Summary

The Biden-Harris Administration should act to address and minimize the risks of malicious doxing, given the rising frequency of online harassment inciting offline harms. This proposal recommends four parallel and mutually reinforcing strategies that can improve protections, enforcement, governance, and awareness around the issue.

The growing use of smartphones, social media, and other channels for finding and sharing information about people have made doxing increasingly widespread and dangerous in recent years. A 2020 survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 44% of Americans reported experiencing online harassment. 28% of Americans reported experiencing severe online harassment, which includes doxing as well as sexual harassment, stalking, physical threats, swatting, and sustained harassment. In addition, a series of disturbing events in 2020 suggest that some instances of coordinated doxing efforts have reached a level of sophistication that poses a serious threat to U.S. national security. The pronounced spike in doxing cases against election officials, federal judges, and local government officials should serve as evidence for the severity and urgency of this issue. Meanwhile, private citizens have faced elevated doxing risks as disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic and tensions around contentious sociopolitical issues have provoked cycles of online harassment.

While several states have proposed anti-doxing bills over the past year, most states do not offer adequate protections for doxing victims or mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable. The doxing regulations that do exist are inconsistent across state lines, and partially applicable federal laws—such as the Interstate Communications Statute and the Interstate Stalking Statute—neither fully address the doxing problem nor are sufficiently enforced. New federal legislation is a crucial step for ensuring that doxing risks and harms are appropriately addressed, and must come with complementary governance structures and enforcement capabilities in order to be effective.

Summary

Access to high-speed internet is essential for all Americans to participate in society and the economy. The American Jobs Plan (AJP) proposal to build high-speed broadband infrastructure to achieve 100% high-speed internet coverage is critical for reaching unserved and underserved communities. Yet widespread access to high-speed broadband infrastructure is insufficient. Widespread adoption is required for individuals and communities to realize the benefits of being online. Federal programs that have recently funded new broadband infrastructure—namely the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Connecting America Fund Phase II (CAF II) and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) reverse auctions—have not adequately tied the input of broadband infrastructure funding to the desired outcome of broadband adoption. Consequently, funding has gone to internet service providers (ISPs) that offer expensive internet service that communities are unlikely to adopt. To use the AJP’s broadband infrastructure funds most effectively, the Biden-Harris Administration should prioritize affordability in funding allocation and ensure that all recipients of federal subsidies, grants, or loans meet requirements for affordable service. Doing so will support widespread internet adoption and contribute to the AJP’s stated aims of reducing the price of internet service, holding ISPs accountable, and saving taxpayers money.

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating an existing mental health crisis to such a degree that many fear it will overwhelm the fragmented mental health delivery system in the United States. Rates of mental health problems—including depression, trauma- and stressor-related disorders, substance abuse, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts—have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scarce access to mental health services compounds the problem. Nearly 25 million Americans with mental health needs go untreated each year, and half of U.S. counties have no access to mental health care whatsoever. However, the current moment presents an opportunity. Even as the pandemic increased needs for mental health services, so too did pandemic-related shifts reveal the broad utility of and interest in digital solutions such as mobile apps, digital therapeutics, and digital therapy.

In the absence of regulation, however, ineffective and potentially harmful digital mental health products may make their way into consumer hands. Estimates suggest that over 20,000 digital mental health products exist, yet only five have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance. The FDA temporarily reduced their enforcement and review of these products due to COVID-19. But moving forward, addressing the largely unregulated space of digital mental health products is critical to mitigate harm of unverified digital mental health solutions. As examples of potential harms, companies have used digital products to offer services but from unlicensed providers, withheld client information from providers, or made data available to various third parties without following stated terms of services. Developing an infrastructure to regulate these products while also helping provide and reimburse effective and safe digital mental health solutions is essential to meet the overwhelming need for mental health services and ensure quality and equity in mental health care.

Summary

Immigration reform is a national security imperative. A net inflow of science and technology talent is a defining source of strength and key competitive advantage for the United States. Highly skilled science and technology workers provide our nation with an economic edge and drive innovation. However, intensifying competition for skilled workers abroad and self-imposed barriers to immigration at home are deterring potential talent from coming to the United States, instead routing them to competitor countries.

The Biden-Harris Administration should act to attract and retain foreign science and technology talent through a focused overhaul of U.S. immigration laws and procedures. Specifically, the Administration should draw top talent to the United States by streamlining the visa process and providing greater flexibility for foreign scholars and workers. Steps should be taken to ground visa processes in evidence-based procedures, expand visa limits and classes, redesign security-screening procedures to ease bottlenecks, and reallocate resources to build analytic capabilities. Doing so will enhance our national competitiveness, a top government-wide priority. Imminent action is crucial: the suppressed demand for U.S. visa services due to the COVID-19 pandemic has opened a once-in-a-century window to implement reform.

The Biden-Harris Administration should establish a national initiative to develop a workforce pipeline for the new and emerging quantum ecosystem – call it the “Quorkforce.” Due to the rapid growth in the fields of quantum computing and technology along with fears of losing competitiveness, both the public and private sectors are struggling to find skilled employees. Quantum skills are derived from a mixture of many disciplines such as physics, computer science, applied mathematics and engineering, and there is no unique path to enter the quantum sphere. Through partnerships between the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the private quantum industry, the Biden-Harris Administration should establish an educational plan to train the next quantum generation across K-12, undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate levels. The Administration should initiate an open call to create ten national quantum education centers with a baseline funding of $300M over a period of 10-12 years. The short-term goal would be to train the existing workforce with adequate quantum skills, while the long-term goal would be to provide a steady flow of quantum-literate graduates capable of advancing the field and fulfilling the needs of this growing industry.

Challenge and Opportunity

In December 2018, the U.S. Congress passed the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act to establish goals and priorities for a ten-year plan to accelerate the development of quantum information science and technology applications. Quantum information science is defined as the use of the laws of quantum physics for the storage, transmission, manipulation, or measurement of information. Title III of the NQI states that the National Science Foundation shall carry out a basic research and education program on quantum information science and engineering, and award grants for the establishment of Multidisciplinary Centers for Quantum Research and Education. This proposal aims at extending these efforts with a special focus on preparing a steady stream of quantum-ready workers.

The acceleration in the advancement of quantum technologies has created an urgent need to develop a workforce pipeline by expanding the number of researchers, educators, and students with training in quantum information science and technology. Human capital in this field is necessary both for national security purposes and in order to remain dominant in the present and the future. Already, both the Federal Government and the private sector are facing a significant talent problem in quantum technologies due to the shortage in quantum-trained college graduates. In the related field of computer science, only 400,000 graduates from U.S. universities were available to fill the 1.4 million computing jobs open in 2020 (~29%). This gap between labor force demand and supply is only expected to grow as the applications of quantum information science become more germane to innovation and global technology competition. A steady flow of quantum-literate workers on all levels will make the US stand out among its allies as well as surpass its adversaries.

Quantum education and research fall under the big STEM umbrella (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). Broadly speaking, the demand for STEM workers is projected to continuously increase for the foreseeable future. The Education Commission of the States estimates that in the next decade, STEM-related jobs will increase by 13%, while non-STEM-related jobs will only grow by 9%. Currently, there are around 18 million STEM employees in the U.S. out of a total of 160 million total jobs, which accounts to roughly 11.25% of the American labor force.

