Office Of Science And Technology Policy Research Articles

Technologists as policy advisors: A conversation with Dr. Arati Prabhakar

MIT Science Policy Review spoke with Dr. Arati Prabhakar about the role scientists and engineers play in public policy. Dr. Prabhakar is the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), where she works to harness “the power of science, technology, and innovation to achieve America’s greatest aspirations” [1]. In her current role, Dr. Prabhakar is the President’s Chief Advisor for Science and Technology, a member of the President’s Cabinet, and co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Previously, Dr. Prabhakar served as the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Between Directorships, Dr. Prabhakar worked to advance innovation in the private sector as an industry executive and venture capitalist, focusing on early-stage semiconductors and cleantech. In 2019, Dr. Prabhakar co-founded Actuate, a nonprofit research and development organization tackling issues in climate change, data security, and health outcomes. We spoke with Dr. Prabhakar about hercareer journey to OSTP and how the White House guides U.S. scientific and technological priorities.

Anti-science conspiracies pose new threats to US biomedicine in 2023.

Anti-science conspiracies pose new threats to US biomedicine in 2023.

Developing Supportive Bioeconomy Policies

Developing Supportive Bioeconomy Policies

Strategic Thinking for Bold Goals

Strategic Thinking for Bold Goals

Impact of the 2022 OSTP memo: A bibliometric analysis of US federally funded publications, 2017–2021

AbstractOn August 25, 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a memo regarding public access to scientific research. Signed by Director Alondra Nelson, this updated guidance eliminated the 12-month embargo period on publications arising from U.S. federal funding that had been allowed from a previous 2013 OSTP memo. Although reactions to this updated federal guidance have been plentiful, to date there has not been a detailed analysis of the publications that would fall under this new framework. The OSTP released a companion report along with the memo, but it only provided a broad estimate of total numbers affected per year. Therefore, this study seeks to more deeply investigate the characteristics of U.S. federally funded research over a 5-year period from 2017–2021 to better understand the updated guidance’s impact. It uses a manually created custom filter in the Dimensions database to return only publications that arise from U.S. federal funding. Results show that an average of 265,000 articles were published each year that acknowledge US federal funding agencies, and these research outputs are further examined by publisher, journal title, institutions, and Open Access status. Interactive versions of the graphs are available at https://ostp.lib.iastate.edu/.

Selected Developments in Biotechnology Law and the Biotechnology Industry

Selected Developments in Biotechnology Law and the Biotechnology Industry

White House releases new scientific integrity guidelines

Every US funding agency will be required to designate a scientific integrity official, and agencies that fund, conduct, or oversee research will have to establish the position of chief science officer under new guidelines released Jan. 12 by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The guidelines create a single definition of scientific integrity and provide a model policy to help agencies as they update and revise their existing integrity plans. OSTP also is creating a subcommittee on scientific integrity in the National Science and Technology Council, a group that discusses and coordinates policy across federal research agencies. “Every agency now has a responsibility to make sure its expert staff know their rights, and that political appointees know that these rules will be taken seriously and they will be held accountable if they break them,” Jacob Carter, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at

New security requirements, oversight coming for scientists

A year ago, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released guidelines designed to make academic research funding more transparent and less vulnerable to foreign interference. In 2023, many of the requirements, which stem from the National Security Presidential Memorandum-33 (NSPM-33) during the administration of Donald J. Trump, will become reality for scientists and universities seeking federal funding. The first requirement will be new disclosure forms that agencies use to collect information about a principal investigator’s funding sources. The goal is to make those forms—the biographical sketch and a list of current or pending funding—the same across all federal research agencies. The standardization is intended to streamline work for scientists applying for grants and eliminate confusion about what they need disclose to the government. The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which brings federal agencies together to work on common issues, put out a call for comment on

US agencies will release plans for open access

Scientists and publishers are eager to see US government agencies’ plans to give the public immediate access to publications and data created from federally funded research. In August, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced that it would require immediate open access for its funded research, and agencies’ policy plans are due this year. A 2013 plan had made research publicly available a year after publication for agencies that fund over $100 million in research. The new plans include immediate availability for both publications and data. The requirement extends to all federal agencies. Plans from larger funders are due in February; smaller funders, which are creating open-access plans from scratch, have until August. Agencies seem enthusiastic about the possibilities of the plans they’re developing, says Heather Joseph, executive director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), an organization of libraries and academic institutions that promotes

