Capitol Hill Quarterlyw w w . a p s . o r g / p u b l i c a t i o n s / c a p i t o l h i l l q u a r t e r l y O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 V O L U M E 9 , N O . 2

TM

On the Back PageU.S. Rep. Anna G. Eshoo

discusses securing America's scientific future.

Capitol Hill Quarterly is a publication of the American Physical Soci-ety, www.aps.org. APS is a non-partisan, profes-sional society of physi-cists with approximately 50,000 members.

HIGGS continued on page 3

FELLOW continued on page 3

Larry Smarr

COMPETES continue on page 3

By Mark ElsesserWe need to build,” said UC

Santa Cruz Professor Steve Ritz, touting a central recommenda-tion of the U.S. Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel’s (P5) recently released strategic plan, “Building for Discovery.”

Ritz made the important point during a recent Senate briefing.

But building things costs mon-ey, and federal support for particle physics – also referred to as high-energy physics – has declined in real terms by more than 50 per-cent during the past 25 years.

While best known for break-through discoveries, such as the Higgs boson, within its own re-search realm, particle physics contributes broadly across other disciplines and in developing ad-vanced technologies. Biologists, chemists and material scientists rely heavily on synchrotron light sources to conduct their research. MRI machines have become stan-dard tools for medical diagnosis and proton accelerators are used to treat cancer.

With the future of U.S. par-ticle physics uncertain and the P5

Physics Leaders Discuss Life After Higgs Boson Discovery with Congress

Photo courtesy of FermilabSuperconducting radio frequency capture cavity

report in hand, physics leaders recently educated congressional members and staff on the essential role particle physics plays in our science enterprise and shared the community’s vision for its future.

Their efforts were highlighted by the House Subcommittee on Energy’s hearing titled, “A Re-view of the P5: The U.S. Vision for Particle Physics After Discov-ery of the Higgs Boson.” The hear-ing’s witness panel was comprised

National Lab Day Demonstrations Highlight U.S. Competitiveness and Innovation

U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz joined U.S Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) for National Lab Day on the Hill. The event high-lighted several notable research projects from across the national laboratory system. Durbin and Risch also formally launched the Senate National Laboratory Cau-cus to increase awareness of the national labs as leaders in devel-oping new breakthrough technol-ogies and discoveries to address some of our nation’s most press-ing challenges.

“The national labs continue to advance science, clean energy and nuclear security in this country, as they have for decades,” said Moniz. “The labs also provide es-sential capabilities for university and industrial researchers – nearly 30,000 per year – and advance technology frontiers, such as high performance computing and ad-vanced manufacturing.”

“Over the past 70 years, the Energy Department’s national lab system has been an integral piece of American innovation and success. The world-class fa-

cilities serve as a meeting place for researchers from around the globe as they work to address our biggest challenges in energy, sci-entific discovery and national se-curity,” said Durbin. “I am proud to join Sen. Risch in establish-ing the Senate National Labora-tory Caucus. By working together across the aisle, we can make cer-tain that U.S. labs – like Illinois’ own Argonne and Fermi – contin-ue to build on their successes and remain world leaders in cutting edge research.”

“Department of Energy nation-al laboratories from coast-to-coast contribute groundbreaking scien-tific research in a number of dis-ciplines, including energy innova-tion, national security and basic science research,” said Risch. “In order to conduct this research, our national labs are equipped with unique assets – be it their loca-tion, one of a kind instruments or, most importantly, the world’s leading scientists. My home state is fortunate to have the Idaho Na-tional Laboratory located in Idaho

of renowned physicists Steve Ritz (P5 chair and professor at UC Santa Cruz); Persis Drell (director emerita, SLAC National Labora-tory); Nigel Lockyer (director, Fermi National Accelerator Labo-ratory); and Natalie Roe (direc-tor, Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory).

The panel provided testimony and answered committee mem-

LAB continued on page 3

show a disparate perspective. The Senate bill proposes support for the NSF until 2019, culminating in an annual budget of $9.9 bil-lion, whereas the House only of-fers a budget of $7.27 billion un-til 2015. Furthermore, the House mandates an additional step in the pre-existing peer review process for NSF grants, requiring NSF of-ficials to certify that the funding is being used in an area of science which has “a substantial current or potential impact… on the State.” The House bill also includes lan-guage on misrepresentation of research results, details banning scientists from receiving support, and places ridiculous restrictions on how to cite your work when applying for a federal grant.