The main challenge for the fast-growing quantum industry is that the quantum-ready workforce supply is not keeping up with demand. This has the potential to hinder long-run scientific advancement and impact U.S. dominance in the quantum field of research on the global level. China in particular has aggressively invested in quantum research and development at a rate that may soon surpass U.S. research and development funding levels. In 2019 for example, China’s patent office received more than twice as many applications as its U.S. counterpart, indicating the increase in the Chinese scientific workforce. To address this pressing issue, a longitudinal educational path needs to be established with the aim of closing the workforce gap in the next 10-15 years. Three main pillars will be essential for the success of this endeavor: middle/high school outreach, undergraduate/graduate education, and current employee training. To ensure the success and the longevity of such a mission, central hubs must be created for coordination purposes. At a time when U.S. officials worry that the country is losing ground to other nations, it is important to realize that the American people are the real asset, and that quantum education is the key to fortifying the country’s status as a global leader in quantum discovery and innovation.

The National Science Foundation has been the leader of science innovation and education for over 70 years. This institution is the best fit to lead the effort of creating and managing the quantum centers. Such an endeavor could be accomplished either through existing research directorates (Computer and Information Science and Engineering, Engineering, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and Education and Human Resources), or via the establishment of a new directorate for quantum research and education.

Plan of Action

The Biden-Harris Administration should work through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to oversee and strengthen federal support for quantum education in the United States. In order to ensure the widest spread of a successful initiative, the National Science Foundation should, as a first step, dedicate seed funds for the establishment of ten quantum hubs across the United States Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. Once the top candidate for each of the centers is announced, a follow-up grant of $15 million per center should be provided for founding and launching these centers over a period of 2-3 years. A similar amount of funding for the following 5 years will give sufficient time for these centers to take root and succeed. The underlying mission of the quantum educational centers will be three-fold: 

1. Facilitating the wider accessibility of undergraduate/graduate degrees to develop a larger and more diverse quantum-ready workforce. 
2. Training current employees to ensure the quantum workforce remains relevant and up to date in the field. 
3. Planning outreach activities for middle and high school students to encourage the future generation to pursue this exciting new career path.

This ten-year plan will gradually fill the current workforce gap in the quantum industry as well as furnish a steady flow of workers skilled in quantum science and technology to keep up with the growing demands of the field.

1. Tertiary Education

Because quantum skills stem from a mixture of academic departments such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science and engineering, they cannot be acquired via an existing, simple, old-fashion major or degree. The quantum centers should form a consortium of universities within their geographical bounds that offer courses and classes in the disciplines that together form quantum science and technology. It is crucial to understand that quantum education is not only relevant for PhD programs at elite universities but should be considered from the earliest years of science and engineering education. The ultimate outcome will be the creation of well-defined paths for students to pursue degrees at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels. Having a commonwealth of colleges in a common geographical region guarantees the long-term continuation of a quantum education program: a single institution might not realize sufficient demand from students and sponsors to make a quantum program financially sustainable.

Building quantum laboratories within the centers will be their most pressing task. Experimental skills related to quantum technologies are equally, or even more, important for entering the workforce than courses in complex quantum theory, which is still ahead of industrial quantum systems. As quantum concepts are being transformed into commercial products, there is an urgent need for a workforce which possess hands-on experience with quantum systems.

Building a successful quantum education program will require that each center gather subject matter experts, develop strong relationships with industry, ensure institutional commitment, acquire resources for laboratories, hire faculty clusters, and set up dissemination mechanisms. Most current educational systems stress separate academic subjects rather than a multidisciplinary approach to quantum education, a trend that has led to the graduation of physics majors with very little experience in building quantum devices and engineering majors with little to no exposure to quantum mechanics. The role of the centers in this context will be to install cohesive benchmarks and standards across the multiple disciplines involved rather than create a unified curriculum for all degrees and specializations.

Partners from the private sector will play a major role in this paradigm. They are the main drivers of workforce demand in the quantum industry in their respective areas of operations (sensors, networks, communications, computing, etc.). The skills the private sector requires range from hardware knowledge to quantum programming, and even pure quantum information theory. Due to its very early stage of development, it remains challenging to quantify the number and size of companies within the quantum industry, let alone the distribution of jobs. There must be a continuous dialogue between higher education institutions and quantum employers to ensure that the former are preparing graduates to fulfill the needs of the latter. Mutual contributions will enable smooth supply and demand dynamics and avoid the potential for misuse of resources. A town hall every 3-6 months with the main players on each side would allow for exchanging ideas, sharing successful milestones, and anticipating potential challenges.

2. Current Workforce Training

In 5-10 years, the centers will be providing a steady flow of college graduates ready to be employed in the quantum industry. However, there is a dire need to fill the intermediate gap in the quantum workforce across a range of applications from devices to software and everything in between (e.g., fabrication of novel quantum materials, software compilers for quantum computers, etc.).

In the past couple of years, quantum technology has been transitioning into commercial products with the potential to solve real-world problems. As a result, many companies have begun to hire more engineers and technicians to ensure the new systems are reliable. Due to the shortage of such skilled employees, many physicists and engineers are facing the challenge of learning a whole new set of skills to prepare themselves to participate in the quantum revolution.

Hence, another overarching goal for the quantum centers will be to provide substantial training for current employees in the quantum industry. Week-long workshops, monthly seminars, summer training, etc., will each focus on a specific topic or a specific technology (optical-metrology, cryogenics, microwave electronics, etc.). On the experimental level, the centers’ labs will be responsible for designing hands-on training at their facilities to give physicists, engineers, and chemists the practical skills they need for proficiency in the latest quantum technologies. This endeavor could be sponsored by private quantum companies, which will be the main beneficiaries from the re-training of their employees.

3. K-12 Outreach

To ensure the long-term success of these efforts, special attention should be devoted to the K12 sector. The quantum centers should each have a division for outreach to public and private middle/high schools within their geographical boundaries. This is an essential step to introduce the younger generation to quantum science and technology, which is generally not already included in their current curricula.

It is impossible to change middle and high school science curricula overnight. The centers should work with existing STEM educational material and make strategic additions to it. The goal is to give American teenagers a glimpse into the area of quantum research and ignite their curiosity and motivation to pursue a future career in the field. Moreover, the centers should organize summer boot camps for advanced students at their facilities to give them hands-on experience with quantum lab demos, invite them to meet-the-scientists events, and introduce them to toy models and experiments. Such activities could range between 7-10 weeks in the summer and introduce students to quantum algorithms, quantum computer prototypes (D-wave, Microsoft, Google, IBM, etc.), post-quantum cryptography (PQC), and other topics in the field. Many similar efforts have been initiated by private companies to do outreach to and site visits with students; the task of the centers would be to strengthen this kind of collaboration and make it more established for the long run. The overarching goal would be to motivate these students to pursue further explorations in and around the quantum area of research and applications. All the above efforts should be coordinated with several relevant associations such as the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE), the American Association of Chemistry Teachers (AACT), and the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA). Most importantly, centers around the country should organize workshops in the form of “train the trainer” events in order to equip high school teachers with the right tools and set them up for success.

Inclusion and Diversity

As the National Science Foundation continues to expand its investments in the quantum space, it is important to improve the diversity of the quantum workforce. The foundational work in both quantum research and education should be diverse and inclusive across multiple attributes: geography, demographics, and technology. Broadening participation in STEM fields is a challenge that has not yet been overcome. However, to ensure that the quantum community will meet the workforce needs of the present and the future, it is imperative to utilize the broadest possible range of human capital. If research and education in the quantum field progresses without addressing barriers to diversity and inclusion, these problems will be solidified in the next generation. Therefore, each center should prioritize efforts to ensure that the quantum community is representative of the country’s diversity in race, gender, ethnicity, social class, etc.

