In the autumn of 1972, as the Cold War cast long shadows across the globe, American and Israeli diplomats gathered to sign an agreement that would outlast the geopolitical tensions of that era. They weren't negotiating arms deals or security pacts. Instead, they were creating something far more enduring: an institutional framework for scientific collaboration that would pay dividends for decades to come.
The Binational Science Foundation (BSF) was born from a simple insight: great science doesn't respect national boundaries. The researchers working at the Weizmann Institute had much to offer their counterparts at MIT, and vice versa. But academic collaboration required more than goodwill—it needed money, structure, and a mechanism to bridge bureaucracies.
"The best ideas often emerge at the intersection of different perspectives. Bilateral science investment isn't charity—it's strategic multiplication."
Elyakim Rubinstein, Former Attorney General of IsraelWhat followed was a quiet revolution. The BSF succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, so much so that it spawned sister institutions. BIRD arrived in 1977, focusing not on pure science but on commercial R&D partnerships. BARD came the following year, dedicating itself to agricultural innovation. Together, these three foundations established a template that the proposed Technology Alliance now seeks to scale by orders of magnitude.
Understanding these existing funds isn't merely academic. They represent proof of concept—evidence that binational investment structures can endure across administrations, survive economic downturns, and generate returns that far exceed their initial capital. But they also reveal limitations that any expanded alliance must address.
BIRD Foundation: The Template for Technology Partnership
The Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation occupies a unique place in the history of government innovation programs. With a modest endowment of $110 million—contributed equally by both governments—BIRD has catalyzed projects that generated over $10 billion in commercial revenue. That's a 90:1 return on investment, a ratio that would make any venture capitalist envious.
But BIRD's genius isn't just in its numbers—it's in its structure. Unlike traditional government grants that simply hand over money and hope for the best, BIRD pioneered a conditional grant model. Companies receive funding—up to $1.5 million per project—but they only repay if their ventures succeed commercially. It's a brilliant mechanism that aligns incentives: the foundation shares in the upside of success while absorbing the downside of failure.
The Conditional Grant Model
Every BIRD project requires one American company and one Israeli company working together. Both contribute matching funds, typically 50% of total project costs. BIRD's grant covers the remainder—but here's the key innovation: if the product succeeds commercially, the companies repay the grant through a royalty on revenues. If it fails, there's no repayment obligation.
This creates a self-sustaining cycle. Successful projects replenish the fund, allowing it to support new ventures without requiring continuous government appropriations. Over 45 years, BIRD has maintained its original endowment while funding over a thousand projects—a remarkable feat of institutional design.
The sectors BIRD supports span the technology landscape: communications, life sciences, electronics, software, and increasingly, homeland security applications. Each project must demonstrate a clear path to the U.S. market, ensuring that successful ventures create jobs and economic value in both countries.
The BIRD Energy Extension
In 2009, BIRD demonstrated its adaptability by partnering with the U.S. Department of Energy to create BIRD Energy. This specialized program applies the proven BIRD model to renewable energy and efficiency technologies—solar, smart grid, energy storage. It's proof that the BIRD framework can extend to new domains without building entirely new institutions.
The BIRD Energy precedent matters because it shows how existing bilateral infrastructure can incorporate new government partners. A "BIRD Defense" or "BIRD AI" program could potentially launch within months rather than years, leveraging existing governance, legal frameworks, and operational expertise.
BARD: Where Innovation Meets the Soil
Israel's transformation from a water-scarce desert nation into an agricultural technology powerhouse is one of the great development stories of the modern era. American expertise played a crucial role in that transformation—and BARD, the Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund, provided the institutional glue.
Created in 1978 with a matching $110 million endowment, BARD operates differently from BIRD. Its grants are pure funding—no repayment required—reflecting the longer timelines and less certain commercial outcomes inherent in agricultural research. When you're developing drought-resistant crop varieties or pioneering new irrigation techniques, the path from laboratory to farm field may take a decade or more.
"Every major advance in drip irrigation technology has roots in BARD-funded research. We're literally feeding billions because of what these collaborations produced."
Agricultural Research Service Director, 2019The results speak across the fields of both nations. BARD-funded research has yielded disease-resistant wheat varieties grown across the American Midwest, precision agriculture technologies that reduce water usage by 40%, and food safety innovations that protect consumers on three continents. Over 1,200 projects have received support, each one a bridge between American land-grant universities and Israeli agricultural institutes.
