Subra Suresh, who was awarded a Padma Shri last month in recognition of his contribution to science and engineering, was appointed, in 2010, as the Director of National Science Foundation (NSF ) by United States President Barack Obama. The NSF, which has historically played a key role in the strategic development of scientific projects, has been thrust into even more prominence under the Obama administration as the President has increasingly sought to emphasise the role of innovation and research in ensuring that the U.S. remains a global technology leader.
A graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Dr. Suresh earlier served as Dean and Vannevar Bush Professor of Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and as the head of MIT’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering. He further held numerous joint faculty positions in the Departments of Mechanical Engineering, Biological Engineering and the Division of Health Sciences and Technology. Apart from MIT Dr. Suresh was also a faculty member at Brown University in the Division of Engineering.
Winning wide recognition for ground-breaking research, Dr. Suresh was the recipient of the 2007 European Materials Medal, “the highest honour conferred by the Federation of European Materials Societies,” and the 2006 Acta Materialia Gold Medal. Technology Review magazine selected Dr. Suresh’s work on nano-biotechnology as “one of the top ten emerging technologies that will have a significant impact on business, medicine or culture.”
Dr. Suresh spoke toNarayan Lakshman of The Hindu at his office near Washington, about priorities for the NSF, the role of scientific education in the 21st-century technology landscape, and his specific area of research.
Starting with your appointment, you have obviously spent a lot of time in academia, and I wanted to understand whether this is much more of an organisational and administrative role. Also what is the length of your tenure in this role?
This role is definitely a major administrative role but on the other hand it is in science administration. Having a science background and, in my previous job, having the opportunity to lead a very large and prominent engineering school was a good training ground for this position. This role has both national and international vantage points with the potential of impact in both arenas. From that point of view it is somewhat different from the kinds of things that I have done. I definitely draw on the past experiences and positions as I work to contribute in this particular job.
My appointment to this position is for a six year term. That is typical for a National Science Foundation Director.
In terms of what you are doing here, some have argued that the locus of production in science and technology has shifted to other countries of late, in some sectors. On the other hand you have, especially under the Obama administration, a sense that the U.S. is seeking to boost its technology exports. How do you see the tension between these two things impacting the U.S.’ future as a global technology leader?
The NSF plays a key role as a major contribution to the innovation ecosystem of the country. Scientific discoveries begin with the kind of efforts that the NSF sponsors. But even efforts that are usually the single kernel of an idea that may start with an individual investigator can translate into an innovation that impacts multiple industries and it may impact society globally. These innovations can come from many different arenas. The NSF has for the last 60 years played a significant role in nurturing and fostering this innovation through a variety of modes. It could be a single-investigator project, where one innovator sits in isolation and comes up with a brilliant idea that changes society. It could be in a group or collaborative project that involves multiple people in the same institution or in multiple institutions. It may involve a project that requires large facilities. The NSF partnered in all of these models for the advancement of science. Even though manufacturing, at some level, may have shifted to other parts of the world, in an innovation economy one can continue to move to a higher levels of understanding and analysis and innovate, and this contributes to the economy, to jobs and is vital to national security. In all those aspects the NSF continues to play a very critical role.
Regarding what you said about the NSF’s approach to encouraging innovation, is there an inherent uncertainty about the fruits of such an innovative process, at least in the early phases? In that sense, how does the NSF view the financing for these projects and decide which of these are likely to yield the longest-term results that you need?
The NSF is very unique in its mission. It is the only federal agency in the U.S., and perhaps globally, that funds research in all branches of science and engineering. Secondly, it is an agency that does not fund projects solely on the basis of a mission. For example, take the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. NASA’s mission is aeronautics and space research and exploration. The Department of Energy’s mission is energy, similarly the Department of Commerce – they all have a mission. The NSF’s mission is to foster science and engineering, to create discoveries in the country and thereby benefit to society and contribute to STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] education and the research workforce in the country. In that respect the NSF is has a unique perspective on being mission-driven. The mission of the NSF is to contribute to all of the things that I have mentioned.
Research is an inherently long-term process. We cannot be short-sighted and go after the latest fashion. Just because we have a high unemployment rate we cannot fund all of our research into a direction that will lead to employment in the next two years because that is really not long-term research, even though we want to contribute to the economy. That does not necessarily mean that the near-term or mid-term are not important – we do have three year goals and annual reports. We cannot lose sight of the long-term benefits. We cannot fund everything that is purely hypothetical and some day may lead to some result. But on the other hand we have to balance intellectual curiosity with relevance and you have to walk a very fine line. Keeping a long-term perspective in mind is what the NSF does.
It is also probably a line, or criteria, that change from time to time?
