Fall 2023 BIO Advisory Committee Meeting

Purpose of Meeting: The Advisory Committee (AC) for the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) provides advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning major program emphases, directions, and goals for the research-related activities of the divisions that make up BIO.

Agenda Items Will Include: a Directorate business update; report out of Committee of Visitors Report for BIO/Division of Environmental Biology and AC vote to accept the report; overview of the report, ‘Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing; Harnessing Research and Development to Further Societal Goals’; AC Breakout Groups to discuss Opportunities and Bottlenecks for Advancing the Bioeconomy, followed by a report out from the breakout groups; overview of NSF and BIO’s Research Infrastructure to Support the Bioeconomy followed by AC discussion of research infrastructure needs; overview of the report ‘Building the Bioworkforce of the Future: Expanding Equitable Pathways into Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Jobs’; AC Breakout Groups to discuss Opportunities, Gaps, and Bottlenecks for Building the Bioeconomy-relevant Workforce of the Future, followed by a report out from the breakout groups; discussion with the NSF Director and Chief Operating Officer; and other directorate matters.

Meeting minutes

BIO AC Members in Attendance:

• Dr. Michael Ibba (Chair)
• Dr. Barbara Beltz
• Dr. Suzanne Barbour
• Dr. Henry (Hank) Bart, Jr.
• Dr. Thomas Daniel
• Dr. Erich Grotewold
• Dr. C. Robertson McClung
• Dr. Gail McLean
• Dr. Paul Turner
• Dr. Gretchen North
• Dr. Maria Pellegrini
• Dr. Scott Santos
• Dr. Maria Uriarte
• Dr. Kennedy S. Wekesa

Wednesday, September 13, 2023: 

Welcome and Introductions: 

Dr. Susan Marqusee, Assistant Director (AD) for Biological Sciences (BIO), called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM EDT.

Dr. Karen Cone, Science Advisor to BIO, Office of Assistant Director (OAD), reminded attendants of the FACA rules and NSF virtual public meeting policies.

Dr. Michael Ibba, AC Chair, provided hybrid meeting instructions and opened the meeting up for introductions.

Dr. Ibba noted the correction of a typographical error in the ‘Decadal Review of Long-Term Ecological Research Program: A Report of the 40 Year Review Committee’. He approved this correction on behalf of the AC and no further action was required. The corrected report is available on the BIO AC website.

The AC unanimously approved the minutes of the May 2023 meeting without changes.

BIO Update: 

Dr. Marqusee provided an update on recent activities in the BIO Directorate.

• There have been leadership changes in the Divisions and the BIO OAD, including the appointment of Dr. Marqusee as the new AD.
• The House and Senate released markups for the FY 2024 budget, both at approximately $9.5B, which is close to the FY 2023 funding level minus supplemental funding, however, this is early in the process, and nothing has been finalized.
• Several reports have been released in response to the Executive Order (EO) on Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing. NSF led development of sections of two reports, ‘Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing’ and ‘Building the Bioworkforce of the Future’. NSF also co-chaired the working group reporting on ‘Data for the Bioeconomy’, but this report has yet to be published.
• To set the stage for the AC’s discussions in this meeting, Dr. Marqusee provided an overview of NSF investments in the bioeconomy. These span from basic to translational research and include crossdirectorate education and training in Biotechnology and new infrastructure opportunities, such as the BioFoundries program.
• Dr. Marqusee concluded with a brief overview of several noteworthy BIO-funded research projects.
• AC member responses included: concerns about rural broad band deficiencies on the impact of infrastructure, such as BioFoundries, on rural students and institutions; a discussion of graduate and post-doctoral salaries, associated cost over-runs on grant budgets, and questions of how NSF is advising principal investigators (PIs) to deal with these problems; a discussion of NSF’s support for partnerships between academia and industry, in context of the observation that many trainees wish to work in industry; and concerns about both the long training time required for US graduates, compared to their European counterparts, and whether the current model for graduate training can be sustained.

