A Convergence Directorate at the National Science Foundation

Summary

Convergence is a compelling novel paradigm and a potent force for advancing scientific discovery via transdisciplinary collaboration. It is also a useful framework for multi-sector partnerships. The Biden-Harris Administration should form a Convergence Directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF) to accelerate research and innovation and help ensure U.S. leadership in the industries of the future.

In forming the Directorate, NSF should:

Establishing a U.S. Entrepreneurial Corps to Foster an Inclusive Small Business Ecosystem

Summary

The next administration should create a U.S. Entrepreneurial Corps (“E-Corps”), a program to train, invest in, and build networks for the next generation of small business leaders. E-Corps should include three components: 1) a national network of 1,000 small business incubators co-located at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and at Land-Grant Universities, 2) a competitively selected cohort of 2,000 small business connectors to staff the incubators, and 3) underrepresented entrepreneurs to participate in the program. E-Corps reimagines the Federal Government’s approach to building an inclusive small business ecosystem by providing support to community anchor institutions while connecting underrepresented entrepreneurs to capital and historically inaccessible networks of financiers and advisors. E-Corps will become the connective tissue for entrepreneurial communities across our country, spanning both urban and rural communities.

Unlocking Beneficial Capital by Improving Investor Transparency

Summary

Beneficial investment organizations (BIOs)—such as public pension funds, endowments, and the investment arms of charitable organizations—are a cornerstone of American welfare and the foundation of our modern capitalist system. American BIOs manage tens of trillions of dollars in pursuit of their goals, and this financial capital serves to power the American economy. But hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted by BIOs every year due to insufficient portfolio transparency, which contributes to BIOs paying excessive fees, assuming unnecessary and uncompensated risks, and chronically underperforming. Insufficient BIO transparency thus harms not only their direct beneficiaries (e.g., retirees, universities and charities), but it also harms America. Due to this opacity, billions of investment dollars are artificially diverted away from long-term projects that could have widespread social and economic benefits. In short, poor transparency on portfolio attributes, such as costs and sustainability, prevents beneficial investment organizations from actually benefiting their stakeholders and America.

Increasing BIO transparency through enhanced reporting and disclosure could unlock hundreds of billions of dollars in beneficial capital for long-term projects that would aid large segments of American society. Improved transparency would allow stakeholders to better understand BIOs’ investment decisions and their long-term consequences, which could then underpin design changes (e.g., better governance and regulatory structures). Transparency is thus a catalyst to make BIOs more willing to change and improve how they invest, which will unlock capital for long-term, large-scale projects that America desperately needs and drive high risk-adjusted returns. Launching a Presidential Advisory Commission is the best first step for the Biden-Harris Administration to take to improve transparency among BIOs and unlock substantial volumes of long-term beneficial capital.

The Lunar and Asteroid Task Force Initiative

Summary

The next administration should launch a task force within the Office of Space Commerce to promote and achieve U.S. private space exploration on the Moon and on asteroids. This task force would encourage space civilianization on the Moon’s surface and foster international collaboration around orbital debris removal.

A dedicated task force to assist private companies moving into the nascent lunar exploration and mining sector—similar to NASA’s current Space Act Agreements and launch contracts—would help establish U.S. presence on the lunar surface and stimulate a U.S. space economy. State actors have been working on lunar technology, and it is imperative that we respond to their imminent presence on the Moon. The Federal Government, led by the White House and executed by the Office of Space Commerce, should undertake a comprehensive agenda and allocate federal funding for a new Lunar and Asteroid Task Force.

Leverage Transit-Oriented Development Loan Programs to Accelerate Equitable Economic Recovery

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the challenges faced by millions of Americans in accessing healthy, prosperous, and resilient neighborhoods. However, the ability for all Americans to afford to live, work, play in, and benefit from these neighborhoods, also known as Communities of Opportunity, has been in crisis for decades. Whether in urban, suburban or rural markets, demand for walkable and resilient communities with affordable housing and transportation options, great amenities, and a sense of place continues to outstrip supply. Despite broad recognition of the enormous economic and environmental benefits of walkable communities, particularly transit-oriented development (TOD), communities face many federal, state, and local barriers to meeting this demand. 

