Equip the U.S. Government with Necessary Biotechnology Resources and Expertise

Congress must direct the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to provide workforce training in biotechnology across the interagency.

The OPM plays a key role in federal workforce training, including overseeing training programs across agencies. As the federal government increasingly stands up new programming and initiatives for biotechnology, it is only becoming more important that federal employees and contractors have the right knowledge and proficiency to carry out operations.

Congress must direct the OPM and relevant executive agencies to develop cross-disciplinary training programs for federal employees that are focused on biotechnology, AI, and other critical and emerging technologies.

The OPM should consult with leadership and workforce training managers at relevant executive agencies to develop the training and determine which federal employees and contractors must take and implement it. The OPM should create different training tracks to meet a wide range of needs across the federal workforce. Curricula can be tailored for employees in different roles, whether in leadership and policy positions or technical and acquisitions ones.

At a minimum, training programs should cover:

• the science underlying biotechnology;
• technological features of biotechnology;
• ways in which AI can be leveraged to advance discoveries in biotechnology;
• ways in which the federal government can benefit from biotechnology;
• the risks posed by biotechnology and ways to mitigate them; and
• future trends in biotechnology such as intersections with quantum computing, autonomous systems, advanced manufacturing, and other technologies.

Training programs should be updated each year to cover advances in biotechnology and its convergence with other critical and emerging technologies.

To complement this training, the federal government should develop a national biotechnology workforce framework, conduct an interagency assessment of workforce needs, and offer guidance on federal agencies’ authorities for biotechnology-related hiring. (For more details on a national biotechnology workforce framework, see Appendix E.)

Develop a National Biotechnology Workforce Framework

Successful biotechnology training, including within the federal government, requires accurate data on the biotechnology workforce. But unlike with more established industries, the United States needs a common language to define and categorize biotechnology jobs and skills across the public and private sectors.²⁷⁶ As a result, government, industry, and academia have a limited understandings of their biotechnology workforce needs and of subsequent best practices for driving that workforce development.

To train federal employees in biotechnology, the OPM needs a baseline framework that defines biotechnology jobs and the knowledge and skills needed to perform them. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) should develop this framework in partnership with academia, industry, nonprofits, and relevant federal agencies. For the framework to be an enduring and useful resource, it should be regularly updated at least once every three years to keep pace with changes in occupations as biotechnology evolves.

Conduct an Interagency Assessment of Biotechnology Workforce Needs

The OPM should assess the interagency workforce to identify training gaps and create effective workforce development programs for federal government personnel and contractors. The OPM should consult with the leadership of relevant federal departments and agencies to quantify and characterize current U.S. government positions contributing to biotechnology, as well as positions that will be needed in the next five and ten years to advance federal biotechnology efforts. Descriptions of positions should include details on required competencies and qualifications, including security clearances. Federal agencies should also assess additional education needs and challenges to developing the biotechnology workforce. Overseeing biotechnology workforce development could also be one of the functions of the National Biotechnology Coordination Office (NBCO) (see recommendation 1.1a).

Establish Guidance for Biotechnology Hiring Authorities by Federal Agencies

The OPM should provide guidance to federal agencies on existing hiring authorities to recruit biotechnology talent, as well as pilot mechanisms to improve hiring processes.

An example of one such pilot mechanism is Subject Matter Expert Qualification Assessments (SME-QA), a process whereby experts partner with federal human resource specialists to expedite the hiring of qualified technical talent.²⁷⁷

Additional examples of hiring authorities include direct hiring authorities, such as the government-wide STEM direct hiring authority, which expedites hiring of STEM personnel; excepted service authorities, such as the Department of Energy’s (DOE)’s EJ Pay Plan, which allows for the recruitment and compensation of highly qualified scientific personnel; and fellowships, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science & Technology Policy Fellowship, which provides scientists and engineers opportunities to serve across all branches of the federal government.

By increasing awareness and providing clear guidance on the use of existing authorities to recruit biotechnology professionals, the federal government would be better positioned to build a qualified pool of talent and expertise.

Expand the Use of Existing Public-Private Talent Exchange Authorities

Federal agencies should expand their use of existing public-private talent exchange authorities, such as those established by the Government Employees Training Act, to bolster the biotechnology workforce.

The government needs to stimulate information exchange with academia and industry to keep government workers’ knowledge current. Public-private talent exchanges help upskill federal biotechnology personnel, particularly those responsible for purchasing, investing in, or regulating biotechnology products. These exchanges also help government employees better understand commercial perspectives, work more effectively with industry partners, and respond to cutting-edge industry trends.²⁷⁸

Congress must ensure that federal agencies have the necessary expertise across national security and emerging biotechnology issues.

The U.S. federal government must increase its understanding of biotechnology, particularly among diplomatic and national security personnel. The following actions would ensure a bioliterate national security federal workforce.

Require Mandatory Biotechnology and Biosecurity Training for Relevant Federal Agencies and Personnel

Congress should require that relevant federal agencies define core competencies for biotechnology and biosecurity, including outlining requirements for refresher training on the latest advances in biotechnology science, laboratory work, equipment, and software. Departments including the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Energy (DOE) should develop and update core competencies, or required skills, for biotechnology and biosecurity, with relevant staff receiving that training every two to three years. Agencies should disseminate these core competencies to the Department of Defense (DOD) and intelligence community (IC) (see recommendation 3.2e).

