SSTI Digest

The NIH’s High-Risk, High-Reward Research program (HRHR) has the potential to overturn fundamental paradigms, but historically the applicant and awardee pools have not fully represented the demographic and geographic diversity across the U.S. biomedical workforce, says the NIH’s deputy director for extramural research. Those concerns, and others about bias in the peer review process, have led to a new approach — the HRHR program is going to anonymize the review of the Transformative Research Award applications.

It is hoped that the new process, which will anonymize the identity of applicant institutions and investigators until the last phase of the award’s three-phase review process, will focus on the merit of the research and limit potential unconscious bias and encourage applications from investigators who otherwise may not have applied because of perceived bias.

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MassTech) — the state agency responsible for strengthening the commonwealth’s position as a leading hub for innovation and entrepreneurship — recently released the 2019 edition of its annual report, The Index of the Massachusetts Innovation Economy, which includes an updated list of the 10 leading technology states  and a detailed special analysis on entrepreneurial ecosystems. As a globally recognized center of science- and technology-based innovation, communities across the U.S. can learn from Massachusetts’ successes as well as from the challenges the state faces in further strengthening its entrepreneurship ecosystem.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recently released its report on the state of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) — authorized by the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 to coordinate the nanotech-related R&D activities of 26 federal agencies — finding that although the U.S. has maintained a strong program it is increasingly challenged by international competitors. Specifically, the report names China as the primary contender for the U.S.’ spot at the top and attributes its success to strong Chinese leadership and commitment to substantial investment in the field. Looking toward the future, the authors reevaluated the NNI’s stated goals, identified three priorities to ensure the NNI vision can be carried out moving forward, and conclude with five key recommendations needed to meet these priorities and carry out the NNI vision.

State innovations in the development and implementation of clean energy programs have received national attention with the announcement of the 2020 State Leadership in Clean Energy Award winners. Presented by the Clean Energy State Alliance (CESA), the awards recognize state and municipal programs’ accomplishments in the clean energy field. Many of the 2020 award recipients represent the role innovation plays within the clean energy sector, including New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s work with offshore wind development, Energy Trust Oregon’s Inclusive Innovation Project that builds new partnerships with local communities to help with the installation of solar energy, and the California Energy Commission’s funding of clean energy solutions for the state’s vast agricultural sector.

In separate announcements this week, the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) revealed funding opportunities that can assist efforts to transform American innovations and support the growth of new companies.

Department of Defense

OEA released a notice of funding opportunity for the new Defense Manufacturing Community Support Program. Funded projects must come from regional consortia, include connections to Defense manufacturing institutes and work to strengthen technological or manufacturing supply chains, but are able to conduct a broad range of activities within these requirements.

With the nation in the midst of a recession following 128 months of economic expansion, many are asking how we will find our way out. Turning to a long-time strength for the nation and relying on our manufacturing industry is one way. Manufacturing leaders presented some policy solutions and historical context for the outlook during a National Conference of State Legislatures webinar yesterday in conjunction with representatives of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

Although not all manufacturing jobs returned after the Great Recession, manufacturing is still one of the most significant roles in states’ economies, said Scott Paul, the president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. It represents about 12 to 13 percent of GDP, but has an outsize punch for its impact, he said. For instance, manufacturing jobs boast higher wages, generate more economic activity and produce synergies with universities.

The U.S. bioscience industry is helping to meet the challenges presented by the pandemic through two, key characteristics: its innovative capacity to address global challenges, and its role as a consistent economic stalwart, with a track record of generating high-quality jobs and growth that has acted as a key buffer during prior economic recessions. Those are among the findings of the ninth biennial report on the economic footprint of the industry, The Bioscience Economy: Propelling Life-Saving Treatments, Supporting State & Local Communities, produced by TEConomy and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO).

Despite a school year disrupted by the pandemic, teams of students from across the nation submitted a host of ideas in the latest Biomimicry Institute’s Youth Design Challenge (YDC). The YDC brings the process of nature-inspired design into the classroom of middle and high school students, who collaborate in teams to solve sustainability problems using nature as a guide.

Winning teams this year included a concept for a building material that would condense water from nighttime air and collect it on the surface as an evaporative cooling system for buildings, termed the “Moist Brick”; an alternative to concrete barriers to protect cyclists and pedestrians from vehicles, called “A Concrete Solution”; the “Dome Home” that incorporates inspiration from multiple organisms to design a home that could withstand extreme weather in the Caribbean; and more.

The Times Higher Education Impact Rankings has measured 768 universities around the world against the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Combining research and activity metrics, the 2020 rankings place institutions from New Zealand and Australia in the top four spots, with U.S. universities holding 14 places within the top 200. In addition to overall performance, the report also ranks institutions within each of the 17 SDGs.

The Times Higher Education’s research metrics are based primarily on data from Elsevier, examining publications within a 5-year timespan between 2014 and 2018. Metrics measuring a university’s policies and initiatives require the institution “to provide the evidence to support their claims.” Times Higher Education notes that “in these cases, we give credit for the evidence and for the evidence being public.”

The U.S. has long been the global leader in science and engineering (S&E), but that position is being increasingly challenged with China likely surpassing the U.S. in total Research and Development (R&D) investment in 2019. Accounting for this changing landscape, the National Science Board (NSB) recently released its Vision 2030 report. It identifies the primary challenges facing the S&E enterprise in the United States, the essential elements of leadership, and a roadmap for implementing these recommendations and maintaining U.S. leadership in S&E for the next decade.

The NSB identified the following primary challenges:

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicates that the U.S. economy through 2030 will have $8 trillion (as measured in 2019 dollars) less in economic activity than the CBO projected just five months ago.  Combined with SSTI’s recent examination of economic recovery that found it took 20 states at least four years for their economy to recover back to Great Recession levels, the impact on state budgets can be expected to be long lasting. In fact, a new examination by SSTI finds that through FY 2018, 15 states’ general revenue funds had not recovered to FY 2008 levels (as measured in 2018 dollars) based on data collected by the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO). For an additional 16 states, it took seven to 10 years to reach FY 2008 levels.

A trio of recent reports reflect the pernicious effects the pandemic is having on small businesses. Last month, a survey from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) found that 52 percent of small businesses expected to be out of business within six months. SHRM President and CEO Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., called it “the most alarming findings to date.” The Census Bureau has also developed a new survey intended to measure the effect of the pandemic on small businesses, which is running from April 26 to June 27. Its results are being published weekly and it, too, has revealed large to moderate negative effects of COVID-19 on small businesses, but noted that “the majority expect to return to usual level of operations within the next six months.” And a new report from Facebook and the Small Business Roundtable reflects which businesses are still operational and which are not.