These new policies ensure that scientists, engineers, and taxpayers alike get the most out of those federal investments in basic research and development by taking what researchers know about the process of moving ideas from the lab to the market and linking universities, businesses, and the government in an effort to grow regional economies. The first steps begin on Wednesday, when the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the House Science and Technology Committee will hold a hearing on “Supporting Innovation in the 21^st Century Economy.” Then on Thursday, the full committee will markup bills authorizing the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, R&D programs within the DOE Office of Science, and DOE’s Energy Innovation Hubs program.

This isn’t just a matter of pouring more money into R&D—though additional resources are important. The Hubs program in particular contains an experiment just underway that will create a new “Energy Regional Innovation Cluster,” or  E-RIC, which will develop technologies for energy efficient buildings. Grant recipients for this cluster will be announced this summer, pending funding, and Congress should ensure that money is available for FY 2011 to realize the potential of this project.

With $130 million in financing over five years, the E-RIC project is a partnership between seven federal agencies that will help build the regional cluster, advancing research, development, and commercialization of energy efficiency technologies and creating high quality jobs. Applicants for the grants must self organize themselves in regional groups to bid for the funds, promoting bottom-up collaboration to ensure the best ideas and best practices combine for the best outcomes. DOE is in the process of setting up two additional Hubs: one that focuses on Fuels from Sunlight, where researchers will investigate methods to produce clean fuels directly from solar energy, and another on Modeling & Simulation for Nuclear Reactors.

The E-RIC embraces the idea that sustained and targeted efforts can help grow “innovation clusters,” or geographic regions where dynamic interactions between university-based scientists and engineers, local businesses, and public sector institutions generate new technologies and economic growth. The approach aligns with proposals laid out in the Science Progress report, “The Geography of Innovation,” which argued that federal policy should support cluster building that both aligns with national priorities in areas like energy efficiency, but that also leaves leadership to regional communities. The agencies hosted an information session in Washington, D.C. in February to explain the application process in detail to the interested consortia from around the nation.

Cultivating new clusters around the country is an important component of the Obama administration’s strategy for boosting innovation in the United States and maintaining our competitiveness in the global marketplace. In 2010, for example, Chinese government investment in science and technology is expected to increase 8 percent, according to reports in Science. Our nation must meet this challenge.

The E-RIC project is the first pilot of the Interagency Regional Innovation Clusters Taskforce and brings together the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology/Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the Small Business Administration, and the National Science Foundation.

Collaboration on the issue of building efficiency is a national priority because buildings consume almost 40 percent of the energy produced in the United States and account for some 40 percent of carbon emissions. Energy efficiency deployment is the low-hanging fruit of greenhouse gas reduction strategies, but expanding efficient technologies for commercial and residential building design and operation will reduce energy consumption and energy bills for citizens and businesses alike.

The regional anchor for this effort will be a new Energy Innovation Hub located at a university, a DOE national laboratory, a nonprofit organization, or a private firm. The hub will receive a $22 million grant in its first year from DOE, with up to $25 million a year for up to four years afterwards. Department of Commerce and EDA funding for economic development and economic adjustment assistance can total $5 million for up to five years. Along with additional funds from NIST/MEP and the SBA, the interagency partnership is significant because it will be the first such coordinated federal regional innovation effort. As the authors explain in “The Geography of Innovation”:

Never before has the U.S. government devoted a single penny to a comprehensive national program specifically dedicated to supporting regional innovation clusters and business incubators that fuse the geographically shared resources of universities and other research organizations, companies, research centers, governments, and workers.

The benefits of this approach can be manifold, which is why it is important that the proposal is a collaboration between seven federal agencies with dovetailing expertise. Research is the basic fuel of an innovation cluster, but like a car engine, there are many complicated moving parts necessary to capture the full ignition energy of those new ideas. Technology transfer offices within universities help scientists patent the most promising concepts and commercialize it by licensing the work to companies that use it to design new products. A regional cluster forms when those companies spring up in the vicinity of those research institutions, taking advantage of not only the intellectual property, but the talented workforce.