Overview of Committee of Visitors (COV) Report for BIO/Division of Environmental Biology (DEB): 

The BIO/DEB COV was held in June 2023. Dr. Hank Bart, the BIO AC representative on the COV, presented his overview of the COV report. Overall, the report was positive.

• Strengths included: the review process is thorough and appropriate, even in the face of challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic; the success at recruiting ad hoc reviews was impressive; there was improvement in how PIs are addressing broader impacts in their proposals; DEB’s response to the 2019 COV report was commendable; the portfolio is well-balanced with respect to most institution types; there is appropriate representation of under-represented groups; many special funding programs incorporate educational components; and the DEB program is highly relevant to national priorities, agency mission, relevant fields, and other constituent needs.
• Suggestions for improvement included: variability in reviewer feedback on both merit review criteria might be reduced by more training for ad hoc reviewers; in cases where panel recommendations and funding decisions are not well-aligned, better use of PO comments might help provide more input to PIs on the rationale for the funding decision; hybrid panels present some logistical challenges that deserve operational attention to balance workload for staff; disproportionately low submission and funding rates for some PIs might be addressed by more encouragement to PIs to consult program officers for guidance.

Questions and comments from the AC included:

• Is there a downside to having too many ad hoc reviews? Dr. Brent Miller (Science Advisor, OAD, BIO) stated that in its collection of metrics on proposals and awards, BIO had not looked at this parameter.
• Is there leveraging of NEON and LTER sites in terms of community engagement with the ideation and hypothesis phase of research development? Dr. Simon Malcomber (Deputy Assistant Director, BIO) stated that it is difficult for a COV to tease that apart using the self-study material. That said, DEBrelevant programs, such as Coastlines and People, LTER, and NEON, support activities where diverse community engagement is seen.
• The rate of funding for MSIs in DEB appears to be lower than for NSF as a whole. BIO leaders--Dr. Malcomber, Dr. Alan Moore (Division Director, BIO/DEB), and Dr. Jim Deshler [Acting Division Director, BIO/Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI)]--agreed and described BIO’s increased outreach efforts to MSIs, a funding program for professional societies aimed at culture change to encourage more diversity, and funding for the RCN Undergraduate Biology Education program to establish networks for curriculum change that could also increase diversity.

Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing: Harnessing Research and Development to Further Societal Goals:

Dr. Theresa Good [Division Director, BIO/Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB)] provided an introduction and overview of the Bioeconomy Bold Goals Report. She noted that the report responds to the vision set forth in the Bioeconomy EO, as well as the Chips and Science Act, and sets ambitious national targets for R&D across multiple sectors of the bioeconomy: Human Health, Climate Change and Energy, Food and Agricultural Innovation & Resilient Supply Chain, and the Cross-Cutting Advances needed to enable science in all sectors. Dr. Good emphasized the need to coordinate R&D across multiple agencies and stakeholders to achieve goals in every sector of the bioeconomy but with a clear need to prioritize efforts.

Following on this theme, Dr. Miller described an NSF-led activity, ‘Catalyzing Across Sectors to Advance the Bioeconomy’ (CASA-Bio), which will bring together federal, industry, and non-profit funders and their respective research communities to define priority research areas to advance the bioeconomy.

Questions and comments from the AC included: 

• What is the anticipated role of AI in these activities, especially given the importance of more and open access and the fact that high-end computation is becoming constrained. Dr. Good responded that we are just beginning to explore how we might bring in this expertise with CISE as partners. Dr. Sri Raghavachari (Program Officer, BIO/DBI) acknowledged that access to highend computation is a bottleneck, but he noted that NSF has initiated several programs for democratizing access to cloud resources and is actively engaging in other in efforts to broaden access.
• What is NSF’s role in funding translational aspects of basic science? Dr. Good briefly described partnerships with the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) and Noble Reach Emerge to help PIs translate their research to downstream projects.
• A concern was raised that smaller, minority-serving institutions without robust computational infrastructure needed to be empowered and that the diversity of communities involved should also be a consideration in future planning. BIO agreed.