To date, the field of quantum research has been developed primarily by disciplines with some of the lowest representation of women and minority populations. For example, women make up 21% of Computer Science (CS) bachelor’s degree graduates and 20.3% of CS doctoral graduates, and domestic underrepresented minorities make up 14.7% of CS bachelor’s degree graduates and only 3.1% of doctoral CS graduates. The most significant barrier to fostering students’ passion for STEM education at all age levels is the persistent and still-widening gap in opportunity in underserved communities. Educating parents in these communities about the opportunities that STEM education in general — and quantum education in particular — can offer their children should start with showing them hard data on the continued growth of these jobs.

Many initiatives in the past decade have shown their effectiveness in reaching previously marginalized communities. The great successes achieved by movements like CS for all, AI for all, Black in AI, etc. should be a strong motivation to launch the next organization: Quantum for all or Q4ALL. Such a movement would promote wider inclusion in the quantum fields of research and education. Primary channels which these models have established to accomplish this include scholarships, fellowships, national meetings, summer camps, workgroups, and other activities geared towards a diverse student corps around the country. Previous successes have been accomplished by setting a collective agenda with the cooperation of content providers, education associations, researchers, and supporters to help schools and districts provide all students with rigorous K-12 STEM education. The national quantum centers could support a Quantum for all movement by serving as a platform for connecting diverse stakeholders, providing support to new and developing initiatives, tracking and sharing progress, and communicating about the work to local and national audiences.

The national quantum centers, separately and in collaboration, must make the issue of inclusion and diversity a priority. Some relevant organizations and events are already emerging, such as the Women in Quantum Development Symposium, the American Physical Society Bridge Program, the Inclusive Graduate Education Network, etc. They are shaping how PhD programs approach admissions, retention, and professional development with the aim of increasing participation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups. The quantum centers should coordinate these efforts, while engaging both public and the private industry to reduce factors that hinder participation in the future quantum workforce such as pay disparities. discrimination in hiring, affordable childcare provision, inappropriate expectations for working hours.

National Collaboration and Monitoring 

Critical to this plan’s success will be the collaboration with two partners: government labs and the private sector. Government labs like Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) play an important role in developing quantum systems through their facilities. The private sector, meanwhile, will be the main beneficiary of the development of a quantum workforce, and their participation in the efforts led by the centers will be vital to the appropriate allocation of resources and focus areas. To monitor the plan’s success, the NSF should audit the progress of the centers and engage them in annual general meetings to share, evaluate, and coordinate their respective efforts and accomplishments. Finally, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics should start taking into account purely quantum jobs in their census, as this will be the main metric for measuring the saturation of the quantum job market and hence the successful outcomes of this plan.

Conclusion

As the quantum industry is growing rapidly, there is an urgent need for a workforce skilled in quantum science and technology. By creating a group of national centers under the guidance of the National Science Foundation, education in quantum information science can be provided on all levels from middle school to post-doctoral, while simultaneously training the current non-quantum workforce for this new and exciting field. Over the next decade, this plan would achieve job market saturation in the quantum industry and furnish a steady flow of quantum-ready workers.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and/or the National Economic Council and Department of Labor should convene a Transparent Tech Training Alliance, a coalition of public and private sector leaders called to expand access to early tech careers by codifying and communicating industry hiring standards. To meet the economy’s urgent and growing demand for tech workers, innovative educators have developed tens of thousands of short courses and bootcamps to rapidly upskill workers. But this landscape is complicated to navigate, especially for low-wage workers and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who are training and hiring in tech at increasing numbers. Without intervention, this nascent system will exacerbate the divide between the “haves and have nots” of our economy, further endangering the health of our workforce, communities, and businesses.

In response, the Alliance should:

1. make a highly publicized commitment to unprecedented transparency in hiring practices and the annual publication of hiring data;
2. generate a clear, industry-driven guide of certified credentials, career pathways, and funding sources;
3. utilize this guide and more for a prize competition that modernizes CareerOneStop; and
4. reconvene annually to publicize their progress and update resources.

Challenge and Opportunity

America’s pool of tech talent will grow too slowly and homogeneously to meet the economy’s needs. An estimated 400,000 STEM college students graduate every year, but by 2030 there will still be a shortage of 6 million tech workers in the United States. The accelerated demand for tech workers has driven educators to create innovative training methods, like short-courses and bootcamps. Now, the tech-training space has become crowded and governed by an opaque universe of unwritten rules: Which bootcamps and credentials are reputable? What projects make a compelling portfolio? What types of questions will be asked in an interview?

Those with personal or professional networks in the technology industry have access to information that helps them navigate to the “right” programs and credentials for upskilling. However, those without access to this information risk investing time and financial resources into low-quality training programs with limited guarantees of joining the new economy.

This unnecessarily blocks a new pipeline of workers ready to fill high-demand vacancies, while also cementing the industry’s homogeneous hiring practices and exacerbating racial and gender inequality. Considering their total workforce participation, women and Black and Latinx workers are severely underrepresented along the career spectrum. Given the anticipated rapid expansion of jobs in technology, and the compression of jobs in other fields, there is an urgent need to address these gaps and provide access to upskilling for all workers, especially in the technology industry.

The “alphabet soup” of tech training programs and failures of existing federal tools to guide workers bear large responsibility for the system’s failure.

Alphabet Soup

The tech credential and training space is often referred to as “alphabet soup” to denote the myriad of available options: workers must decide between more than 12,000 cybersecurity, 4,000 IT Helpdesk and 17,000 web programming credential options, and there are many more categories of tech professions.

On one hand, the saturation of credentialing services indicates educators are innovatively upskilling and reskilling workers to fill in-demand jobs. On the other, it creates a significant challenge of reliability for workers looking for a program or credential that will enable their gainful employment. It also creates a barrier for SMEs, who are rapidly hiring tech talent but may not have the technical expertise to assess highly qualified workers among the universe of credential options. Without clear metrics for quality, both candidates and businesses waste precious time and financial resources navigating this nontransparent process.

Black and Latinx individuals are disproportionately in a position of reliance on short-term tech training such as bootcamps to enter the industry due to lack of equitable access to traditional four-year degree programs. Compared to their representation in the tech industry, Black and Latinx workers are 29% and 38% more likely to use bootcamps, respectively. Therefore, these already vulnerable workers incur the disproportionate risk created by such a vast, unregulated landscape, exasperating the existing disparities in access to tech careers.

Failures in Existing Federal Tools

The existing federal tool, CareerOneStop, is ill-equipped to support the needs of the growing tech workforce. Outdated and difficult to use, CareerOneStop provides an incomplete picture of the breadth of career and program options available. CareerOneStop also does not provide comparative tools for workers deciding between different careers or educational pathways. For example, it includes over 70 certifications in cybersecurity without information on cost, results, or anticipated wages after their completion. Information on training, jobs and local support are not integrated by industry verticals, making it tedious to compare one’s options. Lastly, the site is entirely literacy intensive, failing to incorporate video footage or other media to reach workers at lower reading levels or different means of accessibility.

These features disadvantage both workers and counselors, who rely on CareerOneStop to make high-stakes financial investments in reskilling.

A Call for Transparency to Increase Access and Accountability

To maintain its global competitiveness and support the growing tech needs in businesses across all industries, the United States must rapidly upskill workers into programming, cybersecurity and IT jobs. Clear pathways, quality benchmarks, and program options will not only make these careers more accessible, but also less risky to marginalized populations. There is a crucial opportunity to bring transparency to careers in the new economy while the industry is still nascent and developing.

