and a private foundation, scaled the platform to 3 million farmers, and transitioned it to the government in early 2022. A similar approach could support scale across other geographies—especially given USAID’s long-standing relationships with governments and ministries of agriculture.

How does a digital-enabled technology like DAAS help smallholder farmers?

A growing body of evidence shows that DAAS can have a significant impact on farmers’ yields and incomes. Precision Development (PxD) currently reaches more than 7 million smallholder farming households with DAAS in nine countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and there is a well-established market with many other service providers also providing similar services. This research, including several randomized control trials conducted by PxD researchers in multiple contexts as well as additional research conducted by other organizations, shows that DAAS can improve farmer yields by 4% on average in a single year, with benefit-cost ratios of 10:1, and the potential for these impacts to increase over time to create larger gains. 


There is also evidence of a larger impact in certain geographies and for certain crops and livestock value chains, as well as a larger impact for the subset of farmers who use DAAS the most and adopt its recommendations.