NSF's National Security Mission for the Twenty-First Century

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) convened policymakers, industry leaders, researchers, and government officials to examine the National Science Foundation's (NSF) evolving role in advancing U.S. economic competitiveness and national security amid intensifying global technological competition. Across four panels, participants explored China's rapidly evolving innovation ecosystem, the importance of sustained investment in scientific research, the close relationship between innovation and national security, and policy priorities for strengthening the U.S. science and technology enterprise.  

Opening the event, Navin Girishankar, president of the Economic Security and Technology Department at CSIS, described the National Science Foundation as the "load-bearing wall of the U.S. scientific ecosystem," arguing that scientific discovery only translates into economic growth and national strength when supported by robust innovation ecosystems. He emphasized that today's competition extends beyond individual technologies to the broader systems that connect research, commercialization, manufacturing, and workforce development, particularly as the United States competes with China across critical technologies.  

Delivering the keynote, Brian Stone, NSF chief of staff then performing the duties of the NSF director, argued that science has always been central to national security, from the Civil War to today's competition in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum technologies, advanced communications, and manufacturing. He emphasized that NSF's contribution lies in supporting foundational research, helping to develop new technologies before their applications are known, and cultivating the scientific workforce that underpins America's long-term competitive advantage. "Scientific strength is national strength," Stone said, noting that NSF supports approximately 11,000 competitive awards annually across nearly 1,900 institutions and more than 350,000 researchers. 

Panel 1: China’s R&D System and Implications for U.S. Strategy 

Moderated by Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and trustee chair in Chinese Business and Economics at CSIS, the opening panel examined China's transformation into a global science and technology leader and the implications for U.S. innovation and security policy. Kennedy noted that China now spends more than $1 trillion annually on research and development, slightly surpassing U.S. investment, while emerging as a leader in fields including artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, advanced batteries, and pharmaceuticals. He argued that the central policy question is no longer whether China poses a technological challenge, but how the United States should strengthen its own innovation ecosystem while protecting critical technologies. 

Kyle Chan, fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued that China is no longer a future challenger but a science and technology powerhouse operating "close to, if not at, the global frontier" across scientific publications, patents, AI, robotics, quantum technologies, biotechnology, and commercial space. He cautioned that China's progress cannot be explained solely by intellectual property theft or technology transfer. Instead, it reflects decades of sustained investment in research, modern manufacturing, and support for commercialization, along with talent development. As Chan emphasized, we must understand that "there is actually a fundamental capability that they're developing, one that we should take very seriously." 

Jeannette Chu, vice president for national security affairs at the National Foreign Trade Council, agreed that China has become a formidable innovation competitor but stressed that its ambitions extend well beyond achieving technological parity with the United States. While acknowledging China's remaining weaknesses in areas such as commercial aircraft engines, she argued that Beijing's strategy is one of continuous technological advancement. Rather than focusing exclusively on frontier innovation, China excels at rapidly commercializing technologies that are "good enough," scaling production, lowering costs, and deploying them across the broader economy—a capability that has become one of its greatest competitive strengths. 

The panel also explored the implications of artificial intelligence for strategic competition. Chan contrasted China's broader "AI Plus" strategy—which integrates AI across manufacturing, healthcare, education, and government—in contrast to the U.S. emphasis on frontier model development. China's commitment to open-source AI models, he argued, has accelerated adoption of Chinese models both domestically and internationally by making advanced AI more accessible. 

Turning to U.S. policy, the panel discussed the effectiveness of export controls and technology restrictions. Chu argued that the United States has made important progress in recognizing that "economic security is national security," but cautioned against relying on export controls alone. Similarly, Chan noted that while semiconductor export controls have slowed China's access to advanced chips, they have also intensified Beijing's efforts to develop a fully indigenous semiconductor ecosystem. 

Looking ahead, both speakers emphasized that America's long-term competitiveness will depend less on constraining China than on strengthening its own innovation ecosystem. Chan highlighted enduring U.S. advantages—including world-class universities, venture capital, and federal research institutions—while Chu argued that industrial policy should serve as an "accelerant" for innovation rather than merely a defensive response to Chinese advances. The panel concluded by emphasizing talent as a strategic asset, with both speakers warning that overly restrictive policies toward international researchers risk weakening U.S. scientific leadership. As Chu observed, "our brain drain is China's gain," underscoring the importance of maintaining an open and globally competitive research ecosystem. 