Initiate Security Clearances for Additional Personnel Working on Biotechnology Across the U.S. Government

Across the U.S. government, there are too few personnel who work on biotechnology-related issues that have security clearances. Some biotechnology experts at agencies such as the USDA or the HHS are not appropriately cleared to receive information that would be highly relevant to their jobs. Those agencies also lack the administrative and operational infrastructure to ensure that their cleared personnel can access relevant classified information in a timely manner.

Congress should direct relevant federal agencies, including the USDA and the HHS, to ensure that the right people are working on biotechnology and that they have the security clearances they need to effectively make policy decisions on behalf of the American people.

Maintain a Bench of Cleared Biotechnology Experts to Advise on National Security Issues

The U.S. government needs access to biotechnology experts outside of government, as well as the ability to share classified information with them as necessary, so that those experts can provide targeted technical expertise that informs policy decisions.

Additionally, the U.S. government already spends time and money investigating and granting clearances to in-house biotechnology experts who may leave the government and lose their clearances. This is an inefficient use of government resources and institutional knowledge. It would be in the government’s best interest to maintain relationships with these cleared experts even after they leave government.

Congress should direct relevant federal agencies to maintain a bench of cleared biotechnology experts, which should include former federal employees when possible, who can advise on national security issues.

Expand the Number of Biotechnology Professionals in the Department of State

The Department of State (DOS) should use existing hiring authorities to expand the representation of biotechnology experts in its regional and functional bureaus and in its Office of the Special Envoy for Critical and Emerging Technology (S/TECH). To engage in biotechnology diplomacy, the DOS must understand both biotechnology itself and the geopolitical implications of this sector. DOS should be well resourced and staffed with diplomats with expertise in emerging biotechnology. One example of an existing DOS program that the United States should leverage and expand is the Regional Technology Officer (RTO) program. RTOs dedicated to biotechnology across regional bureaus would improve U.S. biotechnology diplomacy, allow for more knowledgeable information gathering, and put the United States in a better position to negotiate and leverage international technology agreements.

The DOS should expand the number of biotechnology experts in its regional and functional bureaus, as well as within the S/TECH. Appointing a senior official with biotechnology experience under the S/TECH and designating new RTOs would elevate the importance of biotechnology and signal to the rest of the world that America is ready to lead.

Train U.S. Diplomats on Biotechnology

The DOS incentivizes Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) and other civil servants to pursue training opportunities related to emerging technologies. As America’s envoys abroad, FSOs need to be well-versed in emerging technology, including biotechnology, to effectively assess opportunities and risks and advance U.S. interests. The DOS should establish a strong emerging technology training program to help American diplomats develop bioliteracy. It should also create a biotechnology “deep dive” course aimed at educating staff whose work is more closely tied to biotechnology.

Congress should receive accurate, timely, and nonpartisan scientific and technical counsel.

Congress needs lasting educational architecture that combines easy access to external biotechnology experts with up-to-date internal resources.²⁷⁹ Over the past three decades, resources dedicated to in-house Congressional science and technology assessment have fallen.²⁸⁰ Most notably, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), a legislative branch agency established to investigate, assess, and analyze emerging technologies for Congress, was defunded in 1995 as part of a broader effort to reduce the size of the federal government.²⁸¹ Currently, both the Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA) office, which is part of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provide Congress with issue-specific technical expertise.²⁸² But as lawmakers increasingly vote on legislation related to biotechnology, they will need more consistent access to biotechnology expertise to legislate effectively.

Congress should establish enduring in-house expertise to advise lawmakers on issues of biotechnology and national security policy. Specifically, Congress should:

• Strengthen hiring and pay authorities for CRS so that it can better secure the requisite technical expertise to advise Congress at the intersection of technology and national security;
• Codify the GAO’s STAA office and appropriate additional funds so that it can hire more scientists and engineers. Congress should adopt recommendation No. 141 of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress’s Final Report, which would authorize STAA and make it a permanent part of the GAO.²⁸³ The GAO also needs at least 50 more scientists and engineers to support additional technology assessments and bolster its technology forecasting capacity.
• Establish an Office of the Congressional Science and Technology Advisor (OCSTA). OCSTA would help to coordinate the successful work already being done by CRS and STAA and ensure that Congressional offices are kept regularly apprised of the resources available to them.
• Establish a fellowship pipeline that provides opportunities for executive branch employees with biotechnology expertise to complete rotations in Congressional offices.
• Host a biannual science and technology fellowship fair. This exhibition would be a recurring opportunity to match available science and technology fellows from existing programs with Congressional offices in need.
• Establish a standing Congressional Commission on Responsibility and Ethics in Innovation (CREI). This independent standing body would provide nonpartisan guidance and policy options on the ethical aspects of future legislative pathways regarding emerging technology.

(For specific implementation details on these recommendations to better resource Congress for technology competition, see Appendix E.)

In addition to these recommendations, Congress should receive regular briefings from the relevant federal agencies related to biotechnology policy, including opportunities, threats, and critical technology developments. Many recommendations within this report would require Congressional oversight, and Congress should be appropriately conversant in the underlying technology.