Appoint a new NIH director, now

Why has President Biden's administration been staggering when it comes to key scientific appointments? Most noticeably, there has been a failure to confirm a new director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) since Francis Collins stepped down a year ago. It took nearly a year to nominate the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Robert Califf. And regrettably, Biden began his presidency with the nomination of geneticist Eric Lander as the first science adviser to the president and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). A year later, Lander resigned in disgrace because of abusive behavior toward staff. Although recent appointments provide some confidence [including Monica Bertagnolli as director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Joni Rutter as director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and Arati Prabhakar as the new director of OSTP], the most high-profile biomedical job in the United States-NIH director-remains unfilled.

Preparing Precollege Students for the Second Quantum Revolution with Core Concepts in Quantum Information Science

After the passage of the U.S. National Quantum Initiative Act in December 2018, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) recently assembled an interagency working group and conducted a workshop titled “Key Concepts for Future Quantum Information Science Learners” that focused on identifying core concepts for future curricular and educator activities to help precollege students engage with quantum information science (QIS). Helping precollege students learn these key concepts in QIS is an effective approach to introducing them to the second quantum revolution and inspiring them to become future contributors in the growing field of quantum information science and technology as leaders in areas related to quantum computing, communication, and sensing. This paper is a call to precollege educators to contemplate including QIS concepts into their existing courses at appropriate levels and get involved in the development of curricular materials suitable for their students. Also, research shows that compare-and-contrast activities can provide an effective approach to helping students learn. Therefore, we illustrate a pedagogical approach that contrasts the classical and quantum concepts so that educators can adapt them for their students in their lesson plans to help them learn the differences between key concepts in quantum and classical contexts.

The U.S. Bioeconomy: Charting a Course for a Resilient and Competitive Future

The U.S. Bioeconomy: Charting a Course for a Resilient and Competitive Future

Biden doesn’t get it

It has been a rough 2 weeks for the US science community. After 4 years of bludgeoning by the Trump administration, hope resurged a year ago as a new White House promised to value science. But there have been missteps, the most recent taking place on the heels of another blunder that many saw coming. Eric Lander, who just stepped down as President Biden's science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), was a prominent research figure with a well-known record of bullying and callous actions. With the notable exception of the 500 Women Scientists organization, the scientific community was embarrassingly silent about Lander's nomination. Not surprisingly, he is out of the White House because of the same behavioral issues. And yet, in another tone deaf move, the administration just named Francis Collins, the recently retired director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as Lander's interim replacement as science adviser while asking Alondra Nelson, the OSTP's deputy director for science and society and an experienced administrator and scholar, to temporarily direct OSTP. Apparently, Biden doesn't think Nelson is capable of doing both jobs. I disagree and am not staying silent this time.

Biden names acting White House science leadership

The White House has named acting leaders for the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the role of science adviser to the president. Current OSTP deputy director Alondra Nelson will serve as acting director. Former National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins will become acting science adviser and acting cochair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Both Nelson and Collins will serve “until permanent leadership is nominated and confirmed,” the White House says in a statement . This scientific reshuffle follows the resignation of Eric Lander as science adviser and OSTP director after a White House investigation found that he had created a hostile work environment . His last day was Feb. 18. “The selections are responsive to the dual importance of a strong OSTP that can drive science and technology solutions to our greatest challenges—and the very specific attention the President wants

International research collaborations will face continued scrutiny in the US

National security concerns about US research increased under President Donald J. Trump’s administration. Its anti-China stance led to restrictions on international collaborations and even prosecutions of academic researchers, often for failure to report Chinese funding. While the rhetoric has changed somewhat under President Joe Biden, efforts to address research security concerns continue. On Jan. 4, Biden’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released guidelines for how federal funding agencies should seek information from researchers about their international collaborations or non-US funding (see page 15) . The US Congress has also been negotiating national security restrictions for academics . Universities hope that Congress looks at the OSTP’s new guidelines and doesn’t add anything that conflicts with them, which would be “a big challenge,” says Deborah Altenburg, associate vice president for research policy and government affairs at the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. Faculty are already confused by research security