Lessons from the Long Horizon
BARD's pure grant model wouldn't work for defense technology, where commercialization paths are clearer and private capital more available. But BARD demonstrates something crucial: bilateral research institutions can operate for decades with minimal political interference. The fund has survived administrations of every political stripe in both countries, weathered economic crises, and maintained consistent output through it all.
This durability comes from careful institutional design. Technical advisory panels, rigorous peer review, and joint oversight create legitimacy that transcends politics. No one questions whether BARD serves both nations' interests—its track record makes that self-evident.
BSF: The Foundation of Foundations
If BIRD represents practical partnership and BARD represents patient research, the Binational Science Foundation represents something more fundamental: the conviction that pure science, pursued for its own sake, ultimately serves strategic interests in ways no one can predict.
The BSF predates its sister institutions, established in 1972 as the first formal framework for U.S.-Israel scientific cooperation. Its mandate is deliberately broad—supporting basic research across all fields of science and engineering. No commercialization requirements. No immediate applications demanded. Just excellence in science.
A Model for Institutional Cooperation
In recent years, BSF has pioneered a joint funding mechanism with the National Science Foundation that deserves special attention. Israeli researchers can now participate in NSF grants without submitting separate proposals. The BSF reviews their participation and co-funds when appropriate. This streamlined approach eliminates bureaucratic duplication and enables collaborations that might never have formed through traditional channels.
This model could be replicated with defense research agencies. Imagine if DARPA projects could seamlessly incorporate Israeli collaborators through a similar mechanism—the bilateral "stamp of approval" already established, the funding mechanism already in place.
With an annual grant budget of approximately $18 million, BSF isn't the largest funder in either country. But its influence extends far beyond dollars. By connecting researchers early in their careers, BSF creates networks that persist for decades. The graduate student who collaborates with an Israeli lab becomes the professor who sends their own students. The postdoc who presents at a BSF-funded workshop becomes the entrepreneur who knows exactly who to call when launching a binational venture.
Lessons for the Technology Alliance
Fifty years of bilateral innovation investment have taught us what works. The proposed $3-4 billion annual Technology Alliance can learn from these foundations—but it must also transcend their limitations.
Proven Success Factors
The existing funds share characteristics that any expansion must preserve. Equal governance prevents either nation from dominating decisions. Professional management insulates investment choices from political interference. Clear eligibility requirements prevent mission creep. And success-linked repayment (in BIRD's case) creates sustainability without continuous appropriations.
Perhaps most importantly, these institutions have demonstrated institutional resilience. They've operated continuously through wars, recessions, and political transitions. That durability isn't accidental—it's designed into their governance structures and funding mechanisms.
Constraints to Address
Current bilateral funds are grant-focused, not equity-based. They can support R&D, but they can't take ownership stakes in companies or invest in venture funds. This limits their ability to participate in—and benefit from—the most dynamic sectors of technology development.
Their scale is modest. Combined, BIRD, BARD, and BSF deploy perhaps $50 million annually. The proposed Alliance would deploy $3-4 billion—a 70-fold increase. Existing governance structures aren't built for that volume.
And crucially, they lack defense integration. While some BIRD projects touch on homeland security, none of these funds operate in classified environments or support explicitly military applications. The Technology Alliance must develop security protocols that don't yet exist.
Pathways to Scale
Three options exist for leveraging existing infrastructure:
- Scale BIRD directly: Increase the endowment from $110 million to $5+ billion, add new program areas, and modify the charter to enable equity investments. Fastest path, but may strain existing governance.
- Create BIRD Defense: Mirror the BIRD Energy model with DoD as the U.S. partner. Uses proven infrastructure for a new domain while building defense-specific security protocols.
- Federated approach: Coordinate all existing funds under a unified alliance umbrella while adding new specialized vehicles. Comprehensive but complex.
The Path Forward
The existing bilateral funds are more than precedent—they're infrastructure. Their legal frameworks can be extended. Their governance models can be adapted. Their operational teams can scale. Rather than starting from scratch, the Technology Alliance should build on five decades of institutional evolution.
But building on the past isn't enough. The Alliance must also learn from other models—global funds, defense partnerships, and venture catalysis programs that have achieved the scale and scope this initiative demands. That's where we turn next.