In short, the Senate bill treats science and scientists with vision, whereas the House bill treats them as untrustworthy individuals who need government oversight.

As a global power in the 21st century, we must recognize that scientific innovation will have substantial impact on the nation. We now live in a world where words such as ‘quantum’ and ‘nuclear’ can be heard on national news networks, and where several of the most polarizing political is-sues in the past few years (think climate change, stem cell research and weapons development) have been scientific in nature. Can we continue down a path that cripples scientists rather than empowers

them as the United States increas-ingly competes on the internation-al stage?

Since its formal inception in 1950, the NSF has supported na-tional defense; created the first national observatories in the age of Sputnik; and fostered good will in several international collabo-rations. In more recent decades, the NSF has been a foundation of research in materials and technol-ogy, helping to launch the vast American tech industry and cul-tivate economic benefit. It is the only national organization de-signed to encompass all fields of science, and it has facilitated great strides in each one.

In order to maintain this mo-mentum, America must continue to provide opportunities in sci-ence to its younger generations. The statistics are ubiquitous and disheartening. According to a 2012 study done by the Organi-zation for Economic Coopera-tion and Development, American students consistently rank below average in mathematics perfor-mance, ranking 27th out of 34 countries. Furthermore, only 50 percent of students report that they are interested in studying math, indicating a lack of pub-lic awareness and interest in sci-ence, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. If science is dominating the global dynamic, we need to put more ef-

By Julia GonskiThe Senate recently released a

draft bill to increase funding for a variety of national scientific orga-nizations, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and NASA, among others. For many researchers, students and educa-tors across the country, this pro-posal is a breath of fresh air in a field that has been struggling with budgets cuts for years.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has not been so understanding.

The legislation in question, known as the America COM-PETES Reauthorization Act of 2014, was recently released by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. In May, the House was considering a bill tackling similar issues, but in a very dissimilar way.

To start, the numbers alone

America COMPETES 2014: A Much-Needed Reauthorization

By Barry ToivLarry Smarr, an APS Fellow

whose work at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on calculating black hole col-lisions led him to champion a federal commitment to dramati-cally enhance U.S. computing power – which in turn led to the development of NCSA Mosaic, the precursor to web browsers – is among eight winners of the 2014 Golden Goose Award.

The Golden Goose Award honors researchers whose fed-erally funded research may not have seemed to have significant practical applications at the time it was conducted but has resulted in major economic or other ben-efits to society.

Smarr is a professor of com-puter science and engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Cali-fornia Institute for Telecommu-nications and Information Tech-nology (Calit2).

Smarr received his award at the third annual Golden Goose Awards ceremony in Washing-ton, DC, on Sept. 18. The other award winners are: Robert Wil-son, Paul Milgrom, R. Preston McAfee (research on game theory and auctions enabled the Federal Communications Commission to first auction spectrum licenses in 1994); and the late Saul Schan-berg, Tiffany Martini Field, Cyn-thia Kuhn and Gary Evoniuk (tax-

payer funded massages for baby rats led to improved outcomes for premature infants).

At Illinois in the 1980s, Smarr was conducting gravitational physics research focused on com-puting the dynamics of black holes in space. The work, supported by the National Science Foundation

APS Fellow Larry Smarr Among 8 Golden Goose Winners

APS Capitol Hill Quarterly2 October 2014

APS Members in the Media What’s New in Innovation?

Capitol Hill Quarterly is published four times yearly by the Washington Office of the American Physical Society (APS). It contains news of the Society and of physics relevant to Capitol Hill as well as opinions. The APS Headquarters is located at One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3844. Phone: (301) 209-3200.