To help communities meet the pent-up demand for affordable housing and businesses in walkable, resilient communities, and to accelerate an equitable economic recovery, the Administration should establish a national equitable transit-oriented development policy. The policy should promote and coordinate federal investments and action to support equitable transit-oriented development and community revitalization projects that lead to more mixed-income housing, new revenue streams for budget-constrained public transportation agencies, climate change mitigation and a stronger and sustainable post-COVID-19 economic recovery.

Accelerating Innovation, Performance, and Impact at USAID

Summary

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) tackles some of the toughest challenges in some of the toughest places on earth, including fighting global pandemics, growing economic prosperity, strengthening democratic institutions, and providing humanitarian relief. USAID plays an important role in addressing global development problems that initially lack effective, scalable, and sustainable solutions. Yet USAID’s activities allow little room for the risk taking or iteration needed to drive significant improvements and encourage disruptive new ideas, with most programs implemented through detailed plans with rigid designs.

Imagine if the pace of progress for global development could match the breakneck pace of advances in the tech sector. The next administration should assess where current USAID interventions are inadequately meeting global need, applying best practices from innovation to improve programs accordingly. This will include shifting to outcomes-based performance metrics, dedicating budget for experimentation, establishing incentives that encourage risk-taking, linking payments with outcomes, and conducting ex-post evaluations of scale and sustainability.

A Federal Strategy for Science Engagement

Summary

The Biden-Harris Administration should adopt a federal strategy for science engagement that enables all Americans to learn from, use, and participate in the process and outputs of science.

Investments in science and technology have the greatest impact when paired with increased public access to, and participation in, the scientific enterprise. Emerging areas of basic and applied research, such as synthetic biology and artificial intelligence, have important implications for society. Science engagement is essential for improving public scientific literacy, raising and discussing ethical considerations, and aligning research with public priorities and values. Broadening participation in the scientific enterprise is more than a question of who “does” the science. Rather, it requires looking beyond traditional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for creative ways to increase public exposure to, understanding of, and meaningful contributions to science.

The first steps in a federal strategy for science engagement should focus on establishing and cultivating federal expertise in science engagement and improving coordination among federal science agencies. These efforts will emphasize knowledge sharing and ultimately allow for a greater understanding of the impact of science engagement on community and scientific outcomes.

This memo was drafted by contributors from the Day One Project, Advancing Research Impact in Society, and LISTEN Network, with generous support from the Kavli Foundation in consultation with participants from a Day One Project workshop focused on science engagement.

Eliminate Billion-Dollar Disasters: Equitable Science-Based Disaster Policy for a Resilient Future

Summary

Every year, Americans lose billions of dollars to natural hazards. Hurricanes, wildfires, floods, heat waves, and droughts affect millions of Americans and are particularly devastating for low-income communities and communities of color. The number of ‘billion-dollar disasters’—those that cause over a billion dollars in damage—is rising as a result of climate change, urbanization, high risk developments, communities in vulnerable areas, aging infrastructure, and federal policy that rewards risk-prone behavior rather than incentivizing risk reduction. An overhaul of U.S. federal disaster policy will reverse the trend and eliminate billion-dollar disasters. This goal requires action at all levels of government, coordination across agencies, and leadership from the highest levels.

The Biden-Harris Administration should implement a multi-phase plan beginning with an executive order instructing federal agencies to define federal roles in disaster response, coordinate agency efforts, and integrate social justice and climate change into decision-making. Agency-level mandates will develop and implement best practices, incentivize state and local measures, and create an evidentiary basis for funding allocations. Finally, legislative reform of disaster laws will enable flexible responses to the continuing effects of climate change. A coordinated overhaul of federal laws and policies will inspire change at state and local levels, leading to a U.S. disaster policy that is climate-ready, addresses social inequities, reduces taxpayer liability and disaster damage, and saves lives.

