— RESEARCH LOBBY SPLIT AHEAD OF USICA CONFERENCE: The little-discussed research lobby's academic and industry wings were already at odds over divergent lawmaker plans to overhaul the National Science Foundation. Now, ahead of a conference for the House and Senate's competitiveness packages, cracks are emerging among university lobbyists over the expansion of a program meant to fund researchers in rural or overlooked states. — Revamping NSF: It's the primary driver of basic research in the United States, but NSF hasn't historically done much to turn that research into real-world applications. Both the House's America COMPETES Act (H.R. 4521) and the Senate's U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (S. 1260 ) would create a new applied-technology directorate at the agency — but the Senate, driven in part by competition with China, envisions a more fundamental pivot at NSF to drive research into marketable technologies. Darío Gil, the director of research at chip-designer IBM and a member of NSF's board of directors, said he prefers the Senate's "bold set of changes" to NSF over the House's more cautious approach. Though IBM is one company that stands to benefit from a powerful technology directorate at NSF, Gil said Wednesday he's confident the agency can expand aggressively into applied sciences "without compromising one iota its core mission." Academia is pushing back. During a Thursday call with several heads of research at universities across the country — convened by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, one of the largest research lobbies in Washington — Roger Wakimoto, the head of research at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he'd prefer an NSF focused more on "challenges, scientific questions" that won't necessarily lead right away to workable technologies. Deborah Altenberg, APLU's head of research policy and government affairs, expressed concern that the Senate bill is "too rigid" in its list of 10 key technology areas, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing and microchips. "There needs to be maximum flexibility," she said. — Squabble over research dollars: There's also a split within academia on the wisdom of the Senate bill's plan to set aside 20 percent of NSF's research dollars for states that have historically received little R&D funding, primarily rural states. The Senate bill puts the program on track to expand nearly tenfold, to just under $2 billion per year — but doesn't add any extra research dollars to NSF's overall pot. The provision was spearheaded last year by Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee. The change is likely to funnel more federal research funding into universities in Mississippi and other rural states, but that money will likely come out of the pockets of research institutions in states like Massachusetts, California and Washington. There was tension on the APLU call when the rural state funding expansion was discussed. University representatives from states like Kentucky lauded the provision, while Wakimoto of UCLA warned it could cause "emerging research institutions" in his state to get "lost in the shuffle." BACKED BY TECH MONEY, BLACK & HISPANIC GROUPS JOIN ANTITRUST FIGHT: A slew of groups representing Black and Hispanic-owned businesses are inundating policymakers with arguments contending that antitrust efforts targeting the tech industry will harm communities of color. But as Emily discovered in her latest for Pros, several of these groups have one thing in common — they have financial backing or other ties with many of the largest tech companies. At least six such groups either receive funding or have close partnerships with Amazon, Google and Facebook parent company Meta. And their messages are being amplified by the tech industry, either directly or through their vast network of lobbyists and trade associations. —Unintended consequences? Industry representatives say their relationships with groups representing people of color stem from a mutual understanding of the adverse consequences the legislative effort to rein in the major tech companies could have on Black and Hispanic people. "Honestly, I don't know that the authors of these bills have fully considered their unintentional impact on communities of color," said Adam Kovacevich, a former Google executive who founded the trade group Chamber of Progress. Paula Sardinas, a spokesperson for the Seattle-area Washington Build Back Black Alliance, said groups in her coalition make "policy decisions that are best for the people. The companies have zero input." (One of the alliance's member groups has disclosed receiving at least $200,000 total from Amazon and Facebook). —But some prominent lawmakers, like Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), are unmoved by the tech industry's messaging. "In a last-ditch attempt to preserve their corrosive powers, Big Tech is now circulating arguments that antitrust legislation will harm Black communities," said Jeffries, a co-sponsor of House tech antitrust legislation and former whip of the Congressional Black Caucus. "I don't buy it," he added. DUCK, DUCK, ANTITRUST! — Search engine DuckDuckGo, which brands itself as a privacy-minded alternative to Google, registered its first lobbyist last week as the rush to pass antitrust legislation speeds up in both chambers — and as midterms approach. For years, DuckDuckGo has agitated against Google in Washington and in Europe, arguing that the tech giant has manipulated the extensions on its Chrome web browser to crush smaller rivals. Now Kate McInnis, DuckDuckGo's newly registered lobbyist, says the company plans to help push the antitrust bills across the finish line. — The strategy: McInnis has been working on policy with DuckDuckGo since 2020. At the time, she told Emily, she thought she'd spend all her time on privacy policy. But as the legislative debates have shifted, so has the small search engine's government affairs strategy. She finally realized she was spending at least 20 percent of her time speaking to lawmakers and staffers, which meant it was time to formally register. "We see there is an opportunity for Congress to pass bills this session, so we are accordingly ramping up our efforts to see where the bills are going," McInnis said. She's particularly (perhaps unsurprisingly) focused on boosting the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (S. 2992), a bill aimed at preventing the biggest tech companies from harming their rivals. — Small businesses: She said DuckDuckGo is particularly focused on knocking down the big tech companies' arguments that the legislation could hurt small businesses. Smaller companies like hers are facing a complex landscape: Lawmakers are more willing than ever to listen to them, but Google, Amazon, Meta and Apple are pushing even more aggressively from the other side. The big companies claim that an attempt to rein them in will also harm the small business ecosystem, since small businesses often use the big platforms' products to advertise, make sales and otherwise operate. Last month, DuckDuckGo and dozens of other small tech companies signed onto a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. McInnis said the small- to medium-sized tech companies supporting the legislation are "working in concert" to tell offices they back "changes in the market." "It's definitely a sign that 'Big Tech' is scared, if they're coming out with these strong messages that these bills would break services consumers love," McInnis said. "We see it as the opposite — these bills would allow consumers to do what they like on their devices and operating systems."
| 
Comments
Post a Comment