AC member Breakout Groups – Opportunities and Bottlenecks for Advancing the Bioeconomy: 

BIO AC members broke into three groups to discuss priority research areas that could advance the bioeconomy. They were asked to focus on what opportunities can be leveraged to advance priority research areas for the bioeconomy and what bottlenecks must be overcome?

Report out from Breakout Groups:

• Group 1 prefaced its comments by stating a concern that the reports they had read appeared to focus on commercial enterprises and approaches, rather than preventative or social impacts. Opportunities identified by the group included more basic research around interactions of biotic and abiotic systems in agriculture, the use of canola-derived aviation fuels, and nature-based solutions for carbon scrubbing. Bottlenecks included technological challenges and the need for a climate of innovation that does not detract from fundamental research. Another point was a recognition of the need to fund discovery science as well as hypothesis-based science. 
• Group 2 noted the importance of human capital to the bioeconomy and the importance of training early and often during a career. Several bottlenecks and recommendations for addressing them were identified, including: opportunities for STEM training need to occur earlier in the educational trajectory; workforce training should focus on specific skill sets, rather than on specific jobs, to improve the adaptability of the workforce; postdocs spend a long time in their positions, which can be detrimental to career progression. Another comment concerned the potentially negative impact on communities when opinions on societal problems, such as climate change, are divided; the most vocal members in the community are the ones who will be heard, thus possibly negating the benefits of hearing all sides of a debate. 
• Group 3 noted an opportunity to drive advances in computation that could both leverage the fact that natural systems often compute more efficiently than synthetic systems and mitigate the high levels of energy and water consumed by current computationally intensive systems. An identified bottleneck was the extremely long time it takes in some STEM fields to become a practicing scientist. A possible solution would be greater educational emphasis on ‘stackable certificates’ to allow individuals to get expertise quickly in short courses. Industry employers often use this kind of external training for their employees. Extending this to graduate students might help them prepare for careers outside academics. Also, as the bioeconomy grows, workers will need to adapt. The group recognized an opportunity for NSF to partner with industry in areas relevant to the bioeconomy, perhaps with emphasis on education as an ongoing process across the career trajectory. 

Research Infrastructure to Support the Bioeconomy: 

Dr. Raghavachari gave a short presentation on ‘NSF Research Infrastructure Programs and Key BIO investments’, relating them to areas of need for the bioeconomy. He described programs at multiple scales and investment levels, including major research instrumentation, mid-scale research infrastructure, centerscale research infrastructure, and multi-user scale facilities such as NEON. He described the AI Institutes program and the potential of funded institutes to serve as nexus points for communities to bring the power of AI to basic and applied science. As an example, Dr. Raghavachari noted that Cloudbank, led by CISE, supports access to large-scale computing for NSF researchers. He also highlighted BioFoundries, a new funding opportunity that will provide access to instrumentation, build capacity for innovation, and democratize science by building on existing NSF investments to provide integrated facilities where members of the broad scientific community can perform innovative research and create a pipeline for translation.

Questions and Comments from the AC included:

