Overview
Title
To provide for Department of Energy and National Science Foundation research and development coordination, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1350 wants the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation to work together on science projects like cool computers and smart robots, and they have to tell everyone how they're doing in two years.
Summary AI
H.R. 1350 aims to improve coordination between the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation for research and development. It requires these agencies to collaborate on various scientific and engineering projects, like quantum computing, energy science, and artificial intelligence. The bill also supports education and workforce development initiatives and encourages sharing of data and research facilities. The agencies must report on their progress and future plans after two years.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill in question, titled the "DOE and NSF Interagency Research Act," endeavors to establish a framework for collaborative research and development efforts between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This proposal aims to facilitate partnerships between various entities, like federal agencies, national laboratories, and educational institutions, while focusing on numerous scientific and engineering disciplines. By fostering such collaboration, the bill hopes to advance the missions of both the DOE and NSF.
General Summary of the Bill
The core purpose of the bill is to promote research and development projects that are of mutual interest to the DOE and NSF. It emphasizes creating interagency agreements to support research in diverse fields such as plasma science, quantum computing, material science, and more. Additionally, the bill outlines the importance of community collaboration, infrastructure support, and educational initiatives to encourage STEM education and workforce development. The intention is to strengthen the scientific capabilities of both entities and foster innovation.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill presents several areas of concern that could affect its successful implementation. Firstly, it fails to specify budgetary limits for the proposed research activities, which poses a risk of overspending. Broad terms such as "appropriate entities" are used without precise definitions, potentially leading to misinterpretation. Moreover, there is a lack of clear criteria for selecting collaborative partners, which could result in favoritism and exclude deserving entities. The processes for stakeholder engagement are not well-defined, potentially limiting participation. Lastly, although research security is mentioned, the bill does not outline specific compliance measures, risking inconsistent practices.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, this bill could herald advancements in various scientific fields. By supporting wide-ranging research and interagency cooperation, the bill seeks to pave the way for technological innovations and solutions to pressing issues, such as climate change and energy efficiency. These developments have the potential to enhance both economic growth and quality of life. However, without clearly defined budgetary constraints and accountability measures, there is a risk of financial mismanagement, which could lead to public resources being misallocated.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Academic and research institutions stand to benefit positively from the bill; they could access increased funding and collaboration opportunities, promoting advancements in STEM fields. Industry stakeholders, particularly those in high-tech and energy sectors, may also benefit from the innovations born out of these research efforts. However, stakeholders could face challenges due to undefined participation criteria and processes that might limit transparency and accessibility. Federal employees involved with the DOE and NSF are critical stakeholders who would be directly affected. They might encounter challenges related to the unclear roles and responsibilities outlined in the bill, impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation.
In conclusion, while the bill contains promising initiatives to foster DOE and NSF collaboration, it falls short in several areas that could hinder its potential benefits. Addressing issues such as budgetary allocations and clarifying roles and processes could strengthen the bill, enhancing its positive impacts on a wide array of stakeholders and the public at large.
Issues
The bill lacks specific budgetary limits or allocations for research and development activities, as noted in Section 2. This absence could potentially lead to unchecked or wasteful spending, which is a significant concern for financial oversight and accountability.
Section 2 uses broad and undefined terms such as 'appropriate entities' and lacks specificity in defining the roles of the Secretary and the Director, potentially leading to ambiguity in responsibility, accountability, and misuse due to interpretational flexibility.
While the bill encourages collaboration, the criteria for selecting collaborative partners and projects are not clearly defined in Section 2. This lack of clarity might result in favoritism, bias, or exclusion of deserving entities.
The processes for stakeholder engagement and proposal submissions are not clearly specified in Section 2 concerning the memorandum of understanding or interagency agreements. This lack of clarity could create barriers to participation and make the process less transparent.
The bill does not clarify how 'research infrastructure' will be supported or prioritized in Section 2, leading to potential unequal distribution of resources, which is a concern for equitable access to scientific facilities and opportunities.
Section 2 requires a report detailing interagency coordination and collaborative achievements, but it lacks specifications on consequences or corrective actions if the goals outlined are not met. This gap could weaken oversight and accountability for achieving stated objectives.
Although research security is alluded to in Section 2(f), the bill does not specify measures or standards for compliance, which may lead to inconsistencies in security practices across different projects. This lack of detail is concerning, especially for safeguarding sensitive or proprietary information.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section provides the official short title for the Act, which is the “DOE and NSF Interagency Research Act”.
2. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation research and development coordination Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of Energy and the Director of the National Science Foundation are required to work together on research and development projects that align with their missions, using agreements that ensure fair competition and collaboration among various organizations. They can explore different scientific areas, support infrastructure, and provide educational opportunities, and must report back on their progress, ensuring that their activities follow research security guidelines.