A Plan to Promote Defense Research at Minority-Serving Institutions (2024)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A Plan to Promote Defense Research at Minority-Serving Institutions Andrea Christelle, Erin Lynch, and André N. Porter, Editors Committee on the Development of a Plan to Promote Defense Research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Other Minority-Serving Institutions Board on Higher Education and Workforce Policy and Global Affairs Consensus Study Report PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/27838 This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. A Plan to Promote Defense Research at Minority-Serving Institutions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27838. * * This title was modified after release of the report to the study sponsor to more accurately represent the original Congressional intent. PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

COMMITTEE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN TO PROMOTE DEFENSE RESEARCH AT HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS, AND OTHER MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS ANDREA CHRISTELLE (Co-Chair), Vice Provost of Research, Diné College ERIN LYNCH (Co-Chair), President, The Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network NADYA T. BLISS, Executive Director and Professor of Practice, Global Security Initiative, Arizona State University ROBERT D. BRAUN (NAE), Head, Space Exploration, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory BRIAN K. CHAPPELL, Research Staff Member, Nuclear Weapons Strategy and Policy, Institute for Defense Analyses PAUL T. DEADERICK, Senior Project Leader, The Aerospace Corporation BRUCE H. DUNSON, President, Metrica, Inc. ERICK C. JONES, Dean, College of Engineering and Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno KEITH A. McGEE, Associate Professor, Biology, Alcorn State University ERIC R. MUTH, Vice Chancellor, Division of Research and Economic Development, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University ANNA M. QUIDER, Founder and Principal, The Quider Group AARON M. SCHUTT, President/CEO, Doyon, Limited SHARON TETTEGAH, Professor and Director, Center for Black Studies Research, University of California, Santa Barbara (until March 27, 2024) C. REYNOLD VERRET, President, Xavier University of Louisiana Study Staff ANDRÉ N. PORTER, Study Director and Senior Program Officer, Board on Higher Education and Workforce MARIA LUND DAHLBERG, Board Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce JOHN VERAS, Associate Program Officer, Board on Higher Education and Workforce ANDREA DALAGAN, Senior Program Assistant, Board on Higher Education and Workforce JUSTIN WANG, Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate Fellow, Board on Higher Education and Workforce CLARA HARVEY-SAVAGE, Senior Finance Business Partner, Policy and Global Affairs CYRIL LEE, Finance Business Partner, Policy and Global Affairs Consultants PAULA WHITACRE, Writer RUBY (RUISHAN) ZHANG, Research Assistant and Ph.D. candidate, Harvard University v PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