Of course, the organisation has to be nimble. Fields change, intellectual disciplines change. The web came into existence 15 years ago and that has changed the way we do research, science and engineering and the way society lives. We have to also look at the societal impact of science and that keeps changing as well. Especially as new technology emerges the benefits of science and engineering and technology to society and the drawbacks of the implementation of a particular technology to society – we have to look at all of that. The bottom line is that just like the intellectual disciplines of science and engineering that the NSF sponsors change continually, the NSF as an organisation has to be nimble enough to adapt to these changes.
On the subject of being nimble and picking the types of projects that lead to the goals that you have enunciated, how important is federal financing? In that context can you talk about the America COMPETES Reauthorisation Bill, which, I believe, has just gone through? Also in 2009 and 2010 there was a spike in funding but do you expect that to be sustained?
As you know the motivation for the first America COMPETES Act, in 2007, came from the studies released by the National Academy’s study, “Rising above the Gathering Storm,” and more recently there was a report called “Category Five,” which is a follow-up to the original report. Essentially, the National Academy’s report called for refocusing our national attention on the ability of the U.S. to remain a leader in the international arena in the realm of science and engineering in research and, therefore, remain an economic superpower, especially in the light of the increased competition from around the world and from major developing countries.
As an outgrowth of the original report and the America COMPETES Act in the last couple of years, President Obama and Congress have strongly supported the need for increasing the NSF’s funding. The NSF is one of three or four agencies where funding for basic research had to be increased. The NSF was identified as one of the agencies whose budget would double over a period of time. Given the financial crisis that happened in 2008 and the aftermath of that, we need to wait and see how long it takes for us to reach that doubling goal. But the hope and the expectation, especially in the light of the recent reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, is that we will continue to be on the path to the doubling of the budget, perhaps if delayed by one or two years at most. President Obama has again reinforced his strong commitment to science and engineering. In fact the President has repeatedly talked about the need for science and engineering and also talked about the goal of Research and Development being about three per cent of Gross Domestic Product. All of this, we believe, will lead to continued support for the activities that the NSF does. We rely exclusively on federal funding so it is very critical for us. The NSF supports about 200,000 people in the country – from educators to K-through-12 teachers to researchers in roughly 2000 institutions. It is tax payer money, appropriated by Congress, which reaches a large segment of the intellectual and educational enterprise in the country. There are also many areas of academic research where the NSF is the major sponsor of research – in universities, areas such as mathematics and computer science, where more than 80 per cent of the research funding in the universities is from the NSF. So, there are many areas where, if the NSF does not provide support, there may not be other sources of support. It is very, very important that we keep that in mind.
Many different areas of policy have been affected by bipartisan tensions that you see in the U.S. at the moment. I have a quote from Ralph Hall, Republican from Texas and Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, who described the America COMPETES Reauthorisation Bill as “far too expensive, particularly in light of the new and duplicative programmes it creates,” not allowing for “proper oversight to the programmes... in the first COMPETES Bill,” and going “way beyond the goals and direction of the original America COMPETES Bill, taking us from good, solid fundamental research and much too far into the world of commercialisation, which [we] do not believe is the proper role of the federal government.” Some of this is rhetoric but do you fear that this may be the biggest obstacle to that goal you mentioned of doubling federal financing for science?
Let me articulate two caveats to that. The first is that I do not know the context in which that quote was embedded. Secondly, there is a distinction between support for a particular legislation, or act, versus support for science and engineering. Just because a Congressman or a Senator has a concern for a particular piece of legislation does not necessarily mean that they do not support that particular concept. There are so many items in legislation and so much language that objections can occur, even though even though it may not necessarily mean that they are opposed to [financing science and engineering projects].
In fact I had a very nice meeting with Congressman Hall in his office not too long ago. One of the things I have found in my few months at the NSF is that everyone may not agree with everything that is done at the NSF, but by and large NSF is highly respected and admired by both sides of Congress, regardless of party affiliation. This support has always been non-partisan. That is one reason why the Director of the NSF is a Presidential appointee and is appointed for a six-year term – so that it is specifically out of phase of the presidential election cycle. When I went through my Senate confirmation, I met with Senators from both sides of the aisle. Even though there are differing viewpoints about how a particular project should be funded or how science should be done and what should be included and what should not be included, by and large there is very strong support for science and engineering. I hope that that support, especially during tight financial times, will continue and agencies like the NSF will continue to receive support from Congress because of what we do for the country and for the world.
