Dear Neal, We are asking your help in resolving a problem that universities involved in space research are having with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Several agencies, including NASA, the State Department, the Commerce Department, and the Energy Department, are already involved, but the result seems to be more confusion, not clarification. We note that a similar situation arose in 1981, prompting several university presidents to write then-Secretaries Baldrige, Haig, and Weinberger for assistance. That letter is attached.

Dear Dr. Epstein: We very much appreciate OSTP agreeing to examine the impact of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) on university space-related research. In a letter to Nils Hasselmo, Peter Magrath, and Milton Goldberg, OSTP Director Neal Lane requested examples of ITAR's impact on universities. We hope the following will be helpful.

Dear Jack, We deeply appreciate your interest in the problems universities are facing with spacebased fundamental research governed by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). We know that your office was involved with NASA, DOD, the Department of State, and other agencies in seeking to ameliorate some of the recent problems and we appreciate your leadership, as well as the technical expertise of Vic Teplitz on your staff. We are writing today in response to your invitation for our assessment of the recently promulgated clarifications to the ITAR regulations, which were published in the Federal Register on March 29.

 This legislation responds to the recommendations contained in the National Innovation Initiative Report published by the Council on Competitiveness. In responding to the report, this legislation focuses on three primary areas of importance to maintaining and improving United States' innovation in the 21st Century: (1) research investment, (2) increasing science and technology talent, and (3) developing an innovation infrastructure..

 We are writing to ask you to cosponsor bipartisan legislation we plan to introduce soon that will help meet the challenge of ensuring America's competitiveness in the 21st Century.  The "National Innovation Act of 2005" (NIA) aims to make the necessary improvements in research, education of science and technology talent, and innovation infrastructure to allow the United States to maintain the global leadership it achieved in the last century..   

A Section-by-Section Analysis of the National Innovation Act of 2005

The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, a coalition of high-tech industry, scientific societies, and higher education associations, warned today that the United States is in danger of losing its leadership role in science and innovation, a position it has held with a firm grip since the end of World War II. Business and academic leaders, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. today, identified the weakening federal commitment to invest in science and research as a root cause of the problem – and as a necessary part of the solution..

Briefing by the National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources in March 2006 entitled Science & Engineering Indicators 2006

Saying our "scientific and technical capacity is beginning to atrophy even as other nations are developing their own human capital," 15 leading business organizations called today for doubling the number of science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates by the year 2015. "The critical situation in American innovation threatens to undermine our standard of living at home and our leadership in the world," said John J. Castellani, President of Business Roundtable, which organized the business groups in this effort. "We cannot wait for another Sputnik to propel our energy forward in this area..

As a nation, we are the best in the world at invention and scientific exploration. We are the very icons of risk-taking, social progress and economic success. At the University of Michigan alone, our scientists have discovered the genes for cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease, and our alumni are responsible for the iPod and Google. But we have a problem. Many of you here have seen the latest studies and publicized their ominous findings. The best minds in our country – business leaders like Norm Augustine of Lockheed Martin and Rick Wagoner of GM, university presidents like Shirley Tilghman of Princeton and John Hennessy of Stanford – are profoundly concerned that we are at risk as a nation if we do not commit to more innovation, more math and science, and more basic research..