Panel 2: Science for Economic Security 

Moderated by Charles Wessner, senior adviser at CSIS, the second panel examined how sustained investments in scientific research drive U.S. economic competitiveness. Kathleen Kingscott (senior technical expert, CSIS), Laurie Self (senior vice president and Counsel of government affairs, Qualcomm), and Levi Patterson (Director of energy, science, and AI infrastructure, NVIDIA) emphasized that America's technological leadership rests on a long-standing partnership across government, universities, and industry, with federal support for basic research serving as the foundation for commercial innovation and economic growth. 

Opening the discussion, Kathleen Kingscott argued that transformative industries such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biotechnology, and quantum computing exist because of decades of investment in foundational science. Noting that the global semiconductor industry has grown into an approximately $800 billion market projected to exceed $1 trillion, she stressed that these advances "wouldn't be there today... if it weren't for the science that undergirds it." While companies increasingly invest in applied research and commercialization, she argued that agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), and Department of Defense (DoD) remain indispensable for supporting the early-stage research that private industry is unlikely to fund on its own. Kingscott also highlighted workforce shortages as a growing challenge, pointing to projected demand for tens of thousands of additional semiconductor workers by 2030 and calling for expanded STEM education, community college partnerships, veteran workforce programs, and policies that continue to attract international talent. "We have to keep investing," she emphasized. 

Laurie Self illustrated the long-term value of public investment through Qualcomm's own history. Although the company has invested more than $100 billion in research and development over its lifetime, she noted that Qualcomm's origins can be traced to federally funded university research conducted by co-founder Irwin Jacobs as well as early support from the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Self argued that private markets alone cannot sustain the earliest stages of scientific discovery because commercial returns are often years or even decades away. "What we do as a company would not exist but for that early-stage R&D innovation," she said, describing innovation as a continuous cycle linking government, universities, and industry. She also stressed that strong intellectual property protections and stable policy environments are essential for encouraging long-term private investment. 

Representing NVIDIA, Levi Patterson similarly credited partnerships with universities, national laboratories, and federally funded researchers for the company's evolution into a leader in artificial intelligence and accelerated computing. He argued that public-private collaboration remains critical because many of tomorrow's breakthrough technologies will emerge from today's academic research. "The way to accelerate scientific progress the most in this country is going to be for us to move together," Patterson remarked. He also highlighted NVIDIA's support for NSF initiatives such as the National AI Research Resource, demonstrating how industry can expand researchers' access to advanced computing infrastructure. 

Throughout the discussion, the panelists emphasized that investments in research are ultimately investments in people. Scientific funding supports not only discoveries but also the education and training of the researchers, entrepreneurs, and engineers who drive innovation across the economy. Concluding the panel, Wessner argued that America's greatest technological successes have consistently emerged from long-term partnerships among government, academia, and industry. Kingscott echoed that message with a simple prescription: "We need to invest more," emphasizing that sustained support for foundational research remains essential to maintaining U.S. economic competitiveness. 

Panel 3: Science for National Security 

Moderated by Bruce Andrews, senior adviser at CSIS, the third panel examined how federal investments in science and technology strengthen U.S. military advantage and national security. Larry Schuette (Director, global research and innovation, Lockheed Martin), Erwin Gianchandani (NSF's Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships), and Bess Dopkeen (Founder, Keen Edge Strategies and former senior advisor to the under secretary of defense for research and engineering) argued that America's defense capabilities depend on sustained investments in basic research, workforce development, and strong partnerships among government, academia, and industry. 

Opening the discussion, Andrews noted that U.S. military superiority has historically been built on federally supported scientific breakthroughs—from the Manhattan Project and GPS to artificial intelligence and emerging dual-use technologies—and asked whether the nation is investing at the scale needed to maintain that advantage. 

