国会谈判over the massive bipartisan innovation bill have stumbled over a controversial proposal to expand the geographic footprint of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding. That proposal, in the Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA), mandates that 20% of NSF’s budget be directed to a special program to help institutions in the many states that receive relatively few NSF dollars.
Such a mandate would represent a dramatic expansion of the建立的刺激竞争研究的计划（EPSCOR）目前，NSF预算的不到3％。主要EPSCOR扩展是popular among legislators谁希望看到他们所代表的研究机构在NSF投资组合中变得更具竞争力。一些立法者表示，他们对整个创新方案的支持取决于这种扩张。
But the proposed 20% set-aside for EPSCoRis being met with fierce opposition on Capitol Hill。96 other legislators recently co-authored a信警告说：“任意将科学机构在该国大多数研究机构中的大部分预算中的相当一部分围困将从根本上降低整个国家的科学能力，并损害现有机构的研究概况。”
支持者和反对者20%的储备品make good points. Those in favor want to see more equitable distribution of federal research dollars, while those against are concerned that the mandatory set-aside is too massive and blunt an instrument for achieving that goal. Fortunately, we believe compromise is achievable—and well worth pursuing. Here’s how.
什么是EPSCOR？
First, some quick background on the program at the heart of the controversy: ESPCoR. The program was established in 1979 with the admirable goal of broadening the geographic distribution of NSF research dollars, which even then were disproportionately concentrated in a handful of states.
EPSCOR为研究基础设施，研讨会等有针对性的支持提供了合格的管辖权，并为提交给NSF其他地区的项目提案提供了共同资助。管辖权是eligibleto participate in EPSCoR if its most recent five-year level of total NSF funding is equal to or less than 0.75% of the total NSF budget (excluding EPSCoR funding and NSF funding to other federal agencies). Currently, 25 states plus Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands qualify for EPSCoR. Yet the non-EPSCoR states still accounted for nearly 90% of NSF awards in FY 2021.
为什么扩张有争议？
As mentioned above, the Senate-passed USICA (S. 1260）将要求NSF将其预算的20％用于EPSCOR（包括由EPSCOR机构领导的研究联盟）。问题是EPSCOR仅收到的2.4％NSF的2022财年拨款。This means that to achieve the 20% mandate without cutting non-EPSCoR funding, Congress would have to approve nearly $2 billion in new appropriations for NSF in FY 2023, representing a 22% year-over-year increase, devoted entirely to EPSCoR. This is, to be blunt, wildly unlikely.
另一方面，根据更现实的2023财年拨款NSF的EPSCOR预算份额为20％，将需要按15％的订单削减非EPSCOR计划的资金：研究社区的灾难性主张。
对于20％的EPSCOR固定的途径似乎都可能是合理的。尽管如此，主要的立法者仍表示，20％的目标是必不可少的。那怎么办？
A path forward
We think a workable compromise is possible. The following three revisions to the Senate-proposed set-aside that everyone might accept:
- 指定20％的授权适用于EPSCOR状态的机构，而不是EPSCOR计划本身。EPSCOR计划的具体资金占NSF总预算的3％，但当前EPSCOR州的机构实际上receive about 13% of NSF research dollars。换句话说，通过该机构的正常竞争力量的机会将大部分NSF资金分配给EPSCOR机构。鉴于这一事实，有一个明确的案例可以将20％的升级集中在符合EPSCOR资格上institutionsrather than the EPSCoR程序。
- 指定该授权仅适用于校外资金，而不适用于机构运营和行政拨款。这只是好政府。如果EPSCOR资金与行政拨款相关，则可能会产生激励措施来膨胀行政销售销售项目。此外，如果将授权适用于NSF预算的全部，并且由于其他原因（例如，涵盖NSF总部的未来资本投资）必须增加行政成本，则NSF可能会被迫通过削减非非削减非书籍来“平衡书籍”- EPSCOR校外资金以维持20％的ESPCOR份额。
- 建立多年轨迹以实现20％的目标。As mentioned above, a major year-over-year increase in the proportion of NSF funding directed to either EPSCoRorEPSCoR-eligible institutions could cripple other essential NSF programs from which funding would have to be pulled. Managing the deluge of new dollars could also prove a challenge for EPSCoR-eligible institutions. Phasing in the 20% target over, say, five years would (i) enable federal appropriators to navigate pathways for increasing EPSCoR funding while avoiding drastic cuts elsewhere at NSF, and (ii) give EPSCoR-eligible institutions time to build out the capacities needed to maximize return on new research investments.
Crunching the numbers
为了说明这一提议的妥协可能在财政上意味着什么，假设国会要求的是，NSF资金用于EPSCOR资格的机构的资金从目前的总研究总计13％的份额上升到五年来的20％。为了实现这一目标，五年来，符合EPSCOR资格的国家获得的NSF资金份额必须每年增加约9％。
Under this scenario, if NSF achieves 3% annual increases in appropriations (which is close to what it’s done since the FY 2013 “sequestration” year), then we’d see about 13% annual growth in NSF research dollars funneled to EPSCoR states due to the escalating set-aside. NSF research dollars funneled to non-EPSCoR states would increase by about 1% annually over the same time period. By the end of the five-year period, EPSCoR-eligible institutions would have seen a more than 80% increase in funding.
NSF拨款的年度增加2％足以实现20％的固定性cutting在非EPSCOR国家的机构资助，但也不允许这些机构的资金增长。换句话说，拨款的增加必须完全针对Epscor固定的上升。
Finally, annual increases in NSF appropriations of 5% would be enough to achieve the 20% set-aside for EPSCoR-eligible institutions while also enabling non-EPSCoR-eligible institutions to enjoy continued 3% annual increases in funding growth.
The next step
美国在创新方面的实力是基于全国各地的科学贡献。因此，有一个明确而有说服力的理由可以确保所有美国研究机构都拥有成功所需的资源，包括那些从历史上获得较低的联邦机构支持的资源。
he bipartisan innovation package offers a chance to achieve this, but it must be done carefully. The three-pronged compromise on EPSCoR outlined above is a prudent way to thread the needle. It should also be supported by sustained, robust increases in NSF funding as a whole. Congress should therefore couple this compromise with an explicit, bipartisan commitment to support long-term appropriations growth for NSF—because such growth would benefit institutions in every state.
两党创新软件包为美国科学，创新和竞争力提供了巨大的潜在上行空间。为了实现这一上涨，EPSCOR妥协值得追求。
The space economy is enormous, but one of its biggest challenges is tiny: space debris.
The U.S. would need 65,000 miles of pipeline to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Here’s how the Biden Administration can expanding the use of low-emission, composite materials to support a net-zero vision.
氨基酸是必不可少的，但对于大规模生物生产而言是昂贵的投入。联邦资金可以激励可扩展的产量，将这些成本减少一半。
Investing in oxygen as a utility through on-demand infrastructure can improve access and mortality rates globally. Healthcare experts propose how an international coalition led by USAID can transform the medical oxygen marketplaces of low- and middle-income countries to ensure every patient has the oxygen they need.