Plan of Action

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and/or the National Economic Council, in close partnership with the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA), should assemble a Transparent Tech Training Alliance, a cross-sector coalition of leaders with a mandate to increase transparency and therefore access and accountability in tech hiring. They should meet in a highly publicized convening in order to make two public commitments: 

1. Unprecedented transparency in hiring standards: sharing the “unwritten rules” via accessible documentation that codifies standards and norms in tech recruiting to guide Americans into these careers.
2. Accountability through public data: committing to a method and timeline for publishing their hiring demographics (e.g. race, gender, educational background and training), no more than one year from the convening.

Spearheaded by the ETA, but including representatives from the broader Departments of Labor and Education, a coalition of federal leaders can accomplish these outcomes through the following three steps:

Step I. Preparation

Assemble a Roster

First, the ETA should propose a cross-sector Alliance, including representatives from major tech companies, large national or regional employers across multiple industries, academia, local government, tech investment and nonprofit organizations that are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion in tech hiring. This will require the ETA to gather research regarding the relevant stakeholders and experts who would have the greatest impact on the group with their attendance whose hiring footprint is either large and growing or most representative of the country’s employers.

Outreach should be conducted by a highly visible member of the Department of Labor such as Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh or Chief Innovation Officer Chike Aguh in order to elevate the importance and urgency of the Alliance.

Publicize a Call to Action for the Alliance

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and/or the National Economic Council must make a Call for Action to the Alliance, drawing an explicit connection between transparency, economic mobility, and equity. This will empower consumers to hold industry accountable for their role in rebuilding the economy justly. In other words, not participating should be equivalent to denouncing equity initiatives in tech. Federal government leaders should apply pressure to companies not only to participate, but to follow through on their commitment to transparent data sharing.

Step II. Convene the Alliance

Host a Formal and Public Initial Convening

A representative from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and/or the National Economic Council or the Department of Labor should open the event with a call to action – clearly connecting access to good jobs with our economic recovery, equity, and global competitiveness. Then, the Alliance members would make the two aforementioned commitments: unprecedented transparency in hiring standards and accountability through public data. These should be documented and signed in a highly public fashion, including a social media campaign and press reporting on the event. Awards should be given to the firms that have made the most progress in hiring diversity and inclusivity in the last decade through data and storytelling spotlights. The convening is also an opportunity to announce the prize competition to modernize CareerOneStop (i.e. Step III). 

Appoint Representatives to a Task Force

The Alliance must recommend representatives for a Task Force to accomplish the following goals:

• Create a list of high-demand tech jobs and the pathways to obtain them at various educational levels.
• Identify gaps in the current training systems and invite short-term courses such as bootcamps to fill them.
• Certify reliable credentials that industry uses for hiring.
• Determine to norms for publishing hiring data that increases transparency across the industry and expanding access to jobs in tech through long-term action.
• Convene bi-monthly to re-evaluate the above goals to ensure their current relevance to the industry.

Reconvene the Alliance Annually to Review Data and Recommit to Transparency

The Alliance should meet annually to:

• Formally and publicly share key data points from their hiring systems, such as race, gender, educational background and tech training, and their long-term plans for expanding access to tech jobs for underrepresented groups.
• Recommit to transparency in hiring practices.
• Draw attention to updates in the hiring practices they previously published.
• Create a formal opportunity for industry to communicate their needs to the educational community, ensuring our training systems are driven by demand and informed by actual industry trends.
• Celebrate up and coming educational programs that show promise, and further expand the list of certified credentials.

Step III. Use a Prize Competition to Update Federal Resources

Driven by the ETA, the Department of Labor should launch a prize competition to modernize CareerOneStop, the existing federal career exploration platform. The new platform should spotlight the Alliance Task Force’s information on transparency on high-demand tech jobs, and the educational levels needed to attain them. It should also clarify pathways between skills, credentials, and jobs on a platform that is user friendly for workers, counselors and small- and medium- business leaders who are hiring in fields like programming, IT and cybersecurity. The best platforms will include resources for integrating the content into other sites such as LinkedIn, a corresponding smart phone application, and multi-language access.

The Prize Competition will also bring attention to the broader initiative, driving both employer and worker traffic to the site upon publication. There should be a monetary prize of approximately $100,000 for the winner and runners up, and a multi-year contract for the winner to manage the platform. It should be publicized in the coder community, via tech investors, and publicly on federal sites such as www.challenge.gov.

Conclusion 

The potential of the Transparent Tech Training Alliance lies in government leaders’ “power of the podium” to motivate industry leaders to increase transparency about their hiring practices and data. Equipped with relevant knowledge about the credentials and training experiences industry most values, delivered via a modernized, user-friendly tool, workers can invest their time and financial resources in upskilling and reskilling in tech. By making “insider information” about industry preferences public, the White House and ETA will create opportunities for all Americans to access gainful employment in the technology industry.

Summary

Self-driving technology is uniquely positioned to benefit people who cannot drive, including people with travel-limiting disabilities and many older adults. However, the lack of federal policy guiding the development of this technology has led to piecemeal recommendations that largely fail to guarantee accessible use in both public and private implementation scenarios. To leverage the full potential of self-driving technology, the Department of Transportation (DOT) should adopt accessibility standards to support autonomous transportation for people with disabilities and older adults. The Biden-Harris Administration has an important opportunity to reimagine accessible transit, capitalize on ongoing federal research programs such as the Inclusive Design Challenge, and extend the benefits of self-driving technology to those who need it most. If enacted, these recommendations will lead to increased independence, workforce participation, and mobility in the future of transportation.

Summary

The rapid adoption of Digital Surveillance Technology (DST) by state and local agencies is taking place in an under-regulated environment that is causing tangible harm to the communities and individuals these same agencies are tasked to protect. DST itself is plagued by fundamental flaws and vulnerabilities, issues compounded by a lack of safeguards in the environments where DST is deployed. The four biggest problems with government use of DST today are:

1. Governments falling prey to predatory or negligently marketed DST that fails to consistently achieve stated functionalities or meet reasonable standards.
2. Governments deploying DST in a way that does or could falsely implicate innocent individuals in criminal matters.
3. A lack of systematic oversight that fails to ensure accountability, equity, transparency, or cybersecurity.
4. Governments utilizing DST in a manner inconsistent with existing laws, ordinances, and regulations.

While these issues affect everyone, they disproportionately affect those who are falsely implicated in criminal matters as a result of DST, as well as the working poor (who have been historically over-surveilled). In addition to such human costs, overuse or misuse of DST exposes cash-strapped jurisdictions to multimillion-dollar lawsuits for violation of privacy and civil rights.

This proposal offers a set of actions that the Biden-Harris Administration could take to limit the harms of DST. Specifically, we recommend that the administration:

• Issue an Executive Order to create two mandatory filings for vendors and government agencies involved in active federal contracts for DST.
• Empower and fund the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with $10 million over two years to study and produce rules regarding DST marketing and sales.
• Allocate $50 million for a Privacy Pilot Program that would allow municipalities to utilize a tailored hybrid model of government and civilian oversight for DST.
• Condition federal dollars spent on DST for law enforcement on compliance with a set of assessments.
• Instruct the Department of Justice to create a DST Task Force to study the benefits and tradeoffs of different types of DST.

These actions would together begin to rein in the unchecked power of the surveillance complex that has attached itself to our nation’s law-enforcement systems. Doing so would advance racial and community equity across the United States while also helping restore public trust in law-enforcement institutions.