• Dr. Ibba opened the discussion by suggesting the group address questions such as: what priority major infrastructures are needed to advance research areas relevant to the bioeconomy, what gaps important for the bioeconomy need to be filled, and how can assess be ensured?
• A question was raised about who has access to BioFoundries and are they accessible to those who need them most? Dr. Raghavachari replied that 50% of NSF support for the BioFoundries should be directed at user-facing facilities and that everyone should have access to tools at minimal or no cost. Democratizing access is integral to the BioFoundries. Another question was asked about the regional placement of the foundries. Dr. Raghavachari emphasized that no proposals had yet been received but that regional placement would be a factor in making decisions. A comment was made on the importance of users having access to affordable biomanufacturing facilities that were flexible and local.
• A question was raised about the influence that studies from the National Academies can have on ‘needed infrastructure’. Dr. Raghavachari acknowledged that the influence can be strong, referencing the report on NMR and its recommendation for the US to invest in High Field spectrometry, which led to significant investments. Dr. Good pointed to the National Academies report on ‘Safeguarding the Bioeconomy’ from 2021 and its relevance to R&D priorities for the bioeconomy.
• Another question focused on how centers such as iDigBIO and Cyverse will work with other centers to support the bioeconomy. Dr. Raghavachari and Dr. Good responded that the design and access models were very flexible to accommodate members of the community who wanted to use them and that they have the potential to reveal processes and organisms of commercial interest, if we also have tools and technologies to mine the data.
• A question was asked about NSF’s role in development and installation of the synchrotron project in Arizona (CXFEL). Dr. Raghavachari outlined the long history of BIO/DBI’s interest in this project which started with funding for design and was followed by multiple awards to implement. In response to a follow-on question of what drives the infrastructure projects--is it economic need or discovery-based science?--Dr. Raghavachari noted that DBI supports all stages of the pipeline and that the mid-scale infrastructure program has a very broad definition of what infrastructure is, and Dr. Deshler emphasized that infrastructure programs offer opportunities, such as planning grants, to allow communities to develop and evolve their infrastructure needs and requests for funding.
• A question was raised about how technical support is provided once infrastructure is built, especially at the mid-level. Dr. Raghavachari explained that there are two models, including 1) facilities, like some of those for NMR, that are run by experienced staff who process samples submitted by remote users, and 2) other facilities, like CXFEL and BioFoundries, with more complex plans for user experience, operations, and maintenance with heavy emphasis on training and education for users.

Preparation for Visit with the Office of the Director (OD) Leadership 

Dr. Ibba led the discussion to develop talking points for the meeting with OD leadership. Topics were based on the day’s discussions, and roles as discussion leads were assigned.

Dr. Marqusee adjourned the meeting at approximately 4:45 PM EDT.

Thursday, September 14, 2023 

Dr. Marqusee convened the meeting at 10:00 AM EDT.

Dr. Marqusee announced that funding of the new NSF/Simons Foundation National Institute for Theory and Mathematics in Biology (NITMB) was made public that morning.

Bioeconomy-relevant Workforce for the Future: 

Dr. Celeste Carter, Program Director, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) provided an overview of the report ‘Building the Bioworkforce of the Future: Expanding Equitable Pathways into Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Jobs’. Dr. Carter explained that one of the tasks associated with the Bioeconomy EO was to produce a report on the future workforce needs for advancing the bioeconomy. The report had five basic recommendations, including expanding and diversifying the talent pool for biomanufacturing jobs; strengthening worker-centered partnerships among employers, labor, and training providers; innovating education and training for bioeconomy; partnering with state, local and tribal governments, as well as education and training providers and unions, to raise awareness about potential careers in the bioeconomy; and improving data and analytic capacity and cross-sector collaboration to advance equity and support workforce development.

A comment from the AC emphasized the importance of changing the model of educating students. For example, how is the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program trying to leverage the untapped talent of young people, so they get interaction with companies and enter the biotechnology pipeline? Dr. Carter responded that there are many ways that ATE involves industry, including: a requirement for ATE program applicants to have industry partners who then have a voice in what students learn to ensure that curricula stay at the forward edge; or options for industry to contract to have students run research and manufacturing experiments and provide data to companies who then use the information to make decisions on project viability. Industry is looking for competency in specific skill sets rather than broad based factual knowledge.

AC Member Breakout Groups -- Opportunities, Gaps, Bottlenecks for Building the Bioeconomy relevant Workforce of the Future 

BIO AC members broke into three groups and were asked to focus on what opportunities exist for building the bioeconomy workforce, what gaps should be filled, and what bottlenecks must be overcome?

