By Martijn Rasser and Megan Lamberth
The United States faces a challenge like no other in its history: a strategic competition with a highly capable and increasingly resourceful opponent whose worldview and economic and political models are at odds with the interests and values of the world’s democratic states. A rising China poses a fundamental challenge to the economic vitality and national security of the United States and its allies and the currency of liberal democratic values around the world. Technology—a key enabler for economic, political, and military power—is front and center in this competition.
Technological leadership—how a country invents, innovates, and deploys technologies to compete economically and to secure its interests—will shape the coming years to a remarkable degree. The United States has maintained such leadership for decades. Today, that leadership is at risk. The United States is failing to rise to the occasion—its policies inadequate and disconnected and its response reactive and disjointed. The country needs a new approach to regain the initiative. The stakes are high and the window for action is closing.
The U.S. government must craft a national technology strategy for an era of sustained competition with a highly capable contender: a comprehensive framework to plan, execute, and update its technology policies. The strategy is a whole-of-nation approach—including human capital, infrastructure, investments, tax and regulatory policies, and institutional and bureaucratic processes—to preserve its current advantages and to create new ones. To be effective, creating and executing the strategy must involve stakeholders from federal and state governments, private industry, academia, and civil society. The overarching goal is to maintain the United States’ standing as the world’s premier technology power so that it can empower its citizens, compete economically, and secure its national interests without having to compromise its values or sovereignty.
The purpose of this report is to provide the intellectual framing for what a national technology strategy is and why the United States needs one. It does not offer a list of prioritized technology areas. Rather, it provides guidelines for how to think about such prioritization and what qualities should inform the resulting policy decisions.
The overarching goal is to maintain the United States’ standing as the world’s premier technology power so that it can empower its citizens, compete economically, and secure its national interests without having to compromise its values or sovereignty.
A successful U.S. national technology strategy will require a recalibration of government involvement in the country’s science and technology (S&T) base. The report addresses why the United States should revisit key lessons of successful technology policies during World War II and throughout the Cold War and apply them in the current context. This does not mean heavy-handed interventions of “picking winners and losers” and other unnecessary and damaging market distortions. We recommend a technology policy that focuses on actions to promote American competitiveness, protect American technological advantages, partner with like-minded countries to maximize success, and plan for effective strategy updates.
The specific recommendations offered form the foundation for this national technology strategy. They are the bedrock for long-term American competitiveness.
Summary of Recommendations
“Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare.”
-Japanese proverb
Strategy without execution is meaningless. This report offers an initial framework for action to achieve the vision and goals of a new American national technology strategy. It comprises four pillars. They are to promote America’s ability to compete; protect key U.S. technological advantages; partner with allies to maximize success; and plan to reevaluate and adjust the strategy as needed. Together they provide the foundation for long-term American economic strength and improved U.S. national security.
Promote America’s Capacity to Compete
The United States must take swift and wide-ranging action to ensure the long-term competitiveness of its science and technology base.
Boost research and development (R&D) investments. The U.S. share of global R&D spending and the R&D spending growth rate have declined precipitously since the 1970s. Congress should:
Raise federal spending on R&D to at least 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030.
Promote incentives to increase total (public and private) R&D investments to at least 4.5 percent of GDP by 2030.
Develop and execute a national human capital strategy. The United States faces an acute talent and skills shortfall in the technology areas that will drive the future economy. The White House and Congress should:
Expand public- and private-sector science, technology, engineering, and math education and skills training to grow and sustain America’s science and technology (S&T) workforce.
Address high-skilled talent retention challenges in academia by reversing the decline in federal grants to universities and colleges.
Attract and retain the world’s best and brightest S&T talent. The United States reaps untold benefits from having international talent work and live in this country. Congress should:
Raise the cap for H-1B visas and remove the cap for advanced-degree holders entirely.
Amend the Department of Labor Schedule A occupations list to include high-skilled technologists.
Create a new program that couples visa grants to 10-year open-market work commitments.1
Expand access to S&T infrastructure and resources. Researchers in the United States face uneven access to necessary digital infrastructure. Congress and the White House should work together to:
Establish a National Research Cloud, such as those proposed by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence and the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence.
Improve digital infrastructure, such as by encouraging rollouts of private 5G networks to provide broadband to rural areas.
No comments:
Post a Comment