Challenge and Opportunity

Disaster effects continue to worsen. Climate change is exacerbating hurricanes, floods, heat waves, and wildfires. Development and population growth in at-risk areas have placed more people, infrastructure, and economic activity in harm’s way. Serious disasters are more frequent and more costly (Figure 1). In 2019 alone, the U.S. experienced fourteen different billion-dollar disasters. In a five-month period that year, flooding affected eleven states: Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Federal aid is designed to be a last resort in disasters: the backstop when local and state resources have been overwhelmed. Current disaster policy and practice, however, results in disincentives for local governments to engage in proactive risk reduction. The more damage a county experiences, for example, the more money the county receives from the Federal Government, providing little incentive to adopt better building codes or limit development in risk-prone areas. The National Institute of Building Sciences estimates that updating and refining building codes alone could save $4 for every $1 spent—as well as save 600 lives, avoid 4,000 cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and create 87,000 new jobs (NIBS 2019). Despite this alternative approach, U.S. disaster policy emphasizes recovery rather than prevention. Only a fraction of disaster funding—just 15%—is spent on reducing future losses.

Figure 1.

Relief decisions use wealth and assets as measures of need, rather than people. The result is that disaster funding increases wealth inequality. There is also little evidence that the billions in disaster recovery paid by U.S. taxpayers each year has increased community resilience. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 45,000 new homes experienced repeat flood losses over the last decade, while less than half that number had their flood risk reduced through elevation, acquisition, or floodproofing.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a key organizer for federal response in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. In the long tail of recovery, though, other agencies— including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Transit Authority (FTA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Small Business Administration (SBA)— become involved. These agencies have significant and increasing spending authority and autonomy, but the risk reduction projects they prioritize and the reasons for their selection are often unclear or unavailable to researchers or the public. Projects are also not required to complement or support one another; each agency has its own mission, and there is little overarching coordination. At times, their actions may even work at cross-purposes.

Overhauling U.S. disaster policy will require a major effort across multiple levels and branches of government. This effort will not only limit but also potentially reverse the trend of increasing disaster costs. Disaster policy can create incentives for risk-smart development, promote climateproof investments in infrastructure, and protect society’s most vulnerable populations.

Plan of Action

A complete overhaul of U.S. disaster policy will require many actions across government branches. The following roadmap is a starting point: an initial set of steps to establish leadership, coordination, and a structure within which numerous actors can engage in a collaborative effort to build a disaster-resilient nation.

The plan is guided by the following principles:

Executive Branch

An executive order from the President or memorandum from the Office of Science and Technology Policy should direct agencies to address climate change and social equity in all federal actions. The order should provide a new mandate for inter-agency task forces such as the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) to take, at minimum, the following actions:

Legislative Branch

Following the executive action, Congress should legislate reform both the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIP) and the Stafford Act of 1988. Congress should adopt the guidelines made by inter-agency task forces and recommendations made by the hazard science community. Congress must deliberate on:

University and Government Research

New science is needed to create a more robust foundation of evidentiary knowledge. Through National Science Foundation calls and inter-agency task force member agencies commissioning National Academies Studies, funding should be allocated toward:

Frequently Asked Questions
How does this proposal fit into existing disaster resilience efforts?

Existing efforts at achieving disaster resilience need coordination and high-level direction to become priorities. Existing task forces (such as MitFLG) should be leveraged and given expanded membership and mandates to promote a more widely coordinated approach to disaster reduction and response. Executive Order 13653, “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” should be reinstated and additional guidance should be provided to state agencies on how to assess climate risk, how to promote incentives for resilience, and how to include equity in decision-making processes.

If hazards are expected to intensify and become more frequent due to climate change, do we have ways to reduce losses from disasters?
Yes! As Gilbert White said, “floods are ‘acts of god,’ but flood losses are largely acts of man.” The same logic can be applied to nearly all hazards. Decades of scientific research and empirical data have identified simple principles that are known to reduce disaster losses. These principles are: (1) avoid building in areas known to be hazardous, (2) protect and/or insure infrastructure in hazardous areas, (3) reduce carbon emissions, (4) protect the most vulnerable. The National Institute of Building Sciences estimates that updated building codes alone could save $4 for every $1 spent—as well as save 600 lives, avoid 4,000 cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and create 87,000 new jobs.
Why are agencies other than FEMA included? Does the problem not primarily lie with FEMA?
FEMA’s role is to coordinate emergency management following disasters that are beyond the ability of states to respond. FEMA also provides grants that support disaster mitigation, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Furthermore, the majority of the rules laid out by the Stafford Act apply to FEMA activities. However, in recent decades, numerous agencies have been allocated money by Congress in disaster relief authorizations. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is now a primary disaster response funder, through the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) takes primary responsibility for levees, dredging, and beach nourishment, and their decisions have important implications for disaster risk reduction policy. A wide range of other agencies—i.e., the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), etc.—disperse disaster funds. The Department of Education, for example, disperses funds for school recovery. While FEMA plays a central role in disaster management, the coordination between all of these agencies is a major area where improvement is needed.
Why should Congress reconsider elements of the Stafford Act?