Building those businesses requires money and talent. In the most well known U.S. innovation clusters—places like Silicon Valley and metro Boston area—there is a wealth of skilled workers and investment capital. But in regions that lack that pre-existing pool of expertise, cash, and ready business leadership, economic development organizations can help forge relationships and lay the foundations for new enterprises. For instance, institutions can provide low-cost office space and legal assistance to start-up companies. Last year the National Economic Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy explained in a strategy report:

In various regions of the U.S., entrepreneurs are collaborating with local researchers, educators and industry leaders to foster specialized knowledge, technical expertise, and cutting-edge products. This will help American businesses retain and achieve new levels of competitiveness.

The result is a virtuous circle that feeds new ideas, products, jobs, and economic growth.

Moreover, the federal investment in the cluster will not be the only money flowing in to support the effort. Instead, the federal money will support state-level economic development work that has suffered under the precipitous decline in revenues. It will also leverage private investments in the commercialization process. The process of developing new products that solve national problems in building system efficiency will further capitalize on some of the billions of dollars the government pours into basic energy research every year.

The congressional hearings this week on applied innovation through the new multi-departmental E-RIC program could be just the beginning of this new bottom-up federal funding model for innovative regional economic development. We at Science Progress would argue that it’s about time.

Andrew Plemmons Pratt is the managing editor for Science Progress.

Science Insider: NIH details are sketchy, but include increases; NSF would see 8.5 percent bump; more for scientific facilities though DOE’s Office of Science; earth science research funding and Orion money for NASA; 37.5 percent increase for EPA.

The Intersection and Yale e360: spending initiatives assume passage of cap and trade legislation, a significant political maneuver.

The Washington Post has a useful comparison graphic (article) showing the 2007-2008 budget and the 2009-2010 with stimulus funds side-by-side for several agencies and departments.

Also notable: the budget outline includes $1.3 billion for NOAA “weather satellites and climate sensors”; $50 million to support creation of regional innovation clusters; and says that the Patent and Trademark Office will be granted full access to its fee collections, a problem because Congress has previously dipped into the funds, which are the source of operating funds for the overburdened office.

As the Science Insider reporters point out, the format of the release as a pdf is “decidedly old-school style for the digitally minded Obama Administration.” Let’s be honest: this information needs to be available in a fully machine-readable format. They could take some cues from the NYT’s unveiling this week of its API.

Image: flickr.com/afagen

Chu’s appointment—along with news that Carol Browner will get the nod to head the new National Energy Council and Lisa Jaskson will be nominated for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency—sends a clear signal about Obama’s commitment to progressive energy and climate policy. But it’s also a clear return to a policymaking approach based on attention to scientific evidence, something readers hardly need to be reminded was far from what the Bush administration has been up to for the past eight years. (The Philadelphia Inquirer has a bruising indictment of Stephen Johnson’s tenure at the EPA. Johnson originally drew accolades as the first scientist to head the agency.) The potential of having a Nobel-winning scientist high in the executive branch is nothing short of energizing for the research community. Here’s some of the reaction in published reports:

“Steve Chu is a world-class intellectual…When I heard that name (for energy secretary), I smiled.”
—Steve Schneider, Stanford University environmental scientist

“When he was first here, he started giving talks about energy and production of energy… He didn’t just present a problem. He told us what we could do. It was an energizing thing to see. He’s not a manager, he’s a leader.”
—Bob Jacobsen, senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley lab and UC Berkeley physics professor

“He has been relentless about addressing the technical challenges of renewable energy in a deep way.”
—Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley

“[President-elect Obama] certainly needs somebody who can focus on the science and energy policies and I can’t think of a better guy than Steve.”
—Mike Lubell, physics professor at the City College of New York

“It’s a great sign to see a scientist named as head of this very important department, because it sends a signal that the issues of climate change and energy go well beyond ideology.”
—Keya Chatterjee, World Wildlife Fund

“After the anti-science Bush administration, this is like going to a Mensa meeting after eight years of being trapped in the Flat Earth Society.”
—Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress

Here’s to Dr. Chu and the rest of the next administration’s energy team bringing science back.