Drawing on his experience at the Office of Naval Research and Lockheed Martin, Larry Schuette described the U.S. innovation ecosystem as an interconnected partnership in which universities generate foundational discoveries, government laboratories transform them into technological innovations, and industry scales them into operational capabilities. While this process was once largely linear, he argued that it has become far more collaborative, remarking that "everything we do is done at the speed of trust." Schuette identified workforce development as one of the defense industrial base's greatest challenges, noting that defense companies require highly skilled employees who are also eligible for security clearances. He called for greater investment in fellowships, internships, and university-industry partnerships while urging policymakers to better communicate how federally funded research ultimately produces military capabilities. 

Bess Dopkeen argued that although Congress broadly understands the importance of science, it often struggles to connect long-term research investments with future defense capabilities. She suggested that the research community should "tell our stories backwards" by starting with familiar technologies—from smartphones to advanced defense systems—and tracing them back to the decades of federally funded research that made them possible. Dopkeen also described the Department of Defense's efforts to align long-term research with national defense priorities through technology roadmaps for critical fields such as hypersonics, quantum technologies, and biotechnology, while acknowledging the ongoing challenge of protecting research funding amid annual budget pressures. 

Representing NSF, Erwin Gianchandani argued that rapid advances in artificial intelligence and data-driven science are fundamentally changing both the pace of discovery and the nature of the innovation ecosystem. He outlined TIP's three priorities: accelerating technologies to market, preparing a workforce for the twenty-first century, and strengthening regional innovation ecosystems. Highlighting initiatives such as the Tech Metal Transformation Challenge and NSF's Regional Innovation Engines, Gianchandani explained how partnerships with the Department of Defense, industry, and regional stakeholders are helping translate scientific discoveries into technologies that support both economic competitiveness and national security. 

Workforce development emerged as a central theme throughout the discussion. Schuette highlighted Lockheed Martin's internship pipeline, while Gianchandani emphasized that future competitiveness depends not only on PhD scientists but also on technicians, entrepreneurs, skilled trades, and community colleges. Looking ahead, the panelists identified talent and technology commercialization as the nation's greatest strategic challenges. Dopkeen stressed the importance of attracting and retaining the world's best scientists, while Gianchandani warned that without better support to bridge the "valley of death" between research and its commercialization, promising innovations risk being developed elsewhere. The panel concluded that maintaining U.S. national security requires sustained investment in science, talent, and partnerships that connect discovery to real-world capabilities. 

Panel 4: Policy Roundup 

Moderated by Sujai Shivakumar, director of the Renewing American Innovation Project at CSIS, the closing panel brought together key themes from the day's discussions, emphasizing that U.S. technological leadership depends not only on scientific excellence but also on an innovation ecosystem capable of translating research into economic and national security advantages. Joining Shivakumar were Charles Wessner, Bruce Andrews, and Erwin Gianchandani, who reflected on the policies needed to strengthen that ecosystem. 

Shivakumar noted that while the National Science Foundation (NSF) has historically focused on supporting foundational research, today's strategic environment requires greater attention to commercialization and innovation. As scientific discoveries can now be developed and deployed anywhere in the world, he argued that "our innovation system is a national security asset" and must be strengthened accordingly. 

Charles Wessner highlighted the importance of sustained federal investment, workforce development, and public-private collaboration, noting that the participation of companies such as NVIDIA, Qualcomm, IBM, and Lockheed Martin underscored the enduring value of NSF-supported research. He urged policymakers to move beyond "admiring the problem" of workforce shortages by creating incentives for industry investment in training and reaffirmed that attracting global scientific talent remains one of America's greatest competitive advantages. "The challenge is us," he concluded, arguing that long-term U.S. competitiveness depends on sustained commitment to science and innovation. 

Building on these themes, Bruce Andrews emphasized four priorities: maintaining investments across the entire innovation pipeline, strengthening regional innovation ecosystems, protecting federal support for basic research, and addressing persistent workforce challenges. 

Closing the symposium, Erwin Gianchandani argued that the accelerating pace of scientific discovery demands stronger partnerships among government, academia, industry, and investors. He stressed that innovation depends not only on advancing science but also on "innovating how we innovate" through new funding mechanisms, partnerships, and approaches to technology development. The panel concluded that sustaining U.S. economic competitiveness and national security will require continued investment in research, talent, and the institutions that connect scientific discovery to real-world impact.

This event was made possible through support from the National Science Foundation (NSF).