The Stafford Act is supposed to position the Federal Government as the intervener of last resort. It allows the President to declare disaster, and then it generally reimburses state and local governments—and other public organizations—a minimum of 75% of the cost of damage to public infrastructure. FEMA makes disaster recommendations to the President based upon a uniformly-applied and highly-prescribed loss threshold. The process is known to be wrought with politicization and assumes that every location experiences disasters in the same way. We know that each community has unique resources and advantages and disadvantages; a political decision about disbursement runs contrary to the Federal Government as the intervener of last resort.


To truly establish the Federal Government as the intervener of last resort, Congress must reconsider the disaster threshold by taking into account local capacity and ability to recover. Congress must also reconsider the cost-share and whether different incentive models are better equipped to induce better local hazard-reduction decisions and improve long-term resilience. Finally, Congress must formally address the role of each agency—as opposed to FEMA alone— to ensure government efficiency and that actions are not at cross-purposes.

FEMA recommended significant changes to the Public Assistance Program in 2016 that may not require congressional approval. Are those changes sufficient?

No. FEMA recommended adopting a state-wide deductible which must be met before Public Assistance is made available. While a positive step, it only addressed one of scores of disaster relief programs, albeit the largest. Furthermore, the recommendation did not include an evaluation of whether the proposed structure would incentivize local change. It does not explicitly reward individual hazard-reducing behaviors, but rather evaluates hazard reduction at a state level.


However, this proposed rule makes a step in the right direction by stating that the deductible level should be influenced by local hazard exposure and ability to recover.

Is your position anti-growth?

No. In face of the climate crisis, the only way to ensure consistent long-term growth is to put policies and incentives in place that protect people and infrastructure. In the same way that smart growth urban planning guides development based on economic and social priorities, we encourage growth that aligns with hazard risk reduction goals.

Has a federal ‘push’ worked to change state and local approaches in other issue areas?

Seatbelts. The Federal Government passed the first seatbelt law, which required lap and shoulder belts in all vehicles beginning in 1968. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, however, the effort to require states to implement seatbelt laws had limited success. But in 1985, Secretary Dole issued a rule requiring automakers to install driver side airbags in all vehicles, unless two-thirds of the states had passed a mandatory seatbelt law. This set off intense lobbying by automakers for bill passage in state legislatures. In 1998, an Executive Order (13043) mandated that all federal employees use seatbelts. As of 2020, only one state (New Hampshire) does not require seatbelts.


Clean Air. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) promulgated new air quality standards for acceptable levels of carbon monoxide, ground level ozone, and fine particulates. The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act coordinated with CAAA by including directions on how cities and metropolitan areas were to demonstrate achievement of and progress toward air quality goals. These guidelines stated that transportation planning should emphasize system efficiency, and that in cities with severe air pollution, transportation projects must contribute to cleaner air. Urban areas were given flexibility to focus on local priorities and problems, with strict federal sanctions as incentives for compliance with both laws. The result has been a significant and continuing drop in criteria air pollutants.


Similarly, financial incentives for resilience (either carrots or sticks) could encourage state and local governments to use their authority to reduce risk exposure in their jurisdictions. This is the rationale behind the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS), which rewards communities who engage in resilience behaviors with lower insurance rates. The CRS could be improved by requiring local governments to take stronger actions to qualify for reduced rates and by increasing transparency about how community ratings are calculated. Additional incentives could be used to encourage state and local governments to take actions such as: adopt internationally recognized building codes, enforce building codes, zone hazardous lands for no or low-density development, charge externality fees for developers, and invest in stormwater management upgrades.


This was also the rationale behind FEMA recommendations in 2016 that would have required states to contribute a set amount towards disaster recovery (a ‘disaster deductible’) before Public Assistance would be made available. The amount of the deductible could be reduced if the state demonstrated that it had taken actions to reduce risk exposure. We recommend that this and similar programs be revisited and strengthened.