APS COUNCIL 2014

PresidentMalcolm R. Beasley*, Stanford University

President-Elect Samuel H. Aronson*, Brookhaven National Laboratory (Retired)

Vice PresidentHomer A. Neal*, University of Michigan

Executive OfficerKate P. Kirby*, Harvard Smithsonian (retired)

Treasurer/PublisherJoseph W. Serene*, Georgetown University (Emeritus)

Editor in ChiefGene D. Sprouse*, Stony Brook University (on leave)

Past-PresidentMichael S. Turner*, University of Chicago

General CouncilorsHaiyan Gao*, Marcelo Gleiser, Nadya Mason, Pierre Meystre*, Keivan G. Stassun*

International CouncilorsMarcia Barbosa, Annick Suzor-Weiner*, Kiyoshi, Ueda

Chair, Nominating CommitteePaul L. McEuen

Chair, Panel on Public AffairsRobert Jaffe

Division, Forum and Section CouncilorsMiriam Forman (Astrophysics), Thomas Gallagher (Atomic, Molecular & Optical Physics), Jose Onuchic (Biological), Amy Mullin (Chemical), Frances Hellman* (Condensed Matter Physics),

Steven Gottlieb (Computational), James Wallace (Fluid Dynamics), Gay Stewart (Forum on Educa-tion), Eric Sorte, (Forum on Graduate Student Affairs), Dan Kleppner (Forum on History of Physics), Gregory Meisner* (Forum on Industrial and Applied Physics), Young-Kee Kim (Forum on International Physics), Lowell Brown (Forum on Physics and Society), Anthony M. Johnson* (Laser Science), James Chelikowsky (Materi-als), David McIntyre (Northwest Section), Wick Haxton (Nuclear), Philip Michael Tuts (Particles & Fields), John N. Galayda (Physics of Beams), Vincent Chan* (Plasma), Mark Ediger (Polymer Physics), Nan Phiney (California Section) ADVISORS (Non-Voting)Representatives from other SocietiesH. Frederick Dylla, AIP; Steve Iona, AAPT ; Rob-ert Fedosejevs, Canadian Association of Physicists

Staff RepresentativesJames W. Taylor*, Deputy Executive Officer; Tracy

Alinger, Director, Information Services (College Park); Mark D. Doyle, Director, Journal Informa-tion Systems (Ridge); Amy Flatten, Director of International Affairs; Terri Gaier, Director of Meetings; Barbara Hicks, Associate Editor/Direc-tor of Business Initiatives; Ted Hodapp, Director of Education and Diversity; Trish Lettieri, Director of Membership; Darlene Logan, Director of Develop-ment; Michael Lubell, Director, Public Affairs; Daniel T. Kulp, Editorial Director; Christine Giaccone, Director, Journal Operations; Michael Stephens, Controller and Assistant Treasurer; Re-becca Thompson, Head of Public Outreach; Amy Halstead, Special Assistant to the Editor in Chief

Administrator for Governing CommitteesKen Cole

* Members of the APS Executive Board

October 2014 • Series 3, Vol. 9, No. 2 • © 2014 The American Physical Society

Capitol Hill Quarterly

APS  Washington, D.C.  Office 529 14th St. NW, Washington, DC 20045Email: opa@aps.org Telephone: 202-662-8700 Fax: 202-662-8711

Washington, D.C. Director of Public Affairs Michael LubellAssociate Director of Public Affairs Francis SlakeyPress Secretary Tawanda W. JohnsonSenior Government Relations Specialist Jodi Lieberman Office Manager & POPA Studies  Administration Specialist Jeanette RussoGovernment Relations Specialist Tyler GlemboPolicy Analyst Mark Elsesser

College Park, MDStaff Science Writer Michael LucibellaArt Director/Special Publications Manager Kerry G. Johnson Design and Production Nancy Bennett-Karasik

National Public Radio

The Washington Post

The Washington Post

NBCNEWS.com

The Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles Times

The New York Times

The Associated Press

TM

TM

From Human Genome to Materials Government initiative seeks to speed the pace of materials discovery

and innovationMaterials lie at the very crux of technological

innovation. It’s no accident that the birthplace of the personal computer is known as “Silicon Val-ley.” As has sometimes been pointed out, ever since the transition from the Stone Age to the Ages of Bronze and Iron, new materials have defined new technologies and whole new ways of life. (To call our own era the Age of Silicon would not be so farfetched.)