Research security guidelines could unify reporting requirements

Long-awaited US guidelines designed to make reporting collaborations and funding more straightforward and transparent were released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in a Jan. 4 report. The guidelines tell federal agencies that fund scientific research how to implement National Security Presidential Memorandum 33, a research security directive issued by former president Donald J. Trump in response to fears that China is trying to unlawfully appropriate US academic research. Agencies have been working together to come up with consistent requirements. The results could have a big impact on universities and individual researchers as they try to navigate grant applications and conflict-of-interest disclosures at a time when academic research—especially international collaborations and funding—has come under increased scrutiny. Only one part of the OSTP guidance is mandatory: agencies must create rules that do not discriminate. Many scientists have said that the current response to fears that China

The COVID-19 High-Performance Computing Consortium.

In March of 2020, recognizing the potential of High Performance Computing (HPC) to accelerate understanding and the pace of scientific discovery in the fight to stop COVID-19, the HPC community assembled the largest collection of worldwide HPC resources to enable COVID-19 researchers worldwide to advance their critical efforts. Amazingly, the COVID-19 HPC Consortium was formed within one week through the joint effort of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and IBM to create a unique public-private partnership between government, industry, and academic leaders. This article is the Consortium's story-how the Consortium was created, its founding members, what it provides, how it works, and its accomplishments. We will reflect on the lessons learned from the creation and operation of the Consortium and describe how the features of the Consortium could be sustained as a National Strategic Computing Reserve to ensure the nation is prepared for future crises.

Epidemic tracking and forecasting: Lessons learned from a tumultuous year

Epidemic forecasting has garnered increasing interest in the last decade, nurtured and scaffolded by various forecasting challenges organized by groups within the US federal government, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (1⇓–3), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (4), and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (5), and elsewhere (6, 7). In 2017, after several years of experimentation with flu forecasting in academic groups, the CDC decided to incorporate influenza forecasting into its normal operations, including weekly public communications (8) and briefing to higher-ups. To provide more reliable infrastructure and support for its forecasting needs, the CDC in 2019 designated two national Centers of Excellence for Influenza Forecasting, one at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (https://reichlab.io/people) and one at Carnegie Mellon University (https://delphi.cmu.edu/about/center-of-excellence/). Not unrelatedly, the last decade has also seen a rise in the importance of digital surveillance streams in public health, with improving epidemic tracking and forecasting models being a key application of these data. Digital streams, such as search and social media trends, have constituted a large part of the focus (9⇓⇓⇓⇓–14); however, even more broadly, data from auxiliary streams that operate outside of traditional public health reporting, such as online surveys, medical devices, or electronic medical records (EMRs), have received considerable attention as well (15⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–25). The Carnegie Mellon Delphi group, which the two of us colead, has worked in both of these emerging disciplines—epidemic forecasting and building relevant auxiliary signals to aid such forecasting models—since 2012. In 2020, as the pandemic broke out, we struggled like many other groups to find ways to contribute to the national efforts to respond to the pandemic. We ended up shifting our … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: ryantibs{at}cmu.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Eric Lander addresses controversies at hearing

US president Joe Biden’s decision to elevate the role of presidential science adviser to cabinet level fulfills his campaign promise to return science to a place of prominence in government. In many ways, his choice of Eric Lander to fill that position and lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is an obvious one. Lander, a mathematician and geneticist at Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, earned fame for his role in the international Human Genome Project. He is lauded for his ability to make science both interesting and understandable, and he cochaired the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) under former president Barack Obama. But in recent years, critics have charged that Lander has been dismissive of or insensitive to women and people of color, most notably by praising the contributions of a male colleague while minimizing the Nobel Prize–winning CRISPR genome-editing

Tension over US research security likely to grow

Throughout 2019, the US Congress, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies expressed fears about the security of research at US universities. In particular, they pointed to Chinese efforts to steal research by secretly hiring US scientists. Those fears have prompted a series of efforts that could result in new security recommendations in 2020. One provision in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act would require the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to look at ways to protect federally funded science from foreign threats. Another would ask the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to examine the balance between national security and international collaborations. The OSTP has has been holding meetings with the research community to talk about security concerns. Scientists are worried that restrictions on traditionally open research will hurt US science. Even in areas of fundamental scientific research that do have national security implications, “we wall