Every American deserves to engage with the world on their own terms. But for the 61 million adults in the United States living with a disability, challenges—including social isolation, the need for advanced assistive technologies, access to care, and economic security—abound. These challenges require a coordinated National Strategy on Disabilities.

To empower people with disabilities to engage with the world on their own terms, President Biden should establish a White House Council on Disabilities tasked with the mission of providing a federally coordinated approach to aligning federal policy, medical reimbursement, and research funding to address issues critical to people those living with disabilities. The goal of this Council would be to provide much-needed leadership and coordination among federal agencies and with external stakeholders, that enable the development of (and access to) the new knowledge and technologies necessary to better support Americans with disabilities of all types and further enrich connections to one another and our economy.

Challenge and Opportunity

July 26, 2020 marked the 30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This landmark piece of legislation aimed to “provide equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency” for people with disabilities. The ADA also drove positive change in Americans’ attitudes about disabilities by asserting that people with disabilities “should participate fully in all aspects of our communities and have opportunities to take risks, to succeed, and—yes—to fail.” While the ADA has addressed many of the major civil-rights challenges faced by those living with disabilities, more must be done to modernize the government’s approach to meeting the needs of people living with disabilities.

Over a quarter (61 million) of adult Americans live with a disability. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that out of this group:

• 13.7% have a mobility disability, experiencing serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
• 10.8% have a cognition disability, experiencing serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions.
• 6.8% have an independent-living disability, experiencing difficulty doing errands alone.
• 5.9% are Deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
• 4.6% have a vision disability, experiencing blindness or serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses.
• 3.6 percent have a self-care disability, experiencing difficulty dressing or bathing.

We the authors write from the perspective of people living with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), which creates physical and cognitive limitations for thousands of Americans each year and serves as a powerful example of many obstacles Americans with disabilities often face. ALS is just one of the countless conditions that make it challenging for Americans to engage with the world in the way that they want. Many of these challenges could be addressed through coordinated federal activities, investment, and programs for people with disabilities.

For example, those living with conditions such as muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, and spina bifida, need new and improved technologies that provide better mobility, independence, and self-care—technologies such as lighter, nimbler wheelchairs. Today’s power wheelchairs are heavy, bulky, and hard to transport on buses and planes. In fact, one airline recently proposed a policy that would preclude people who use heavy wheelchairs from flying on small regional jets. While the policy was reversed after activist involvement, the fact that it was proposed in the first place demonstrates some of the limitations of existing equipment and policy. Public and private investment in innovation that would make power wheelchairs lighter and more mobile would make it easier for people with certain mobility limitations to leave their homes and more fully engage with the world.

Directly related to the need for innovation is the need for modern payment and reimbursement policies that create affordable access to such technologies for people living with disabilities. New medical technologies are useless if people aren’t able to access them. For example, Medicare only covers equipment primarily intended for in-home use. That means that Medicare will not reimburse for essential exterior home modifications such as wheelchair ramps. People with disabilities have the right to be outside. It is time for a commonsense approach to coverage for services and technology that empower Americans with disabilities to experience life on their terms. Another example is that Medicare will only cover equipment for a direct medical reason. This constraint precludes coverage for multi-use devices that can ease access challenges for people with disabilities, including tablet computers that can convert eye gaze to speech and other assistive technology devices.

It is time for a commonsense, open-minded approach to coverage for services and technologies that empower Americans with disabilities. Today’s medical-reimbursement policies are outdated and problematically narrow in scope. These policies must be updated to recognize the broad potential of consumer technology and value of connectedness to wellness. Removing constraints on innovation and function in reimbursement policies will also encourage development of new and creative solutions to the diverse challenges facing those with disabilities.

Modern and coordinated research, development, and reimbursement policies are critical for tapping the enormous value that society would gain from enabling people with disabilities to engage the world more fluidly and consistently—including through employment. Just 36% of adults living with disabilities are employed. Addressing the challenges faced by people living with disabilities would help more of those people join the workforce, boosting the economy and productivity while enabling those with disabilities to live lives that are fuller and more financially secure.

Finally, there is a need to develop a data-centric approach to the evolution of policy over time to ensure that guidances, rules, and regulations are regularly updated to meet the needs of people living with disabilities based on data and the best information available. Are our policies having the impacts we need to help people with engage the world on their terms?

Plan of Action

Establishing the White House Council on Disabilities

The Biden campaign’s Plan for Full Participation and Equality for People with Disabilities provides solid groundwork for ensuring that people with disabilities are included in policy and decision-making. Realizing the promise of this plan requires a coordinating executive body to ensure that government agencies are implementing synergistic policies and avoiding bureaucratic silos. The Biden-Harris Administration should establish a White House Council on Disabilities (WHCD), run through the Domestic Policy Council, as an action-oriented entity that complements—rather than replicates—the largely advisory work of the National Council on Disability. The WHCD’s responsibilities would include:

1. Coordinating federal activities and programs for people with disabilities.
2. Examining everyday challenges facing those living with disabilities, identify opportunities for addressing those challenges, and set goals and timelines designed to increase engagement and stimulate innovation around disabilities.
3. Revisiting the ADA to see where improvements and updates need to be made.

The WHCD should be tasked with developing a National Strategy on Disabilities that lays out specific actions and forward-leaning public policies related to each of these workstreams that should be implemented over the next four years in order to improve quality of life for all people living with disabilities in the United States. As part of developing the strategy, the WHCD should aunch a robust public-engagement effort. For instance, the WHCD should organize forums that bring together private and public stakeholders to discuss common issues, and should host listening sessions to hear directly from people living with disabilities and their care partners.

The Biden campaign’s Plan for Full Participation and Equality for People with Disabilities provides solid groundwork for ensuring that people with disabilities are included in policy and decision-making. However, a coordinating executive body is needed to ensure that government agencies are implementing complementary policies and avoiding bureaucratic silos, so that the promise of the President’s campaign plan can be realized. This action-oriented effort would be complementary to the National Council on Disability, which is “an independent federal agency charged with advising the President, Congress, and other federal agencies regarding policies, programs, practices, and procedures that affect people with disabilities”. The Administration should build on this work and existing structures to ensure that the Biden plan can be implemented by appointing a Director of the WHCD to drive and oversee this effort.

The WHCD should also be tasked with establishing a comprehensive research agenda focused on addressing challenges faced by those living with disabilities that goes beyond the development of new technologies, and also improves social engagement and isolation common among people living with disabilities. The agenda should include research on:

1. Meeting technology needs, including those related to assistive technology and durable medical equipment (DME), communications technology and broadband access, transportation, and education.
2. Ensuring affordable access to and reimbursement for care, including by implementing new financing mechanisms, working with existing providers, and funding innovation.
3. Promoting economic security of those living with disabilities, including by expanding employment opportunities, implementing tax reforms, and changing social policies.

Priority areas and opportunities for action

Herein, we expand on three priority areas—and associated opportunities for action—that the WHCD could pursue. Each of these areas demonstrates the clear positive impacts that a WHCD could have on the lives of the millions living with disabilities across the United States.

Priority Area 1. Research and technology: innovation that empowers

People with disabilities use a variety of technologies to improve their lives. For mobility-challenged persons, for instance, key technologies include powered wheelchairs, special beds, and stair-lifts. But these products can be expensive and unwieldy, and no federal agency is specifically charged with driving innovation for the disabled community. In cases where innovation has occurred, such as more compact ventilators or high mobility wheelchairs, Medicare’s focus on in-home use does not adequately consider the benefits of equipment that better supports travel and social engagement. 