BOARD ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE LAMONT R. TERRELL (Co-Chair), Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Lead, GSK MARIELENA DeSANCTIS (Co-Chair), President, Community College of Denver RAJEEV DAROLIA, Wendell H. Ford Professorship in Public Policy and Professor of Public Policy and Economics, University of Kentucky JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY, President, University of Maine and University of Maine at Machias; Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation, University of Maine System MATTHEW HORA, Associate Professor of Adult and Higher Education and Founding Director, Center for Research on College-Workforce Transitions (CCWT), University of Wisconsin– Madison BRANDY HUDERSON, Assistant Professor of Biology, University of the District of Columbia; DEI Consultant and Data Analyst, Avent Diversity Consulting TASHA R. INNISS, Associate Provost for Research, Office of Research, Innovation, and Collaboration, Spelman College TRACIE LATTIMORE, Executive Director, Health Readiness Policy & Oversight, Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense HIRONAO OKAHANA, Assistant Vice President and Executive Director, Education Futures Lab, American Council on Education JOERG C. SCHLATTERER, Director, Scientific Advancement, Office of Research Grants, American Chemical Society KATE E. STOLL, Project Director, Center for Scientific Evidence in Public Issues, American Association for the Advancement of Science MEGHNA TARE, Chief Sustainability Officer, University of Texas at Arlington ZAKIYA WILSON-KENNEDY, Ron and Dr. Mary Neal Distinguished Associate Professor of Chemistry Education and Associate Dean for Academic Innovation and Engagement, College of Science, Louisiana State University JOSH WYNER, Executive Director, Aspen Institute College Excellence Program; Vice President, Aspen Institute Staff MARIA LUND DAHLBERG, Director ANDREA DALAGAN, Senior Program Assistant ANDRÉ N. PORTER, Senior Program Officer KARLA RILEY, Senior Program Assistant JOHN VERAS, Associate Program Officer MELISSA E. WYNN, Program Officer vi PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Reviewers This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: KIRAN BHAGANAGAR, The University of Texas at San Antonio EMILY BIGGANE, United Tribes Technical College CHARLES JOHNSON-BEY, Booz Allen Hamilton MICHELLE PENN-MARSHALL, Texas Southern University JARET RIDDICK, Georgetown University JAGANNATHAN SANKAR, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University HELEN TURNER, Chaminade University of Honolulu STEPHANIE YOUNG, RAND Corporation Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by EDWARD LAZOWSKA, University of Washington, and LESTER LYLES, Independent Consultant. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. vii PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Contents Preface, xi Acronyms and Abbreviations, xiii SUMMARY, 1 1 Introduction, 23 2 Government Engagement with Minority-Serving Institutions: History and Common Themes from Previous Reports, 38 3 Outlining Opportunities at MSIs: An Assessment of the Capabilities of Minority-Serving Institutions, 52 4 Department of Defense and Other Federal Support for Research and Development, 73 5 Setting a Path Forward for Assessment and Decision-Making, 103 6 Conclusion, 126 APPENDIXES A Public Meeting Agendas, 142 B Committee Member Biographical Sketches, 155 C Section 233 of Relevant NDAA Legislation, 163 viii PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Boxes, Figures, and Tables BOXES 1-1 Statement of Task, 26 1-2 Minority Institution and Minority-Serving Institutions, 32 2-1 National Academies Reports on Minority Participation in STEM and DOD Research, 43 FIGURES 3-1 Engagement with DOD, as reported by RFI respondents, 68 4-1 2021-2023 DOD S&T Funding, 74 4-2 U.S. Distribution of UARCs, 93 4-3 U.S. Distribution of FFRDCs, 93 5-1 F&A Inequities between R1 and non-R1 minority-serving institutions, 114 5-2 Four-part roadmap to create a data-driven dashboard, 118 5-3 Back-end database, 121 5-4 Front-end interface, 122 TABLES 3-1 Hispanic Serving Institutions’ R&D Expenditures, 54 3-2 Federal Obligations for S&E by Institution (FY2021), 55 3-3 Summary Statistics of MSI Distance to R1 and R2 Universities, 60 4-1 Analysis of Five Randomly Selected DOD RFPs/FOAs, 82 4-2 Comparison of Proposal Requirements for two DOD RFPs/FOAs, 86 4-3 DOD University Affiliated Research Centers, 89 4-4 DOD Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, 91 5-1 Sources of Data Related to MSI R&D Expenditures, 119 ix PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Preface In recent years, the landscape of higher education has witnessed a growing recognition of the vital role played by Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) in shaping the nation's academic, research, and innovation ecosystems. Institutions designated as Minority-Serving represent 25 percent of all colleges and universities in the United States 1 and 37 percent of all public colleges and universities in the country. Predicted shifts in the national demographics suggest the potential for more Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) emerging, making their access to and engagement in the national research and development (R&D) ecosystem critically important to the national economy, innovation development, and national security. While our free society is threatened by increasingly capable global adversaries, to support Department of Defense mission, it becomes imperative to engage and explore a wider range of institutions and human capital to develop complex solutions to defeat the threat. This volume delves into four key aspects of government engagement with MSIs and their impact on research, development in context of the capabilities of these institutions, and decision-making processes that contribute to a path forward for these organizations. Foundationally, this report presents an assessment for MSIs, but acknowledges the historic differences in asset access for different types of MSIs. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), per Department of Education guidelines, are the only type of college and university not expected to increase in numbers based on demographic shift. 2 Also, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) designation is predicated on enrollment numbers and tribal affiliation. Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISI), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), and Predominately Black Institutions (PBIs) are the only MSI classifications without explicit definitions related to the year of establishment or cultural affiliation. As such this study recognizes the historic under-resourcing of MSIs (McCambly and Colyvas, 2022) in context of 1 This excludes Carnegie Classified Special Focus Two Year Schools. 2 HBCUs had to be established before 1964 according to Higher Education Act of 1965. x PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

