A bipartisan group of US senators and representatives has introduced legislation in Congress that would significantly change the operation of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Proponents of the bill say that the proposal aims “to solidify the United States’ leadership in scientific and technological innovation through increased investments in the discovery, creation, and commercialization of technology fields of the future”. To do so, the so-called Endless Frontier Act would expand the NSF’s remit, rename the organization and provide more than $100bn in support. The proposal has gained approval from many, but some have objected that it may undercut the NSF’s main objective, which is to fund basic scientific research.

Those behind the bill – four prominent US congresspeople – say that its introduction stems from the perception that international competitors, and particularly China, threaten to overtake the US technologically. “To win the 21st century, we need to invest in technologies of the future,” says Ro Kahana, a Democratic congressperson from California. “That means increasing public funding into those sectors of our economy that will drive innovation and create new jobs.”

Chuck Schumer, a New Yorker who leads the Democratic minority in the Senate, says that the US “cannot afford” to continue to underinvest in science while still “lead[ing] the world” in advanced research. That view is backed by Republican senator Todd Young of Indiana. “By virtue of being the first to emerge on the other side of this pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party is working hard to use the crisis to its advantage by extending influence over the global economy,” he claims. The new act, adds Republican representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who is the fourth member of the group introducing the legislation, “is a down payment for future generations of American technological leadership”.

The group announced the bill shortly after the 70th birthday of the NSF on 10 May. The legislation is named after a report – Science: the Endless Frontier – by Vannevar Bush, who was at the time director of the US government’s Office of Scientific Research and Development. That report, published 75 years ago on 5 July, laid the foundations for the US’s postwar boom in science and technology.

Ringing the changes

The changes envisioned by the group start with the name. The NSF would become the National Science and Technology Foundation (NTSF), with the additional “T” creating a new technology directorate – with its own deputy director – that has “flexible personnel, programme management, and awarding authorities”. The new directorate would fund research in 10 specific areas including: artificial intelligence and machine learning; high-performance computing, semiconductors, and advanced computer hardware; quantum computing and information systems; robotics, automation and advanced manufacturing; and advanced energy technology.

The transformation, however, would not come cheap, costing $100bn over five years. The bill authorizes an extra $10bn over five years to enable the Department of Commerce – another science-related government agency – to designate at least 10 regional hubs across the country. These would act as global centres for research, development and manufacturing of key technologies. That amount would finance a series of authorized activities. They include increased research spending at universities, which could form consortia with private industry to create focused research centres and develop other ways to advance new technologies. It would also include programmes to facilitate and accelerate the transfer of new technologies from the laboratory to the market as well as increased spending on research collaborations with US partners.

Leaders of research institutions have shown their enthusiasm for the bill. “To maintain global competitiveness and nurture future job creation, our country must prioritize research that will be fundamental to innovation and discovery,” says New York University president Andrew Hamilton.

Rafael Reif, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, agrees. “Supporting fundamental research with an eye to real-world challenges is the kind of thinking that drove the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop what became the Internet,” he wrote in The Hill. “Such use-inspired basic research, funded by NSF…is what’s needed to retain US leadership in both science and technology, to keep us prosperous and secure.”

Yet the proposal has drawn some criticism. Former NSF director Arden Bement told Science of his concern that the bill could indicate to Congress – which appropriates agencies’ funds – that investments in the bill’s innovative technologies override the importance of the NSF’s core mission of funding fundamental, curiosity-driven research. But Bement’s successor France Córdova, who completed her six-year term as NSF director in March, argues that current-day science involves more seamless integration between fundamental and applied research.

The relevant committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate have yet to schedule hearings on the bill. Given the impact of coronavirus and protests from the Black Lives Matter movement as well as the forthcoming presidential election in November, an early decision on the legislation looks unlikely. Nevertheless, the bipartisan group that promotes the legislation has given legislators and the US scientific community indications of a new approach to the relationship between government-funded research and application.