As part of the National Strategy on Disabilities, the WHCD should identify ways to improve and expand access to advanced technologies for people living with disabilities, such as:

• Providing federal incentives for development of cost-effective solutions to address the challenges that people with disabilities face.
• Development of a DARPA-like agency for Health (HARPA) to address the market failures that often limit innovation for people with disabilities.
• Providing much-needed coordination among federal agencies on a research and development agenda and an investment plan for diverse technologies to assist those living with disabilities.

The federal government could also establish clear and straightforward reimbursement pathways for advanced technologies. Better reimbursement policies create incentives for innovations and accelerate uptake of new technologies, thereby improving quality of life improvement for people living with disabilities. Durable Medical Equipment (DME) is a class of technologies that would especially benefit from modernized reimbursement policies. DME refers to non-disposable devices used at home to assist someone with a function. Examples of DME include wheelchairs, ventilators, crutches, and CPAP machines. As discussed previously existing reimbursement policies like in home use requirements tend to be rigid in the types of DME they cover, leading to disincentives to innovate in this space. The WHCD could coordinate a strategy for enhancing innovation in DME.

The first step is to ensure that research and development funding, as well as federal insurance coverages for DME, enable innovation that maximize engagement and equipment function. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services could sponsor an Innovation Pilot testing novel DME devices. The WHCD could ensure that federal initiatives such as this are coordinated and complementary. The second step is to encourage DME manufacturers to enhance collaborations with manufacturers of consumer technology (e.g., speech-to-text capabilities and auto-driving assistance) as well as with manufacturers of cutting-edge technology (e.g., brain-computer interfaces and exoskeletons). Innovation to support enhanced mobility, computer control, and other important functions for people with disabilities can in turn cross over to applications in broader consumer markets. The end result of these cycles of improvement will be better DME for people with disabilities as well as new products that benefit even those outside of the disabled community.

Priority Area 2. Communication and social engagement

The WHCD could establish an interagency agenda to develop and deliver science and technology that can reduce the isolation of Americans living with disabilities, and empower those Americans to engage with the world as they wish. Developing and implementing the science for this subset of Americans can not only result in fast improvements, but can also help develop strategies to address isolation and disengagement across America as a whole.

The impacts of social isolation have come into sharp focus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet people with disabilities face challenges of isolation every single day. Disabilities can make it difficult to communicate online, to speak on the phone, and/or to meet people in person. Investments need to be made to identify and deploy effective mechanisms for all people with disabilities to maintain social engagement and emotional wellness. The Biden campaign’s call for a new Assistive Technology Innovation Fund, administered by the Department of Commerce, to sponsor public-private partnerships focused on increasing the independence of people living with disabilities is a great starting point. As with DME, innovations targeted at the disabled community will ultimately cross over into the broader consumer market to help address isolation and disengagement across America as a whole.

Improving access to broadband is fundamental to ensuring that people with disabilities have the means for social and economic engagement. Broadband also fulfills a medical need, providing better access to healthcare through avenues such as remote monitoring and telehealth. However, according to a Pew Research Center survey, “[d]isabled Americans are about three times as likely as those without a disability to say they never go online.” Adults with disabilities are also less likely to have broadband at home. President Biden’s commitment to invest $20 billion in rural broadband infrastructure, direct the federal government to support cities and towns that want to build municipally owned broadband networks, and increase funding for states to expand broadband will help communities tackle the digital divide. Broadband access alone is not sufficient to create social engagement, but ensuring equitable access is an important first step.

A next step is supporting research into how today’s technologies and tools can be leveraged to better include and engage people living with disabilities. How can we best use broadband and internet-enabled platforms to promote social engagement? How can instrumental enablers of engagement like broadband and social media, accessible transportation, DME, and others be combined with behavioral and educational interventions, volunteer activities, and online communities to reduce social isolation? These are empirical questions that need study and demonstration, coupled with evidence-based policymaking, to drive a new era of inclusiveness for all people with disabilities. And if we as a nation can develop the science to address isolation for Americans with physical and communication challenges, we can use that same science to help reduce isolation for all Americans. This will lead to the more connected and inclusive nation President Biden has been calling for and that we all wish to see.

Finally, reducing social isolation and promoting engagement—as well as simply making it easier to get around one’s community —for those with disabilities demands a concerted effort to address transportation challenges. While investing in better, nimbler DME is a start, new strategies and investments are also needed to improve the transportation infrastructure for the disabled community. Making it easier for people with disabilities to go out in the world makes it easier for them to take advantage of broader opportunities for employment, volunteering, and social engagement, leading to an increase in well-being for individuals and strengthening the overall fabric of our society.

Priority Area 3. Affordable access to care

People with disabilities often have more complex medical needs as well as greater difficulty obtaining quality care. The WHCD should draft forward-leaning access to care policies that agencies can implement, including policies related to telehealth, transportation to medical appointments, and others. Additionally, many forms of disabilities typically require specialized care, including care that sometimes cannot be provided within the person’s home state. Accessing out-of-state care can be challenging, especially for people covered by Medicaid or CHIP. Even after a state Medicaid program or Medicaid Managed Care Organization (MCO) has already authorized out-of-state care, delays in accessing that care may follow. This is an area that the WHCD should examine and propose policy solutions or pilots to address.

People with disabilities often have more complex medical needs as well as greater difficulty obtaining quality care. Additionally, many forms of disabilities typically require specialized care, including care that sometimes cannot be provided within the person’s home state. The WHCD should draft forward-leaning access to care policies that agencies can implement, including policies related to telehealth, transportation to medical appointments, and access to distant specialty services.

Conclusion

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a laudable piece of civil-rights legislation. But this 30-year-old law certainly does not solve the many challenges encountered by Americans with disabilities today. ADA current rules are insufficient – three decades ago it was about getting people into places and securing legal protections, but we’re facing a different set of problems now like access to Broadband, self-driving cars, and telemedicine.

Now is the time to put into motion a coordinated federal effort to empower people with disabilities to engage with the world on their own terms. The problems are complex and require coordination of federal agencies and leadership from and within the White House. The Establishment of the WHCD could ensure that legislative policy fixes and agency implementation go hand in glove.

The Biden campaign’s Plan for Full Participation and Equality for People with Disabilities provides a solid foundation for ensuring that people with disabilities are well served by federal policy and decision-making. A coordinating body can bring the President’s vision to life and ensure that government agencies are implementing complementary policies and avoiding bureaucratic silos. A new White House Council on Disabilities (WHCD) can serve these functions.

Within 6 months of formation, the WHCD should develop and release a detailed National Strategy on Disabilities that covers topics such as innovation in technologies that enable those living with disabilities to engage with the world as they choose, ensuring affordable access to those technologies, and promoting economic security by expanding employment opportunities for those living with disabilities. These actions can and must be informed by the communities they affect. The WHCD should prioritize listening sessions with those living with disabilities and their care partners. It will also be important to bring together other key stakeholders from the disabilities community, including nonprofits, advocates, medical providers, payers, technologists, and others. By working together, we can do much to empower people with disabilities to live independently and to the fullest.

Summary

The information contained in the methods section of the overwhelming majority of research publications is insufficient to definitively evaluate research practices, let alone reproduce the work. Publication—and subsequent reuse—of detailed scientific methodologies can save researchers time and money, and can accelerate the pace of research overall. However, there is no existing mechanism for collective action to improve reporting of scientific methods. The Biden-Harris Administration should direct research-funding agencies to support development of new standards for reporting scientific methods. These standards would (1) address ongoing challenges in scientific reproducibility, and (2) benefit our nation’s scientific enterprise by improving research quality, reliability, and efficiency.