Over the years, America has been prolific in developing new materials—including silicon semiconductors and countless others—and DOE and its prede-cessor agencies have played a big role in supporting basic research on materials at both universi-ties and national laboratories. Today, with global competition challenging U.S. economic lead-ership as never before, there is an acute awareness among poli-cymakers that America’s future competitiveness will depend on a continued capacity to innovate in materials. And in fact there is a strong sense that the pace of in-novation needs to be accelerated. New materials have traditionally taken from 10 to 20 years to get from the lab bench to the marketplace. In today’s competitive world, that pace looks too slow.

So a new government initiative begun in 2011—dubbed the Materials Genome Initiative, or MGI—is seeking to mobilize U.S. scientists to find new ways to step up the pace of materials discov-ery and innovation. The name, which uses the term “genome” metaphorically, appears at least partly to have been chosen to evoke the memory of an-other government initiative, the Human Genome Project, or HGP, whose transformational impact on both science and the economy is remembered as a huge success.

Of course, the question arises, what makes anybody think that materials discovery and inno-vation can suddenly be sped up? The answer in a word: supercomputers. High-end computation, taking advantage of faster and faster machines, is transforming not just materials research but nearly every corner of science. That is because high-end computation enables researchers to achieve with-in hours or days in virtual space what might take years or even a lifetime in a physical laboratory—or simply couldn’t be accomplished at all in the physical world.

Recent work out of a DOE Energy Frontier Re-search Center (EFRC) led by Argonne National Laboratory, with Northwestern University as a major partner, shows how the MGI is beginning to bear fruit through just such use of computa-tion. The research was led by Chris Wolverton,

professor of materials science and engineering at Northwestern, and included fellow Northwestern researchers James E. Saal, Scott Kirklin, Mura-tahan Aykol and Bryce Meredig. It was reported in JOM, the journal of The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society.

Researchers in different fields are using high-end computation in a variety of different ways—for modeling and simulation, data mining, virtual prototyping. Here researchers have used high-end

computation for what are known as ab initio (Latin, “from the beginning”) calculations. They have performed systematic anal-yses of thousands of known—and thousands more putative or imagined—chemical com-pounds based on first principles, illuminating key properties in the process. They have estab-lished a database of the results of these analyses and are provid-ing search and data mining tools for researchers to access the data. In an express response to a call in the MGI, the research-ers have made the full database

and search capabilities—which they call the Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD)—publicly accessible on the web.

The purpose of the effort is to enable researchers to identify candidate materials—both existing and new—for specific applications by screening them computationally for various properties before they are synthesized or tested in the laboratory. Tradi-tionally, a lot of materials discovery has been by trial and error. OQMD moves much of this trial and error process from the lab bench to the computer, where it can be radically accelerated.

The JOM article provides several examples of applications where the researchers using OQMD were able to identify plausible candidate com-pounds—both existing and new—and thereby rap-idly narrow the search and quicken the trial-and-error process. Among the examples are materials for the anode of lithium ion batteries, reaction com-pounds for a lithium-air battery, coatings for the cathode of a lithium-ion battery, and materials for new magnesium alloys (for increasing energy ef-ficiencies by reducing vehicle weight, among other potential applications).

Whether MGI could have an impact compara-ble to that of the 10-year $3.8 billion HGP remains to be seen. But it is clearly inspiring researchers to accelerate discovery and innovation by marrying computation and experimentation in new ways.

—Patrick Glynn, DOE Office of Science, Pat-rick.Glynn@science.doe.gov

Image courtesy of Chris WolvertonThis image is a network graph–

called a “minimum spanning tree”–showing the 7,410 DFT-predicted stable compounds from the Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD) at the time the JOM article was completed.

“The overarching theme here is that, out there at the frontiers of discovery, it’s very foggy.”

Michael Turner, (IL-1st) The University of Chicago, on the controversy surrounding the BI-CEP2 results, The Washington Post, July 23, 2014.

“They have really done some-thing very special.… It’s been very enabling of our research and that’s not a statement about dol-lars, that’s a statement about com-munity.”

Charles M. Marcus, Univer-sity of Copenhagen, on Microsoft underwriting research into quan-tum computing, The New York Times, June 23, 2014.

“What CERN did for the Higgs boson, we want to do with the neutrino.”

Joe Lykken, (IL-14th) Fermi-lab, on future neutrino experiments outlined in the P5 report, The As-sociated Press, May 21, 2014.

