Bill Overview
Title: National Science and Technology Strategy Act of 2021
Description: This bill requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop a national science and technology strategy and publish a science and technology review. The bill revises OSTP reporting requirements to direct the OSTP to submit to Congress a comprehensive national science and technology strategy of the United States to meet national research and development objectives for the following four-year period. No later than December 31, 2022, and every four years afterwards, the OSTP shall complete a review of the science and technology enterprise of the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Waltz, Michael [R-FL-6]
Target Audience
Population: people involved in the global scientific and technological community
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The legislation pertains to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which plays a role in national science and technology governance.
- The OSTP's activities influence researchers, educational institutions, technology firms, and industries relying on scientific innovation.
- A national science and technology strategy could direct funding, regulations, and priorities that affect millions globally engaged in related fields.
- The global scientific community could be influenced by shifts in US science and technology policy due to international collaborations and projects.
Reasoning
- The Office of Science and Technology Policy's initiatives will largely affect stakeholders in scientific research and technology innovation.
- Scientists, engineers, technology executives, educators, and students are majorly impacted as they are directly involved with scientific and technology enterprises.
- The policy's influence may also extend to industries dependent on technological advances, such as healthcare, manufacturing, and information technology.
- A sector of the population, like members of the public with no direct involvement in science, may not feel direct effects, making distribution across targeted and non-targeted groups important.
Simulated Interviews
Research Scientist (Cambridge, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I look forward to seeing how the national strategy boosts funding for AI research.
- Increased funding means more opportunities for groundbreaking discoveries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tech Company CEO (Silicon Valley, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A national strategy could lead to more collaboration opportunities.
- I am concerned about potential increases in regulatory burden.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
University Professor (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This strategy might improve grant approval rates for my research.
- The focus on technology innovation is beneficial for my academic career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
High School Science Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving national strategies will enhance science education resources.
- I'm concerned it might take years to see changes in the classroom.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Biotech Industry Consultant (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The strategy could streamline innovation to market processes.
- Policy changes introduce uncertainties that could disrupt current operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to improved federal grants is likely with this strategy.
- There may be more competition with increased focus on technology advancement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the strategy opens up more job opportunities in national labs.
- There's a concern that increased focus on innovation may overlook fundamental research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Health Policy Analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A national strategy will likely support public health technology advancements.
- There might be more pressure on existing public health policies to conform to new standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited about potential new challenges and projects under new national priorities.
- Concerned about job stability due to shifting government focus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Mechanic (Denver, CO)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- National science strategies really don't affect me much.
- I hope any advances trickle down and improve everyday tech in cars.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $8000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- Coordination of federal R&D activities could improve the overall effectiveness of US science and technology initiatives.
- The long-term indirect economic effects of enhanced science and technology strategies often outweigh upfront costs.
- Maintaining rigorous and independent reviews is crucial to ensuring the strategy adapts to changing scientific and technological landscapes.