Biology is becoming a defining technology of the modern era: the bioeconomy is expected to contribute nearly 1.1 million jobs to the United States by 2030. Preparing the skilled workforce that our nation will need to fill these jobs requires a fundamental shift in how the field of biology is viewed. Biology is not merely a collection of facts to be memorized in school. Rather, it is a dynamic economic sector that provides opportunities for Americans of all skillsets, and that can generate creatively engineered solutions to persistent global challenges.

The Biden-Harris Administration can position the United States as a world leader in the emerging bioeconomy by funding modernized biology education, establishing world-class entrepreneurial hubs for biotechnology in non-traditional regions of the country, and supporting equitable access to industry-recognized certificates and work-based training. Through this comprehensive Built with Biology Plan, the federal government can prepare and invite more Americans into skilled jobs that support the bioeconomy. The social imperative for investing in the bioeconomy is at least as great as the economic one. We will build a better future for all Americans—including people of color, people with disabilities, and people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds—only by harnessing regional talent and growing robust bioeconomies in all 50 states.

Challenge and Opportunity

Scientific and engineering advances have positioned biology to become a core technology of the modern era. Sequencing the human genome is 10 million times cheaper than it was twenty years ago. Genome editing, which includes technology to read and write genetic codes, has redefined DNA as a programming language for cells: one that engineerable and available for updates in the same way that a computer’s code can be. Companies, universities, and government agencies are applying genome-editing tools to meet global needs in healthcare, agriculture, sustainable energy production, and environmental remediation. The economic impact of these efforts is already valued at nearly $1 trillion and is projected to increase for at least a decade.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed the importance of the bioeconomy into stark relief. The pandemic proved without a doubt that biological threats can send the world into turmoil. But the development of multiple astonishingly effective COVID vaccines in record time—and the associated ramp-up of biomanufacturing plants to mass-produce vaccine doses on a global scale—also proved that bioeconomic innovations can solve society’s most pressing challenges. The unprecedented impacts of COVID-19 make today biology’s “Sputnik Moment.” 70 years ago, the manned moon landing elevated the status of math and physics, triggering lasting change in public education and motivating young people across the country to become scientists and engineers. So too has the pandemic emphasized the pressing need to modernize biology education, training, and investment.

Indeed, as the bioeconomy has grown, so too have its difficulties hiring appropriately trained workers. A recent survey, for instance, found that nearly 80% of industry leaders in the biopharmaceutical sector struggle to find workers with science, engineering, and technical skills. Other countries are rushing to fill this talent vacuum. China’s investment into the bioeconomy is especially noteworthy. An April 2020 report from the Brookings Institution noted that China “intends to own the biorevolution…and they are building the infrastructure, the talent pipeline, the regulatory system, and the financial system they need to do that.” In the United States, conversely, most high schoolers and college students are still performing the same rote biology experiments that they did decades ago.

We as a nation must rethink how we teach and talk about biology in order to remain competitive. We need new curricula that integrate digital technologies and computational thinking alongside core biology concepts. We need to invest in regional infrastructure—including labs, startup space, product accelerators, and more—that will support robust and inclusive bioeconomies to flourish in all 50 states. And we need to create career pathways that enable all Americans to participate in the industry that has anchored the battle against one of the greatest challenges of our time. Concerted federal investment in the bioeconomy will simultaneously advance U.S. scientific capacity, modernize U.S. education, bring good jobs to more people, cement U.S. leadership in key industries, and improve our nation and our world.

Plan of Action

The Biden-Harris Administration should support a four-part Built with Biology Plan. Modeled on Obama-Biden Administration initiatives related to computer science (CS4All), technical education, and entrepreneurship, the plan will accelerate the U.S. bioeconomy through investment in “M.O.R.E.” educational and workforce programs that build lasting knowledge, skills, and professional competencies in bioengineering, biotechnology, biopharmaceuticals, and related fields. The plan will also help advance many of the Biden-Harris Administration’s top priorities, from mitigating climate change to implementing lasting economic relief. M.O.R.E is an acronym for changes in:

• Mindset. From middle school through college, biology must be taught not merely as a collection of facts, but as a technical foundation for creatively engineering solutions to the world’s most pressing problems.
• Opportunities. American companies must be incentivized to recruit and retain local talent so that world-class bioeconomies can grow in all 50 states.
• Recognition. A coherent set of certificates and credentials must be developed to facilitate professional advancement in the biotechnology industry and in academic settings.
• Entrepreneurship. Bioeconomy hubs must flourish in places and for people traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering.

The sections below present recommended actions to catalyze change in each of these categories.

Part 1: Mindset

The federal government should move to establish biotechnology training as a core competency. In particular, the federal government should allocate persistent funding for relevant teacher training and high-quality instructional materials at the high-school level. A good goal would be introduce at least one million high school students each year to a modern mindset in life science by the year 2025.

Approaches to teaching high-school biology are remarkably similar around the country, and have remained relatively unchanged for the past 30 years. This temporal and spatial consistency both helps and hinders needed progress. Standardized education means that modernized approaches that succeed in one classroom are likely to succeed in another. But schools and educators alike may be resistant to depart from established curricula—especially when limited resources are available to help them make a shift.

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), for instance, were intended to improve K–12 science education for all students. But only 20 states have adopted these standards since they were introduced by the National Research Council in 2013. States forgoing adoption cite limited resources, underprepared teachers, and insufficient classroom time to implement new ways of teaching. Most enrichment programs that provide teacher training are expensive and require updated classroom and lab equipment, adding thousands of dollars to school budgets unless the programs are underwritten by private foundations.

A modern mindset in life science education—in which biology is perceived as both fascinating and engineerable—requires a pedagogical change beyond the NGSS. Simply updating standards is not enough. The challenge is to use existing, free, and/or low-cost resources to creatively reimagine how biology is taught, while respecting the constraints of overburdened educators and overstretched science programs.

The BioBuilder Educational Foundation serves as an excellent example of how this can be done. BioBuilder is a 501c3 organization that provides open-source curricular materials for teaching engineering biology at the secondary and post-secondary school level. BioBuilder trains teachers, provides online biodesign lessons for students, and develops investigative laboratory activities and simulations. Its open-access textbook has been translated by the publisher into Japanese and Russian and translated by local educators into Mandarin and Spanish. BioBuilder’s approach is a proven way to increase student engagement and open new opportunities in the bioeconomy for students who would otherwise face limited access.

To introduce a BioBuilder-like curriculum into every public school in America, the federal government should enhance the Department of Education budget with an additional $500 million to cover expanded investment in biotechnology education. This funding would supplement the Career and Technical Education (CTE) State Grant and the Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged (ESED) Block Grant programs for teaching engineering biology in vocational and comprehensive public schools. The federal government can also move to establish a national initiative for DNA coding modeled on the Obama Administration’s “CS4All” initiative. CS4All aimed to provide computer-coding experiences to all students by activating funds in the Department of Education and at the National Science Foundation, as well as by directly funding states to support computer-science education.

Part 2: Opportunities

The federal government should launch an interagency Biology Career Pathways initiative that helps connect biology learning to real-world opportunities. Coordinated by Department of Labor, Department of Education and the NSF, this initiative would support paid high-school internships, technical training pathways, and first jobs in the bioeconomy.

In 2012, the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services issued a joint letter to promote the use of Career Pathways, which they defined as “well-executed alignment of education, training, and employment” in ways that help students gain marketable skills. A substantial body of research indicates that meaningful work helps students explore careers, put classroom learning into context, and build professional capacities needed for future jobs.