“To throw the ball that hard and that quickly (after all, he didn’t have time to ‘aim’) with that accuracy is truly an amaz-ing feat. Everyone who has seen the throw knows that already, but now we’ve quantified exactly how amazing it was.”

Alan Nathan, (IL-13th) Uni-versity of Illinois, analyzing an out made by Oakland A’s fielder Yoe-nis Cespedes on June 10, The Los Angeles Times, June 12, 2014.

“At these twinning boundaries, the crystals on each side are bond-ing together much better.”

Bo Xu, Yanshan University in China, on creating a new class of diamond structure stronger than any previous natural or synthetic diamond, The Los Angeles Times, June 11, 2014.

“We can’t know everything. We can’t even know what ‘everything’ is or means. If there is a final truth out there, it’s beyond us. Science works under strict boundaries, and as hard as we may try, we can’t go beyond them. To know all an-swers, we need to start by know-ing all questions. And that is sim-ply impossible. Our view of the world will always be incomplete.”

Marcelo Gleiser, (NH 2nd) Dartmouth College, The Wash-ington Post, July 14, 2014.

If the world wants to do this science, then the world should or-ganize, with Fermilab as the host, to solve the problems and make it happen.”

Steven Ritz, (CA-20th) Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, on the P5 report’s recommendation on internationalizing the Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment, NBCNews.com, May 21, 2014.

They want to bulldoze it, which is really atrocious to me…. It’s like burning the Alexandria Library.”

Dennis Papadopoulos, (MD-5th) the University of Maryland, on the plan to demolish the High Frequency Active Auroral Re-search Program in Alaska, Nation-al Public Radio, June 10, 2014.

APS Capitol Hill Quarterly 3 October 2014 TM

bers’ questions, discussing the benefits of a healthy particle phys-ics program to our country, the glo-balization of the field, the delibera-tive and inclusive process used in writing “Building for Discovery,” and a strategy to help America re-gain its primacy in particle physics in the era of constrained budgets.

Their testimonies reiterated a salient message from the P5 re-port: The U.S. must raise its game in construction of new facilities to remain a global leader in particle physics. “Without the capability to host a large project,” the report and Ritz’s testimony note, “the U.S. would lose its position as a global leader in this field, and the interna-tional relationships that have been so productive would be fundamen-tally altered.”

Given constrained budget re-quirements, the P5 panel made

difficult choices and eliminated excellent research projects to in-crease resources for new facility construction and ready the nation for long-term success. But again, building new facilities requires resources, and the report’s lowest budget scenario (Scenario A) is precarious, approaching the point where hosting a world-class facil-ity in the U.S. while maintaining the other components of a suc-cessful research program would not be possible.

During the hearing, Ranking Member Eric Swalwell (D-CA 15th) deemed Scenario A “unac-ceptable” in his opening remarks. American Physical Society Presi-dent Malcolm Beasley provided an additional warning about Scenario A in the form of a letter, which was submitted for the record by Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL14th).

And Chairman Cynthia Lum-mis’ (R-WY) opening statement indicated support for scientific research is still a bipartisan issue: “…we cannot overlook the fact that the federal government plays a critical role when it comes to the nation’s long-term competitive-ness in the physical sciences… In particle physics, the U.S. is already slipping and stands to lose its posi-tion of global significance if we do not act boldly.”

“Building for Discovery” pro-vides a vision for the future of U.S. particle physics and a road-map for making it a reality. But there is also a saying at the Pen-tagon that “a vision without re-sources is a hallucination.” Let’s hope Congress heeds Chairman Lummis’ advice and acts boldly. Otherwise, U.S. particle physics may become a desert.

Falls, the nation’s lead nuclear laboratory and a world leader in securing the ever-growing cyber network. I am glad to have the op-portunity to join with Sen. Durbin in co-chairing the Senate National Laboratory Caucus and furthering support of our national labs in the United States Senate.”

Directors and representatives from all 17 of the Department of Energy National Labs were also on hand to showcase demonstration projects across five theme areas – energy innovation and environ-mental sustainability, manufactur-ing innovations, high performance computing, national security and discovery science. Among the 14 demonstrations were:

A “virtual reactor,” which ac-curately simulates the conditions inside a reactor core to help nucle-ar power plants reduce the costs of operating facilities and potentially use nuclear fuel more efficiently.