Promoting Entrepreneurship and Innovation Through Business-to-Business (B2B) Data Sharing

Summary

To bolster competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation, the next administration should facilitate business-to-business (B2B) data sharing between startups and data-rich, established companies. Asymmetry in the digital economy is an existing market failure that, if left unchecked will continue to intensify to the detriment of consumer choice and our collective security.

Leveling the playing field requires policy to remove barriers to entry created by data advantages and to promote market competition through increased access to big data. Specifically, we propose that the Small Business Administration’s Office of Investment and Innovation establish a data-sharing program that gives entrepreneurs access to the data they need to improve algorithms underpinning their products and services. This would support a thriving and diverse ecosystem of startups that could in time yield valuable new markets and products.

Strengthening the Integrity of Government Payments Using Artificial Intelligence

Summary

Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are lost every year due to improper payments to the federal government. These improper payments arise from agency and claimant errors as well as outright fraud. Data analytics can help identify errors and fraud, but often only identify improper payments after they have already been issued.

Artificial intelligence (AI) in general—and machine learning (ML) in particular (AI/ML)—could substantially improve the accuracy of federal payment systems. The next administration should launch an initiative to integrate AI/ML into federal agencies’ payment processes. As part of this initiative, the federal government should work extensively with non-federal entities—including commercial firms, nonprofits, and academic institutions—to address major enablers and barriers pertaining to applications of AI/ML in federal payment systems. These include the incidence of false positives and negatives, perceived and actual fairness and bias issues, privacy and security concerns, and the use of ML for predicting the likelihood of future errors and fraud.

Creating an Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative for PPE and Other Medical Device Supplies

Summary

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is a critical component of medical care that ensures the safety of both the patient and the provider, as well as the general public. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a global shortage of PPE left many providers insufficiently protected, resulting in infection, increased spread, and even the deaths of providers. To assist, the World Health Organization urged for a 40% increase in production. Treatment of those infected was further hampered by critical shortages of necessary medical supplies such as ventilator parts. The fragility of the supply chain also left civilians without immediate access to PPE, and later widespread use of disposable masks has created a significant environmental hazard. Innovation in PPE has remained stagnant and reliant on single use options which are vulnerable to manufacturing shortcomings and harmful to the environment. This need for improvement also applies directly to other medical equipment, where focus has largely been on single use parts. A collaborative panel and acting body is needed to drive changes forward for the current pandemic, next pandemic, the next critical part shortage, the next wildfire, or even for our agricultural workers who use protective gear every day but still face harmful exposures while ensuring our collective safety.

To drive innovation in PPE and medical parts, there is a need to align regulatory bodies and bridge the gap between regulation and research and development. Collaboration between federal, private, and academic entities is essential. Recently the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and America Makes formed a COVID-19 response public-private partnership which addresses some – but not all – of these issues. In particular, reusable equipment is excluded, despite its numerous benefits such as allowing hospitals to ensure availability of equipment on demand and protecting the broader population.

The next administration should target the shortcomings of PPE and single use medical parts more broadly by creating a cross-agency collaboration center for PPE and medical device innovation that focuses on improving efficacy of PPE; stimulating new designs including reusable options; fostering collaborations for the design, research, and manufacture of improved medical parts; and identifying ways to ramp up manufacturing during times of crises while maintaining optimal safety of such equipment.

Transforming Workforce Training Through Federal Leadership in XR Technology

Summary

Today’s unprecedented health and economic challenges demand a transformative approach to workforce training. Already, technology that immerses a person in a digital space (virtual reality) or that enhances reality with digital features (augmented reality) is making it possible to prepare workers faster and better for high-quality, high-demand jobs. Government investment in augmented and virtual reality (together known as “XR” technology) will supercharge workforce training, helping Americans across the country get into jobs that benefit them and our society.

The Federal Government should partner with industry to identify and implement “shovel-ready” applications of XR technology. Initial efforts should focus on demonstrating proof of concept by deploying XR technology towards two goals; namely:

These goals are readily achievable thanks to existing programmatic infrastructure at agencies with explicit workforce-development missions. Follow-on work could expand applications of XR technology to workforce training in other domains and/or through other agencies.