Unfortunately, many career-training programs are developed without partnership from future employers. Inefficiencies and mismatches frequently result. For example, the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center, an economic-development and investment agency funded through public-private partnerships, connects high school and college students with prospective employers through an online platform and subsidizes up to 12 weeks of summer wages. But company policies often limit appetite and ability to hire summer interns. Similarly, dual-enrollment and career-pathway programs, along with more traditional types of career and technical education, enable high-school students to earn class credit while training in high-demand technical fields. However, job-placement options for students during these programs and upon graduation depend on the abundance and strength of local industry. This presents a “chicken-and-egg” issue for the emerging bioeconomy and limits options for students in rural or economically struggling areas where bioeconomy-employment opportunities tend to be scarce

The Biden-Harris Administration should inventory, improve, and expand funding for programs that offer industry-informed work experiences in the bioeconomy as a way to recruit and retain regional talent. Lessons can be learned from successful models such as the NSF’s Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program and the Department of Labor’s Youth Apprenticeship. Both programs emphasize collaboration among academia, industry, nonprofits, and government. Industry partners co-develop and co-deliver technical training offered through the programs, and then commit to hiring program graduates. This collaborative model has enabled community-college students to perform industry-relevant product development for credit at school, while incentivizing employers in high-growth sectors to offer work-based learning experiences for high-school, out-of-school, and working youth.

Coordination and partnership do not happen by chance. Federal support is needed to provide organizational solutions, convene stakeholders, build consensus, manage and evaluate programmatic efforts, and accelerate the adoption of successful models. The Biden-Harris Administration should therefore increase funding for key bio-focused federal programs. We recommend allocating an additional $50 million to the Department of Education budget for Biotech Innovation and Modernization, an additional $25 million to the Department of Labor’s Apprenticeship Program for paid bioeconomy internships, and an additional $35 million to the NSF to support bioeconomy education and workforce development.

Part 3: Recognition

The federal government should establish a new competitive grants program to create bioeconomy-specific certificates and credentials that validate the quality and experience of their holders. This effort should be administered by the NSF, with guidance from the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Individual advancement in the bioeconomy currently relies heavily on previously established professional networks and “pay-to-play” experiences, putting students who are traditionally underrepresented in science at a disadvantage. An accessible, industry-recognized credential is needed to level the playing field. An international competition in biotechnology called iGEM provides an example of what a bioeconomy credential might look like. The stated mission of iGEM is to educate students in modern biotechnology and to train them as independent researchers. But the value of participating in iGEM has grown beyond that. Past participation in iGEM is often used as a marker of commitment to biological engineering by undergraduate and graduate university admissions committees, and as a filter to narrow the field of applicants for internships and jobs at biotechnology companies.

But the cost for iGEM participation (estimated in 2015 to be $50,000 per team), as well as the technical sophistication required to be competitive, makes iGEM inaccessible to students from most high schools and colleges. Inequities are hence exacerbated by widespread use of iGEM participation as a de facto qualifying credential for academic programs and jobs in the bioeconomy.

A more inclusive alternative is needed. The federal government should work with industry leaders in the U.S. bioeconomy to define a recognizable credential, akin to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) certification and modeled on the Biotechnician Assistant Credentialing Exam (BACE) certificate, that is accessible to all U.S. students. With a modest allocation of $5 million (the same amount of funding it would take to support two iGEM teams per state for one year), federal agencies can create such a credential18 and develop a digital platform that connects (i) certificate-seekers to training providers, and (ii) certificate-holders to companies. In addition, open-access publications such as BioTreks, a peer-reviewed journal for high-school biological engineers, could be cultivated as an academic credential. Federal funding to index BioTrek issues and to provide small research grants that support high schoolers in carrying out scientific experiments will make it possible for all interested students to explore and publish their ideas.

Part 4. Entrepreneurship

The federal government should increase funding for the Department of Commerce Economic Development Association (EDA) to support regional programs and infrastructure needed to grow bioeconomy hubs. When combined with non-federal cost-sharing from states, companies, universities, nonprofits, and venture-capital groups, allocating $25 million per year for 3–5 years should be enough to kick-start bioeconomy hubs in a dozen new regions across the United States.

Successful precedent for this type of investment exists. A public-private investment of $10 million in 2013 established LabCentral as a shared lab and office facility for startup life-science companies in Cambridge, MA. Since then, LabCentral-incubated startups have raised $5.9 billion in private financing and created more than 2,000 jobs in Massachusetts. Other move-in-ready laboratory facilities for life-science startups have been built around the country, albeit mostly in locations with existing biotechnology clusters (e.g., North Carolina, California, and New York).

To encourage nationwide entrepreneurship19 and establish bioeconomy hubs in more rural communities and communities of color, additional funding should be allocated to a Department of Commerce grant program for regional alliances of academic, philanthropic, and business entities that aim to establish world-class biotechnology launchpads. This funding could, for instance, fund entrepreneurship workshops and grants, subsidize construction of shared lab space for startups, or provide incentives for faculty at local academic institutions to further develop their research discoveries into pilot programs, patents, and products. Over time, flourishing regional bioeconomy hubs will enable local students to pursue technical careers close to home wherever home may be, thereby distributing the benefits of the growing bioeconomy throughout the country. 

Conclusion

The Biden-Harris Administration can position the United States as a world leader in the bioeconomy through a four-part Built with Biology Plan that (1) revises legacy approaches to biology education, (2) promotes work-based learning, (3) develops accessible and meaningful credentials, and (4) invests in regional bioeconomy hubs. As the editors of Nature Biotechnology wrote in a March 2021 letter,21 U.S. investment in the bioeconomy must “not only promote technical excellence, but also foster equity, ethics, dialogue and social responsibility in how the fruits of…research are deployed.” Changes to biology education and investments in career pathways and entrepreneurship, as outlined in this memo, are central to achieving those goals.

Summary

Information technology (IT) refers to the full range of computing technologies and the people that work with them. IT itself is among the world’s fastest-growing economic sectors, and is an integral part of most other sectors. Rapid growth and demand for IT services have led to critical workforce shortages. Efforts to address these shortages have largely focused on K–12 and college education while ignoring the post-graduate population. This is a critical error. The post-graduate population is a valuable potential source of high-skilled tech talent and diversity. Many individuals with computing-related degrees would benefit from updates to their training, while individuals with expertise in other areas increasingly stand to benefit from adding IT competencies to their existing skills. Expanding post-graduate education and training opportunities would give current employees additional avenues for advancement, while also offering displaced workers ways to reenter the job market with a new set of skills. Such opportunities would also help employers quickly meet workforce needs, enabling the IT sector to become more dynamic, agile, productive, and innovative.

The Biden-Harris Administration should make a substantial investment in post-graduate opportunities that enable college graduates from a range of disciplines to build or upgrade their computational skills. These opportunities could include everything from business-to-business (B2B) short-term classes to update computational skills, to Master of Science (MS) degree programs that don’t require prior computer-science experience, to research and mentoring experiences that prepare students for Ph.D. studies. When implemented at scale, such opportunities will enable our nation to address pressing IT talent shortages while empowering Americans of all backgrounds to participate in—and benefit from—the IT economy.

Note: An initial version of this document was posted as a Widening Participation Quadrennial Paper. Citation: Cuny, J.; Danyluk, A.; Rushmeier, H. (2020). Fostering a Post-Graduate Tech Boom. Computing Research Association.