[Senate Hearing 108-789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-789
S. 189, 21ST CENTURY NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 1, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 2006
97-599
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RON WYDEN, Oregon
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 1, 2003...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Sununu...................................... 30
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Witnesses
Baird, Dr. Davis, Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy,
University of South Carolina................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Jiao, Jun, Ph.D., Co-Director, Center for Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology, Portland State University...................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Murday, Dr. James, Chief Scientist, Acting, Office of Naval
Research....................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Murphy, Kent A., Ph.D., Founder and CEO, Luna Innovations........ 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Roberto, James, Ph.D., Associate Laboratory Director for Physical
Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory........................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Teague, E. Clayton, Ph.D., Director, National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office............................................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Von Ehr II, James R., CEO, Zyvex Corporation..................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Appendix
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington, prepared
statement...................................................... 71
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 72
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from Connecticut,
prepared statement............................................. 73
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank Lautenberg
to:
James R. Von Ehr II.......................................... 74
Dr. E. Clayton Teague........................................ 76
Written questions submitted by Hon. John McCain to:
Dr. Davis Baird.............................................. 78
Dr. Jun Jiao................................................. 78
Dr. James Murday............................................. 77
Dr. Kent A. Murphy........................................... 79
Dr. James Roberto............................................ 77
Dr. E. Clayton Teague........................................ 78
James R. Von Ehr II.......................................... 79
S. 189, 21ST CENTURY NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. George Allen
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Good afternoon to you all. Today, the
Commerce Committee will examine S. 189, 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.
Senator Wyden, my good friend and counterpart and key
leader and friend on this issue of nanotechnology, will be here
shortly, and he'll have some opening remarks as well.
We're going to look today in this hearing, in both panels,
at the progress of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and
the issues surrounding the transfer of basic nanotechnology
research out of government and university labs into the private
sector for commercial applications.
And I do want to especially thank my colleague and friend,
Senator Wyden on this issue. Last September, Senator Wyden and
I held the first congressional hearing ever on the topic of
nanotechnology. And at that time, many of our colleagues
thought nanotechnology was too small of an issue to be
concerned about to focus on. However, as elected leaders, I'm
convinced that we need to focus and recognize that this
industry is really at the verge of a tremendous revolution.
There are companies in the private sector, like Hewlett
Packard, General Motors, IBM, General Electric, Siemens, Intel,
and Dell, all involved in nanotechnology research and
development. Furthermore, I think that we all ought to
recognize that we are not alone in this country being
interested in nanotechnology. Indeed, when one will look at the
global picture, we are falling a bit behind, insofar as our
research and development in nanotechnology, and we're facing
some stiff foreign competition in nanotech research from Japan,
the European Union, Russia, Korea, and China. Now, this Nation,
the United States, has been at the forefront of almost every
important transformative technology since the industrial
revolution, and we must continue to lead the world in the
nanotechnology revolution, in my estimation.
Now, our role, as elected leaders, should be to create or
to foster the conditions precedent for our researchers and
innovators to compete and contribute and succeed, both
domestically and internationally. I am not here to say that we
ought to guarantee anyone's success, but the Government's role
is to make sure the field is fertile, our tax policies, our
research policies, our regulatory policies, allow the creative
minds in the private sector, in our colleges and universities,
as well as in some of our Federal Government Agencies, to reach
their full potential. And that's really why Senator Wyden and I
introduced S. 189, to provide, in an organized and
collaborative way, an approach to nanotechnology research and
commercial economic development.
Our strategic goal is logical and very clear. We want to
leverage the government, academic, and corporate research
capabilities and assets this country has currently available,
and to allow our whole country, and those involved in it, to
compete and succeed worldwide.
Now, the groundbreaking nanotech projects today will mean
substantial regional and national job growth in the future. Our
legislation authorizes $678 million for grants to support
basic, fundamental research and development and establish
research centers of excellence that will bring together experts
from the various disciplines, agencies, and private sector, as
well as universities. This legislation also leverages and
recognizes the work taking place at the state-led initiatives,
like the ones in Virginia, Oregon, Texas, California,
Pennsylvania, and New York.