A demonstration of additive manufacturing, showing how this next generation technique can help address the technical challenges as-sociated with product development.

A small-scale demonstration of multi-core computing called “Tiny Titan” that gives users a hands-on experience of the power of high performance computing. Titan is the most powerful super-computer in the U.S., and Tiny Titan was designed to help users understand better how such ma-chines work.

A research reactor fuel mockup to demonstrate the essential role national labs have played in reduc-ing the use and improving control of highly enriched uranium, there-by improving national security.

An exhibit featuring DOE’s network of scientific user facili-ties that highlights the unique ca-pabilities available for industry and other researchers, as well

HIGGS continued from page 1

LAB continued from page 1

fort into keeping up.NSF has a variety of programs

designed to tackle this issue, pro-viding assistance to students and educators in all levels of school-ing, while organizations like NASA frequently conduct out-reach events designed to generate public enthusiasm. While both the Senate and the House encourage the perpetuation of such programs, only the Senate bill authorizes the NSF and the Department of Edu-cation to fund states wishing to create secondary schools devoted specifically to STEM education.

It is likely that this disagree-

ment within Congress won’t be resolved before the [end of the year], but it is a resolution that will have a significant impact on the future of science in America for years to come. If the nation wants to sustain economic and industrial achievement, while staying competitive in the global marketplace, the importance of science funding cannot be over-looked.

Julia Gonski is a student re-search assistant at Harvard Uni-versity student and APS member. Her article appeared last month on APS’ Physics Frontline blog.

COMPETES continued from page 1

(NSF), required enormous com-puting power, which at the time, was not readily available to aca-demic researchers in the United States, although supercomputers were already being used in open European research labs. Realizing that the U.S. had fallen behind and that he and fellow researchers needed far greater computational power, Smarr led the first proposal to NSF, arguing for the creation of a national supercomputing center housed in an academic setting. This set off a revolution in com-putational science in academia and industry that continues today.

Upon winning a peer-reviewed national competition, he was named director of the National Center for Supercomputing Ap-plications (NCSA), located at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. At NCSA, Smarr created a software development group to support the application needs of researchers. Two mem-bers of that NCSA team, Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina, created Mosaic, the world’s first widely used graphical Web browser. The Web browsers computer users have used for two decades, such as Netscape, Internet Explorer and Firefox, are descendants of Mosaic, and today, virtually every consumer computing device that accesses information, from smart-phones to televisions, from tablets to automobiles, contains a graphi-cal web browser.

U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) first proposed the Golden Goose Award when the late Sen. Wil-liam Proxmire (D-WI) was issu-ing the Golden Fleece Award to target wasteful federal spending and often targeted peer-reviewed science because it sounded odd. Cooper believed such an award was needed to counter the false impression that odd-sounding re-search was not useful.

In 2012, a coalition of business, university, and scientific organiza-tions created the Golden Goose Award. Like the bipartisan group of members of Congress who sup-port the Golden Goose Award, the founding organizations believe

that federally funded basic scien-tific research is the cornerstone of American innovation and es-sential to our economic growth, health, global competitiveness and national security. Award re-cipients are selected by a panel of respected scientists and university research leaders.

“The Golden Goose Award celebrates unexpected discover-ies, and there’s no better example than the World Wide Web,” Coo-per said. “The Web is one of hu-mankind’s greatest accomplish-ments and is transforming our planet. Without the unanticipated consequences from Dr. Smarr’s research, we’d be trapped in an informational black hole. His success reminds us that we never know where science might lead.”

“Dr. Smarr’s work is a perfect example of why Congress must remain committed to basic sci-entific research,” said U.S. Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL 14th). “It has been a focus of mine on the Science Committee to showcase these kinds of stories, and as the co-founder of the House Science and National Labs Caucus, it was an honor to announce this award for the work Dr. Smarr did in my home state. The idea for Illinois’ National Center for Supercomput-ing Applications was inspired by Larry Smarr’s important questions about black holes, but has demon-strated its usefulness in tackling many other scientific puzzles. As scientists continue gaining a bet-ter understanding of the universe, the technology, and tools they use to get there are having broad and longstanding impacts through-out our society. Science that is ‘strange’ to Congress can lead to the next scientific breakthrough, and these scientific inquiries are vital for America to maintain its place as an innovative and excep-tional nation.”

