The Untold Story of the CHIPS and Science Act
Daniel Goetzel is currently a Practitioner-in-Residence at Harvard Kennedy School’s Reimagining the Economy project. Prior to his work at Harvard, he was Program Director of the National Science Foundation’s Technology, Innovation and Partnerships Directorate. He also authored a Day One policy memo focused on fostering the next generation of small business leaders. The piece that follows is an oral history of the establishment of the NSF’s Regional Innovation Engines Program – a key part of the historic CHIPS and Science Act.
The CHIPS and Science Act was signed into law on August 9, 2022. It was the largest technology and industrial policy program in modern history, investing hundreds of billions of dollars into research, manufacturing, and American competitiveness.
When the government announces flagship programs like this, a bill signing or a ribbon cutting is often all the public sees. They rarely see the quiet, often messy work that goes into creating, passing, and implementing a major piece of legislation. This piece is an attempt to change that by digging into the CHIPS and Science Act and the NSF Regional Innovation Engines (NSF Engines) program.
While much of the media coverage and debate around the bill has focused on the multi-billion dollar incentives to large corporations like TSMC, Samsung, and Intel, the CHIPS and Science Act had a complementary focus and multi-billion dollar investment in R&D and economic development, spanning everything from chips and AIto battery storage and biotech. One investment vehicle that came out of the bill was the National Science Foundation’s Regional Innovation Engines, an up to $1.6B program aiming to create the industries of the future in communities that were historically ignored in past tech booms.
Contribute your own story about Regional Innovation Engines here.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
The American administrative state, since its modern creation out of the New Deal and the post-WWII order, has proven that it can do great things. But it needs some reinvention first.