Concerned the U.S. is losing its technological edge and falling behind in measures of national competitiveness, the science community has been out in full force calling for new funds. These concerns are real, argues Science Progress Advisor Tom Kalil, citing reports published by the National Science Board showing that U.S. scientific output is stumbling. Looking at the funding numbers, Science Progress Advisor John Irons finds that the Administration has done little to stop the bleeding. He noted in January that even “the slight increase in the dollars for non-defense R&D was more than surpassed by projected inflation.”

With an economy on egg shells, a recommitment to federal funding of research is crucial in maintaining U.S. global leadership in the science and technology, major drivers of economic productivity. In their report, “A National Innovation Agenda,” both Kalil and Irons outline policy recommendations which would ensure that the U.S. continues to lead the way in innovation, reaping the economic benefits along the way.

Dr. Raymond Orbach, Undersecretary for Science at the DOE and C.H. Albright Jr., Undersecretary of Energy at the DOE snubbed the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing at the last moment yesterday, suggesting that the subcommittee unfairly changed its protocol to allow outside experts at the budget hearing, a policy not approved by the DOE.

Representative Jerry Costello (D-IL) was disappointed by DOE representatives and argued that the committee, and not the Administration, have the right to decide hearing protocol. By refusing to testify, the DOE is setting a bad precedent, he said, undermining the ability of Congress to provide oversight and effectively determine budget priorities in the appropriations process.

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-SC) supported the DOE decision, claiming the committee lacked uniformity in hearing procedures, pointing out that the NOAA and NASA witnesses testified with no outside experts. Chairman Nick Lampson (D-TX) countered, saying that other Federal agencies like the NSF and NIST testified with outside experts and asked that the DOE witnesses’ written testimony be excluded from the record. After an appeal by Rep Bob Inglis (R-SC) and a fifteen minute recess for deliberation, the representatives decided not to include their written testimony in the record.

The committee members generally offered praise for the budget when the hearing finally turned to appropriation discussion. Members applauded the boost to physical sciences mandated by the COMPETES Act along with appropriations for ITER, an international collaboration on a nuclear fusion reactor that was jeopardized by the lack of funding support in the 2008 omnibus budget. On the other hand, committee members expressed concerns about the funding cuts to many programs including energy efficiency, weatherization research, and solar research; initiatives supported by the Energy Policy Act; and FutureGen, the world’s first coal-fueled plant with near-zero emissions; they were also concerned about the impact of earmarks on research funding.

Steve Isakowitz, the DOE’s Chief Financial Officer, testified that the 2009 budget was largely unchanged from previous years. He highlighted the increases in biomass fuel research, the loan guarantee program that will help facilitate the move of research discoveries from the lab to application in industry, and said changes in the marketplace and private investments justified revisions of FutureGen project. The project, whose costs have ballooned, was canceled to focus on multiple smaller projects that demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration at power plant project sites.

Dr. Arthur Bienenstock, President of the American Physical Society, chose to highlight the detriment of the 2008 budget to physical sciences which caused layoffs at the Fermilab, the International Linear Collider and cut into U.S. leadership in the field. He testified in support of the 2009 budget, saying that it does much to undo the damage inflicted by the 2008 omnibus, but warned members to resist short-term thinking about investments in the energy and physical sciences. He cited the 700 proposals in energy research that were rejected by the DOE because of the 2008 budget and the unforeseen long-term effects it will have on science as young people turn away from pursing scientific careers on account of dwindling resources.

Mark Gaffigan, Acting Director of the Government Accountability Office’s Natural Resources and Environment Team stressed the need for investment in renewable energy technology. In his testimony, Gaffigan argued that not even the oil crisis of the 1970s did much to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. Thirty years ago, fossil fuels made up 93 percent of the U.S. energy portfolio, and today it makes up 85 percent. Citing a recent GAO report, Gaffigan said the DOE research budget for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy fell 92 percent from 1978 to 1998, only making a slight recovery in the past decade. He recommended that Congress should continue to increase funding on advanced energy technologies which could help spur innovation, citing estimates that clean energy technology will receive 7 trillion dollars in investments worldwide over the next 50 years.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) offered a complaint against the “irrational exuberance” for hydrogen technology. He argued that hydrogen technology is not efficient and will be useless as a viable clean energy until further advancements in fuel cell technology take place. He supported the cuts of funding to hydrogen research and warned against the same sort of hype for biofuels.