Additional information about the Golden Goose Award, includ-ing videos and other information on Smarr and previous winners, can be found at www.golden-gooseaward.org and on Twitter at @GoldGooseAward.

FELLOW continued from page 1

as examples of groundbreak-ing advancements made possible through these tools, including the tools researchers use to search for dark energy, dark matter and the Higgs boson particle.

With origins in the Manhattan Project during World War II, the national labs maintain multidisci-plinary research capabilities with state of the art scientific tools and experts focused on some of the

country’s more important priori-ties in science, energy and nation-al security. National lab scientists have won 80 Nobel Prizes in the sciences and generated techno-logical advances that have led to entire new industries.

For additional information about work at the national labs, visit energy.gov/labs.

Courtesy of the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy

Upper left: U.S. Marines marching while wearing Interceptor body armor; upper right: GPS; lower right: panoramic X-ray; bottom right: Doppler Radar

Scientific Innovations Resulting from Federally Funded Research

Follow the APS Office of Public Affairs on our blog, physicsfrontline.aps.org, and on Twitter, @apsphysicsdc.

Just four years ago, Apple unleashed a new world of possibilities and put

it in the hands of millions of consum-ers, students, educators, scientists, entrepreneurs and doctors worldwide when it unveiled the first iPad. Over 200 million have been sold since, making it one of the most ubiquitous and empowering smart devices ever.

But underlying this now-pervasive tablet technology is another success story. The innovation packed into the iPad drew from a vast array of feder-ally supported scientific and techno-logical research. Touchscreens and multi-touch interface were born out of Defense Department research in the late 1960s and 70s, and research funded by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s and 90s. The iPad processor, as well as all the support and interface chips, were born out of work on the first integrated circuit at Texas Instruments and Fairchild in 1958. GPS? Developed from federally funded research at American universities.

It was the combined efforts of American ingenuity and visionary federal support that laid the foundation for the iPad’s success and the plethora of smart devices on the mar-ket today. Now, fast-forward from the days of this pioneer-ing scientific research, and, today, U.S. global leadership in science is in peril. Dwindling federal investment in scientific research and the lack of a visionary national science policy could make the next iPad, the cure for a deadly disease, or a semiconductor breakthrough nothing more than fantasy.

I believe America has the capacity to advance the revo-lutionary ideas of tomorrow, but in order to do so, we need a national recommitment to invest in scientific research and foster the next generation of scientists in our classrooms.

Investment in advanced biomedical research is a policy I’m working to address head-on in the current Congress. Federal funding for biomedical research at the National In-stitutes of Health (NIH) is at unprecedented lows, jeopardiz-ing our national health and preventing future breakthroughs. In 2011, 53 percent of all funding for basic research came from the federal government, yet as a percentage of the to-tal federal budget the federal government spends two-thirds less on research and development today than it did in 1965. At NIH – the foremost biomedical research institute in the world – the number of research grants the agency is able to fund has declined every year over the past 10 years.

Partnering with Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), our legis-lation expands support for future research at the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Defense Health Program, and the Veterans Medical & Prosthetics Research Program. The America HEALS Act would reverse declining federal investment by augmenting federal appro-priations for biomedical research with a mandatory trust fund dedicated to steady growth in research conducted at these federal institutions. The bill would increase funding for each agency and program every year at a rate of GDP-in-dexed inflation, plus five percent. This consistent, long-term investment would provide the agencies the certainty they need to plan and manage strategic growth, and empower our nation’s top scientists to strive for the next big breakthrough across fields that all contribute to economic growth.

Why a sustained investment in federally-funded biomed-ical research? Today, countries around the world are placing a priority on their own research investments. Between 1999 and 2009, Asia’s share of worldwide research and devel-opment expenditures grew from 24 percent to 32 percent,

while American expenditures fell from 38 percent to 31 per-cent. Meanwhile, the European Union has committed to a five-year plan to boost biomedical research.

