"The challenge is not just about supporting the most promising growth sector of the next several decades. It is about ensuring that America builds the next generation of energy technologies that will be the bedrock of our economic competitiveness over the coming century."

Will Coleman, Partner, Mohr Davidow Ventures, before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Thursday March 17, 2011

Innovation may occur in the garage of a whiz kid, but, more likely than not, is seeded in a university or laboratory setting, nearly every one of which has some federal funding stream. The private sector funds research but is far less likely to take on risk that has no express business case or purpose for that particular industry. It is directed research. Real breakthroughs usually occur during those times of high risk in places no one has gone before. The federal government is in a unique position to support technology innovation not by picking winners and losers, but by taking on risk that can reap rewards to the benefit all of society. The market won't do that until a technology is viable. The government can help get it to that point.

I once asked a colleague for assistance on a legislative issue and he posed a question that I now ask myself every time I think about the role of government: what does this mean for public policy? In other words, what is the problem and what solution will benefit the public in the long run? If we negotiate a budget that funds programs that are critical to the care of our citizenry as well as those that may not seem intuitively obvious since their benefits are longer term, the balance will enable us to maintain a competitive, productive nation. Let's not confuse ideology with policy for federal budget funding; let's make sure instead that we set up the right conditions to enable creativity and innovation.

So far the Administration believes in and is supporting these programs; let's prove he's right to keep them funded.