Going back to something you alluded to earlier – the “supply side,” which is education and scientific and technological knowledge in society here in the U.S. – there have been some statistics showing that since 1980, science and technology jobs in the U.S. have grown “at almost five times the rate of the U.S. civilian workforce as a whole; yet the number of science and technology degrees earned by U.S. citizens is growing at a much smaller rate.” Do you think America of the 21st century will increasingly come to rely on tech specialists from beyond its borders? Or do you see reforms in science education in the U.S. as pushing society towards supplying the tech workers of the future?
In the U.S. the scientific workforce and pipeline have multiple components to it. If you look at the number of PhDs granted in the last ten years to American citizens and permanent residents that number has increased for science and engineering. It may not keep up with demand but there is still a sufficient supply. It is less than what it was 30 years ago, but there is still a sufficient supply of science and engineering PhDs. In fact the increase in doctorates in the last ten years is primarily due to a significant increase in the number of women getting PhDs in science and engineering in the U.S.
Added to that, I think one of the remarkable attributes of this country is that it has been the destination for people all over the world. I am a good example of that. I hope that this continues. There are not many countries in the world where somebody who comes to get an education as a student has an opportunity to lead an agency like the NSF. I think this has been one of the remarkable things about the U.S. and as long as that possibility exists in the country one would hope that people would come here from all over the world. If you look at my previous job, the School of Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there were 375 faculty and 43 per cent of them were foreign-born. In science and engineering across the country, this has been a preferred destination.
There are areas in which we need to do better. I mentioned the increase in the number of women in the U.S. who get PhDs in science and engineering. That is very good news. The bad news is that the proportion of women in the workforce is still relatively low.
Do you know what it is, approximately?
It is about 26 per cent in science and engineering. But compared to the number of women who enter the workforce, the number of women who stay in the workforce is less. Given that they make up half of the population, there is a lot of room for improvement in that arena.
Another area where we have not done very well is increasing the number of under-represented groups and under-represented minorities in the science and engineering workforce. That number is relatively low. The NSF has taken steps and other agencies have taken steps, but there is a lot of room for further improvement in those arenas.
The third area is for the science and engineering enterprise of this country to be a sought-after a destination that attracts top talent from all over the world, especially in areas that lead to innovation.
All three are very important pipelines. These are very important to me.
In many countries including India there is a lot of debate surrounding education reform, particularly to get children interested in science and spark an interest at an early age. Is there any reform underway in the U.S. educational system, or maybe something that the NSF is working on at the school level?
The NSF is very heavily engaged in education research, developing new models, working in partnership with the Department of Education and other federal agencies. Part of our job is also to focus on K-through-12 education, especially in STEM. There is a lot activity in place. The NSF sponsors a lot of programmes for outreach and science literacy. This is also embedded in our broader impacts criteria, which we use for proposals.
There are many different ways in which the NSF works – we have sponsored public education programmes in science and engineering, including the NOVA programme [a top-rated and critically acclaimed science series on U.S. public television]. In fact there is a new NOVA programme on “Making things stronger and better,” which is about to be aired which the NSF was a co-sponsor of. We sponsor “Science Friday,” which is a talk show every week. We also provide funds for universities and colleges to attract undergraduates to do research so that they get hooked to the excitement of doing science and engineering research – this is a programme called Research Experience for Undergraduates.
There are many, many examples of these kinds of projects that the NSF is engaged in. We also participate in a variety of talent competitions, public awareness, we sponsor programmes in the Museum of Science, and so there are multiple dimensions to that.
You spoke earlier on about how you pick areas of support with a long-term goal in mind, usually in terms of innovation. You also mentioned that there are several other government entities that work on specific areas, like NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy. Could you outline any major priority areas for the NSF and do you share responsibility for some of these projects with the other entities or do you have separate areas of focus?
The NSF is not a top-down organisation. We invest in the best ideas and we invest in the best people – that is our dual mission. The best ideas actually come from the community. A typical way for us to decide what a priority is would be to have some broad areas outlined and get the best experts from the universities and research community and the educator community together. We sponsor workshops, they get together and they discuss and debate. These are the people who are at the cutting edge of research. They tell us, “These are the pressing problems,” and the community also tells “These are global challenges.”
So [we proceed] on the basis of this input from a broad spectrum of sources, plus we have Advisory Boards for every directorate. The members of these Advisory Boards are experts in the field from the community. They are educators, they are from industry, they include university Presidents, and they are researchers and famous professors, and some Nobel laureates. They come here periodically and give us input. We synthesise all this input and we create ideas.
We have priorities. We articulate them. We invite proposals and ideas from the community. We have a very well established merit review process through which we select the best ideas and best people. Let me give you a couple of examples of initiatives that have evolved through this process.
