short-term results. For example, even the generally highly effective Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been criticized in this regard in congressional testimony.³⁶

Widespread, if anecdotal, evidence shows that even the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have changed their approach in this regard. A recent National Academies study³⁷ revealed that the average age at which a principal investigator receives his or her first grant is 42 years—partly because of requirements for evidence of an extensive “track record” to reduce risk to the grant-makers.³⁸ But reducing the risk for individual research projects increases the likelihood that breakthrough, “disruptive” technologies will not be found—the kinds of discoveries that often yield huge returns. History also suggests that young researchers make disproportionately important discoveries. The NIH roadmap³⁹ established in fiscal year (FY) 2004, recognizes this concern, but the amount of funds devoted to long-term, high-payoff, high-risk research remains very limited.

Three other pieces in the mosaic also appear to provide short-term security but little long-term benefit. These relate to the events of 9/11, which profoundly changed our world and made it necessary to re-examine national security issues in an entirely new context. This re-examination led to changes in visa policies, export controls, and the treatment of “sensitive but unclassified” information. There appears today to be a need to better balance security concerns with the benefits of an open, creative society.

Much has been written about new immigration and visa policies for students and researchers. Although there have been improvements in the last