those institutions historically founded as institutions for the education of racial and ethnic minority groups and those that have evolved into institutions educating racial and ethnic minorities based on enrollment shifts. This study speaks to the contextual differences in relation to DOD’s response to support the variety of MSIs through six sections. MSIs, like all our nation’s universities, contribute significantly to society in many ways, including advancing knowledge, educating our population, and serving the public good. The Committee’s Statement of Task focuses narrowly on assessing the way MSIs can and do contribute to Department of Defense research. It is important to point out that there is not a one- size-fits-all answer to this question nor does the Committee assume that all MSIs should contribute to DoD research. As such, the degree to which the Committee’s findings and recommendations apply to each MSI is a function of the strategic interest of that institution in DoD research. Chapter 2, “Government Engagement with Minority-Serving Institutions: History and Common Themes from Previous Reports,” serves as a foundational exploration of the historic interactions between government entities and MSIs. By examining past reports and initiatives, this chapter illuminates common themes, challenges, and successes in government-MSI relationships, providing essential context for understanding the current landscape. Recommendations for this study related to the findings of this chapter are grounded in the concept of relationship building on the part of DOD and MSIs interested in conducting research to support the DOD mission. Chapter 3, “Outlining Opportunities at MSIs: An Assessment of the Capabilities of Minority-Serving Institutions,” provides a comprehensive assessment of the capabilities and potential of MSIs. Through a systematic examination of MSI resources, expertise, and infrastructure, this chapter aims to highlight the unique strengths and opportunities that MSIs offer in advancing research, innovation, and workforce development across diverse DOD-related fields. Recommendations for this study related to Chapter 2 findings are grounded in the qualitative evidence that emerged through public meetings and literature. Chapter 4, “Department of Defense and Other Federal Support for Research and Development,” delves into the critical role played by federal agencies, particularly the DOD, in supporting R&D activities at MIs. By analyzing existing programs, funding mechanisms, and xi PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

collaborative initiatives, this chapter elucidates the ways in which federal support catalyzes innovation and knowledge creation within the MSI community. Recommendations specific to Chapter 3 are grounded in the committee’s research and analysis of currently available data. Finally, Chapter 5, “Setting a Path Forward for Assessment and Decision-Making,” outlines strategies and frameworks for enhancing assessment practices and decision-making processes related to government engagement with MSIs. By synthesizing insights from previous chapters and drawing on best practices from diverse stakeholders, this chapter proposes actionable recommendations for policymakers, institutional leaders, and stakeholders to foster more effective partnerships and outcomes. Recommendations are drawn from the learnings across all chapter and are framed in a manner that could be actionable for DOD and MSIs. As we navigate the complexities and opportunities inherent in government-MSI collaborations, this volume seeks to inform and inspire dialogue, action, and innovation. By harnessing the collective wisdom and expertise of scholars, policymakers, practitioners, and MSI stakeholders, we aim to advance a shared vision of inclusive excellence and transformative impact in higher education, national security, innovation, and the prosperity of the nation. Andrea Christelle and Erin Lynch, Co-Chairs Committee on the Development of a Plan to Promote Defense Research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and other Minority-Serving Institutions REFERENCE McCambly, H., and J. A. Colyvas. (2022). Institutionalizing inequity anew: Grantmaking and racialized postsecondary organizations. The Review of Higher Education, 46(1), 67-107. xii PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Acronyms And Abbreviations AANAPISI Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions ANNHI Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions CIP Classification of Instructional Programs CTA Critical Technology Areas DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DEVCOM U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERI Emerging research institution ETS Educational Testing Service F&A Facilities & Administration costs FAIR Funding for Accelerated, Inclusive Research (DOE program) FFRDC Federally Funded Research & Development Center FOA Funding Opportunity Announcement GRANTED Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Equity and Diversity (NSF program) HAIANE High American Indian and Alaska Native Enrolling HERD Higher Education Research and Development Survey HHE High Hispanic Enrollment (institution) HSI Hispanic-Serving Institution xiii PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

IDC Indirect cost IHE Institute of higher education IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System MI Minority Institution MIRA Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (NIH program) MOSAIC Maximizing Opportunities for Scientific and Academic Independent Careers (NIH program) MSI Minority-Serving Institution NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASNTI Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions NASEM National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine NCES National Center for Educational Statistics NDAA National Defense Authorization Act NICRA Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement NIGMS National Institute of General Medical Sciences NIH National Institutes of Health NSF National Science Foundation ONR Office of Naval Research OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense OUSD(R&E) Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research & Engineering PBI Predominantly Black Institution PM Program manager R&D Research and development xiv PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

RDT&E Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation RENEW Reaching a New Energy Sciences Workforce (DOE program) RFI Request for Information RFP Request for Proposal S&T Science and technology SMD Science Mission Directorate (NASA) STEM Science, Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics TCU Tribal College and University UARC University Affiliated Research Center xv PREPUBLICATION COPY | UNCORRECTED PROOFS