One is called SEES, or Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability. That involves every field that the NSF supports and every directorate and office inside the NSF. This is a theme that is synthesised together and is one of themes that we will include in everything that we do for science, engineering and education with a view to sustainability in everything that we do. Sustainability could be with respect to energy, with respect to transportation, with respect to the environment, with respect to educational activities that we do and so forth.
The other area that involves multiple directorates and offices within the NSF is cyber-infrastructure. We have an exponential growth in information, whether it is through published literature, through newspapers and magazines, through websites, through blogs, or through text messages. Information is exploding. How do you, first of all, organise, sort, mine and filter this information and how do you separate the signal from the noise, so that you can extract useful information out of it? What is the infrastructure needed to do this? What are the hardware and software requirements? There is a lot of science that goes into this, so we sponsor the science. But it also requires infrastructural issues that we need to address. This we do not do in isolation – we work with other federal agencies.
Another example. We sponsor a lot of research in the biological sciences. The biological sciences include basic biology, it includes biological engineering...
Your own field...
My own field, which is the intersection of engineering and life sciences. It also includes biology applied to agriculture. We not only work between biology and engineering, we work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We also work with the National Institutes of Health and other institutes within NIH. There are many different angles to this.
Do you do anything in defence, perhaps with DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency)?
Of course. DARPA’s mission is not as upstream as ours. They have more of a focus on translation and deliverables. But still there are a lot of themes and intellectual areas that overlap. We may fund upstream research and they may fund more downstream research but there is a lot of conversation that goes on. In fact we have constant conversations with different parts of the Department of Defence – [for example] the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Office of Naval Research is only next door [in Ballston, Virginia, near Washington DC]. DARPA is not too far from here either. They are all nearby. We interact quite closely with them.
Out of curiosity, could you tell us a bit about your own area of research, nano-biomechanics, and why some people have described your work in that area as “one of the top ten emerging technologies that "will have a significant impact on business, medicine or culture?”
Regarding my background, I started as an engineer. My initial work was looking at the mechanical properties of large structures [including] the structural integrity of the fuselage of an airplane, the cabin of the aircraft, the wing of an aircraft, the lifetime of an aircraft, nuclear pressure vessels, pipelines and so forth. Over time I started to look at smaller and smaller things. This was in the early to mid-1980s – I was looking at large structures. In the late 1980s and early 1990s I was looking at mechanical properties of small-scale structures.
Then when the National Nanotechnology Initiative started, I was the Director of a large programme on nano-structured materials, which was funded by the Office of Naval Research, with Department of Defence funding. Even though mine was basic research with no defence applications, it was 6.1 Funding, which is Basic Research Funding [by the Department of Defence.]
About eight years ago I thought I would still continue on the theme of mechanical properties, but now in living systems. I thought it would be wonderful if I took my expertise to a topic that also addresses human diseases. I started looking at diseases like malaria, which affect human red blood cells. It turns out that the pathogenic basis for the development of malaria in the human body has a lot to do with the mechanical properties of red blood cells. When the properties of the red blood change because of a parasite, the ability of the blood cell to do its job, which is to deliver oxygen, to the brain, is severely compromised. That can ultimately lead to cerebral malaria or placental malaria in pregnant women.
That brought very interesting side topics for us to study: anything that causes, at the cellular level, compromised mechanical properties for a cell, whose function it is to deform, will lead to a disease. What is the origin of a disease as it relates to a mechanical property? This is an interesting perspective at the cell and molecular level because we know mechanical properties are important. The pumping of the heart is a mechanical function. The blood flow through the arteries and veins is a mechanical function. But what is new in this [approach] is that it looks at things at the cell and molecular level and the tools to study that did not exist ten or fifteen years ago. My timing was right, starting about eight years ago, and I was able to use new experimental tools and also computer tools to model, with the kind of information that I had access to, which I could not have done earlier. That put me in touch with the medical and biology communities, and that was what I was doing until more recently.
Finally, with all your achievements, I am sure that you are a role model for many children in India who aspire to study science. Would you have any words of advice for them? Also, do you retain any links to India, personal or work-related?
Yes, I retain links to India, quite closely, partly because I have family in India. I go there quite frequently – I was just there two weeks ago.
In large portions of Indian society, and this is historic, going back hundreds or thousands of years, there has always been a strong emphasis on education, knowledge and scholarship, including science and engineering. The last 18 years in India are very interesting, especially in areas like information technology, where India has emerged as a leading participant in the global scene. Science and engineering play a huge role in that. Also, the middle class in India has moved up quite a bit in the last 18 years. This is a very good illustration, in the context of a large country, a large population and a large democracy, that education broadly in any field and science and engineering education in particular, can be a ticket to prosperity. If that continues it will be a very good thing not just for India but for the whole world.