Report out from Breakout groups:

• Group 1 identified a bottleneck in workforce development related to access to instrumentation, particularly in small colleges and in underinvested regions. Opportunities need to be created for people in areas that are not rich in Biotech or Pharma locally. Industry can be incentivized. One pro/con is that students who go to industry for internships often don’t return. The group reemphasized the importance of short courses, hackathons, and certificates, as long as appropriate standards are implemented. There is an opportunity for democratizing science through open access databases and partnerships across broad sectors for understanding, modelling, and computation of data. A caveat is that life science students have historically resisted mathematical and quantitative skills, so a challenge/opportunity exists for augmenting these skills.
• Group 2 seconded the point made by Group 1 on the importance of geography and putting money and energy where students are in underserved communities. These students also are often members of communities with inherent, extreme environmental challenges. The comment made earlier in the meeting about the importance of very early educational exposure to STEM points to the importance of K-12 education, and possibly bridge programs before entering college. The group also suggested that there is a clear need for more rapid curricular change than what is typical in most colleges; this might be mitigated if pedagogy experts were included in biology departments. The group noted that immigrant status can be a bottleneck; for example, Latinx women are proportionally the most underrepresented group in STEM. Variation in the quantitative skills of entering college students might suggest a need to bolster such skills for K-12 teachers as well as students. The group praised the Workforce Report for its emphasis on childcare, which is important for broadening the pipeline.
• Group 3 suggested that it should be made easier for students to transfer into other schools and that older students should be given credit for work experience towards academic credentials. There are opportunities for NRT models for graduate training to include broad themes relevant to biotech. There are opportunities to increase accessibility for students in rural areas, perhaps remotely or through internships. Curriculum flexibility and design is important with industry involved in curriculum design. Biotechnology apprenticeships where students are paired with an established professional biotechnician to learn the profession may be another way forward. Another idea of the group was industry-based Professors of Practice to teach students as a way of giving students the industrial skills they need. Bottlenecks include the disconnect between academics and industry especially in biology. Opportunities might include offering academic research training that is connected to industry to permit postdocs to spend time in industrial labs or to gain entrepreneurial training in bio-related areas; the group acknowledged that these kinds of opportunities would require a cultural change or a different mindset that is typical of institutions outside parts of the country with strong biotech or pharma interest.

Meeting with OD Leadership 

The BIO AC met with Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan (Director), Dr. Karen Marrongelle (Chief Operating Officer), and Dr. Brian Stone (Chief of Staff). Dr. Panchanathan made brief remarks, and Dr. Ibba provided some context on the bioeconomy topic. Three areas of discussion were led by AC members.