Next generation research cannot happen without the next generation of scientists, engineers and mathematicians. The next decade is estimated to create approximately 8.5 mil-lion STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) job opportunities, but during the same time it is also estimated that the U.S. will face a shortage of 1 million STEM gradu-ates. At the end of 2010, the Program for International Stu-dent Assessment found that U.S. students, compared with contemporaries in more than 60 industrial countries, ranked 17th in science and 25th in mathematics. College degrees in physical science, computer science, mathematics, and en-gineering have also had less than average growth. So I’ve made it a priority to reinvigorate STEM education in our country’s classrooms.

This year, I was proud to be the bipartisan Co-Chair with Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) of the first annual Congres-sional STEM Academic Competition, the House Student App Challenge. Established by the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives in 2013, this nationwide competition invited high school students from across the country to compete by cre-ating and exhibiting their software application, or “app,” for mobile, tablet, or computer devices on a platform of their choice. The annual competition is designed to promote in-novation and engagement in the STEM education fields. Over 150 congressional offices participated and students entered a wide range of apps that tested their prowess and intellect in the STEM fields.

In 2007, I authored and Congress en-acted the America COMPETES Act, leg-islation that created a blueprint to secure our nation’s economic future and com-petitive edge in the 21st century. In addi-tion to establishing advanced federal re-search entities for high-risk, high-reward technology development, the law called for preparing thousands of new teachers in math and science. In 2010, Congress extended this law, but only until 2013. Congress must reauthorize America COMPETES in order to prepare all stu-dents for the highly technical, high-pay-ing jobs of the future.

America’s global leadership in sci-ence has not come about by accident. It has been a purpose-ful endeavor as old as the country itself, beginning with our Founding Fathers. Washington devised the 16-sided thresh-ing barn. Jefferson is credited with designing the macaroni machine, a polygraph copying device, an improved dumb-waiter, the swivel chair and countless other innovations. Benjamin Franklin is known for his bifocals and lightening rod. The framers of our Constitution wisely appreciated that curiosity and inventiveness would propel the new nation for-ward. They valued creative alchemy and explicitly protected individual initiative to ensure a steady supply of it. In our Constitution, they empowered the United States Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by se-curing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the ex-clusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries.”

As bifocals have given way to Google Glass and the poly-graph copying device to 3D printers, the value we place on the power of scientific discovery and invention must remain unwavering. And as our Founding Fathers once envisioned America’s scientific future, we must re-imagine it because federally supported research and the budding scientists of today will drive the innovations and breakthroughs that will change our lives in the years and decades ahead. One of America’s greatest scientists Thomas Edison once said, “Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.”

Let’s get to work on securing our scientific future.

Anna G. Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, represents California’s 18th Congressional District and serves as Ranking Member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Rep. Eshoo also serves as the Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Com-munications and Technology for the 113th Congress. She is the first woman in the history of the Subcommittee to serve in a leadership role. She was elected to the Subcommittee on January 19, 2011.

Throughout her career, Rep. Eshoo has always been a leader on technology and telecommunications issues. She has authored legislation to establish standards for digital signatures, worked to expand broadband deployment, and ensured that life-saving, location-based E9-1-1 services are deployed by wireless companies.

Rep. Eshoo has vowed to work with her colleagues on ex-panding high-speed, affordable broadband, protecting elec-tronic privacy, freeing up more spectrum and transitioning our nation’s 9-1-1 system to a next generation, IP-based network. She has been a strong champion of preserving an open Internet. Rep. Eshoo also serves as a Co-chair of the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Internet Caucus, join-ing Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Senator John Thune (R-SD).

4 October 2014 APS Capitol Hill Quarterly

The Back

PAGE

TM

"Dwindling federal investment in scientific research and the lack

of a visionary national science policy could make the next iPad, the cure for a deadly disease, or a semiconductor breakthrough

nothing more than fantasy."

"In 2007, I authored and Congress enacted the America COMPETES

Act, legislation that created a blueprint to secure our nation's

economic future and competitive edge in the 21st century."

"...As our Founding Fathers once envisioned America's scientific

future, we must re-imagine it because federally supported

research and the budding scientists of today will drive the innovations

and breakthroughs that will change our lives in the years and

decades ahead."

Securing America’s Scientific FutureBy U.S. Rep. Anna G. Eshoo