• Dr. Turner started the discussion by emphasizing that the AC understands the need to focus on advancing biotechnology and biomanufacturing innovation. The AC believes, however, that NSF needs to align its fundamental mission of advancing basic research goals with the need to grow the bioeconomy. The AC recommended that NSF continues to fulfill its role in understanding how the world works now, including the role of biotic and abiotic influences on the stability versus fragility of natural systems. He noted that while the Bold Goals Report focus was on commercial products, these are not the only possible end points, and he emphasized the role of discovery science in helping to understand biological solutions to pressing problems. In summary, he stated, the AC believes NSF should remain steadfast in its support for fundamental research on the function of natural systems. Dr. Panchanathan responded by saying that biology is one thing that brings us all together. At NSF, biology is not only what happens in BIO. In GEO, ENG, CISE and the other Directorates, biology has become a thread, and the BIO directorate is the full-scale expression of this. Biology and biomanufacturing are very important to NSF, OSTP and the White House, and all NSF directorates will be involved in research to support the bioeconomy as well as workforce development.
• Dr. Wekesa followed by asserting that the location of large-scale facilities matters and should be considered in terms of regional equity to ensure there are not areas of the country with a lack of facilities to support researchers who want to be part of the bioeconomy. The AC also believes costs should be minimized for staff and students from R2, HBCU, MSIs etc., so that they are able to access facilities easily. NSF should also ensure that REUs provide training for students that offers experiences to allow students to graduate and participate in bioeconomy. Lastly, Dr. Wekesa observed that these infrastructure facilities generate a lot of data, and that students at MSIs, PUIs, and HBCUs should be able to access and analyze this data to allow them to participate in bioeconomy. In short, the benefits of the current NSF infrastructure programs should be maximized. Dr. Panchanathan responded by stating that he agreed with Dr. Wekesa’s points on access and engagement and that the data element gives new opportunities through analytics for people to become engaged very quickly. He observed that the GRANTED program has been launched to ensure improved research support and service capacity so that emerging institutions can submit competitive proposals and build capacity across the nation. NSF is also working closely with the Department of Commerce and other agencies to ensure infrastructure coverage across the country. Regional Innovation Engines (RIEs) have also been launched by TIP with 44 funded projects. These are building local bioeconomic ecosystems built on local talent with infrastructure that is important at a local level. They are made possible by fundamental research investments, infrastructure investments, applied research investments, transition investments and, partnerships.
• Dr. Barbour underscored the need for NSF to focus more attention on the K-12 pipeline, including teachers with an emphasis on understanding available career paths and quantitative skill sets. There is a need to facilitate more articulation agreements to ensure credits can be transferred from community to 4-year colleges more readily. In addition, many adult learners have work experiences that should count as core credit if they return to college. These ideas are focused on competencybased education, especially at 4-year colleges where there is a need to teach technical and professional skills. Also, there must be more fluid relationships between academic and non-academic career paths. The barriers between academics and the private enterprise must come down. Professors of Practice may be one model of how these barriers can be overcome. Dr. Barbour also expressed AC concerns about the flow of post docs from academics into industry and stated that we must understand what attracts them and what can we learn. She also spoke to the barriers people face in trying to join the bioeconomy. Not everyone has good access to broadband internet, so how do we involve underserved communities and help them understand the importance of the bioeconomy? Dr. Panchanathan responded by saying we need a plan for ‘K to Gray’. NSF is trying to energize and excite K-12 students and teachers through work with the Simons Foundation to develop a Science Corps effort much like the Peace Corps. Partnerships with industry to meet these objectives are important to develop a diversity of talent early as focusing on higher education is already too late. Dr. Panchanathan suggested the AC may want to meet with Dr. James Moore AD, EDU to hear his thoughts. Dr. Panchanathan agreed that Professors of Practice and the development of industrycollege partnerships will be important. Dr. Marrongelle encouraged the AC to talk to Dr. Moore and think more about teachers and how we work on K-12. Teaching positions in STEM are becoming harder to fill and we should do what we can to support teachers. BIO has helped reshape undergraduate education and can do the same for teachers. She noted that competency-based education and what it means for 4-year institutions has been discussed over many years and a lot of work has already been done that might be worth revisiting. She also emphasized that it is not only about getting agreements in place but also implementing them. Dr. Ibba thanked everyone for their participation.

Discussion of Topics for Spring 2024 Meeting 

Dr. Ibba led the discussion of items that might be considered in upcoming meetings. In planning the next meeting, he emphasized that the meeting and the interaction with the Director and COO were more productive when focused around one topic as this one had been. Upcoming topics of interest included K-Gray, a presentation from Dr. James Moore, the utility of Professors of Practice, and post-doctoral training modules with a focus on on-ramps. He also suggested coming back to big programs such as STCs and BIIs to understand how to include EPSCoR schools, 2-year schools, MSIs, etc. in these larger cutting-edge efforts. Another suggestion was to have an update on ‘standard metrics’ that was last covered in May 2022. Dr. Cone noted that the ‘Data for the Bioeconomy’ report should be published soon and could set up a discussion and follow up on the questions about data raised by the AC.

Dr. Marqusee thanked Dr. Suzanne Barbour and Dr. Gretchen North, who are completing their terms of service on the AC. 

Dr. Marqusee thanked the AC for their participation and adjourned the meeting at 2:43 PM EDT.