I'm especially pleased by the Bush Administration--good
timing--especially pleased by the Bush Administration's focus
and support for nanotech. The President requested $849 million
for nanotechnology, which is a 10 percent increase over last
year's request. If Congress approves this requested increase,
the funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative will
have doubled since fiscal year 2001.
Now, this afternoon we'll be hearing from an eminently
qualified panel, two panels, to discuss this measure, Senate
Bill S. 189, as well as technology transfer and the progress of
nanotech research and development in the United States.
I want to welcome all of our witnesses for being with us.
Thank you for your willingness to be here, some from clear
across the country and halfway across the country, and some
from right around here in this region, but thank you for your
willingness to testify before this Committee on this very
important subject for our future.
I will introduce each one of you in the panels as we
proceed, but before I do that, I would like to ask my
colleague, who's been a real partner and teammate in this
effort in nanotechnology, Senator Wyden, if he has any opening
remarks he may wish to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's great to
team up with you. And suffice it to say, we are going to be
busy on the technology front over the next few months with
Internet taxes and our legislation to ensure that the Net does
not get barraged with a whole new array of taxes. And, of
course, today we're focusing on a special priority you and I
have had for a number of years. So I'm really pleased that the
Oregon/Virginia Tech Alliance is alive and prospering, and I
thank you for it.
I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my
statement could be made a part of the record, and maybe I could
just highlight a couple of my concerns.
Suffice it to say a lot of Americans still think that
nanotechnology is the stuff of science fiction or that it is
certainly a fairly exotic discipline with widespread
application far off in the future.
I was home just last week in Oregon and met with a whole
host of Oregon companies and academic leaders and scientists
that certainly made it clear that practical applications of
nanotechnology are available today. Nanoscale and microscale
technologies, from computer printers to computer inks, have, in
fact, already been created by companies in my home state.
Companies in Oregon are fusing together the sciences of
nanotechnology and microtechnology, which works on a slightly
larger scale, and creating a variety of new innovations.
The collaborative effort between Oregon's universities and
technology companies, called Micro2Nano, intends to go ever
further using nanotechnology to create biosensors, reactors,
energy sources, medical devices, and the next generation of
semiconductors.
What our legislation, of course, does, as Chairman Allen
has touched on, is provide the critically-needed funding not
just for Oregon and Virginia that have been leaders in the
field, but for programs across the country.
I also think that the last major explosion of technology
and information technology, offers a clear and positive
precedent for the use of discipline-specific expert advisory
panels, as opposed to the use of more general, less
knowledgeable counselors. I bring this up only by way of saying
that I know that we're going to have some debate with respect
to the advisory council and who could handle this. Chairman
Allen has been very reasonable in this, and probably out in the
real world, nobody gets completely consumed by these kinds of
questions. The National Research Council, in this book, an
excellent book, ``Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers,'' stresses
how important it is that there be an independent advisory
council on nanotechnology, because if we're going to have a
significant financial investment, it ought to be matched by a
significant intellectual investment, and that ensures that we
have the best possible people on this job. And Chairman Allen
and I have had some more discussions on this with some
obviously feeling that the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology should be the overseeing body in
nanotechnology efforts. And I think virtually all the
independent academic experts feel that the language we've got
in our bill is appropriate.
But, as I say, Chairman Allen and I have worked out all of
these issues and certainly have come up with the resolutions to
matters far more contentious than this. And I look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman, on this and would close simply
by welcoming one of our witnesses, Dr. Jun Jiao, of Portland
State University. She is a leader in the field of research and
development in a variety of nanotechnology disciplines, and I'm
just thrilled that one of the great minds in the field is here
today and wanted to welcome her. And I look forward to working
with you, Mr. Chairman, to move this legislation quickly to the
Senate floor.
[The prepared statement of Senator Wyden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senator from Oregon
I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for convening today's
hearing. I am pleased to count him as a supporter and cosponsor of the
21st Century Nanotechnology Act. In fact, when I formerly Chaired the
Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space and the Senator from
Virginia was the Ranking Member, we convened the Senate's first-ever
hearing on the subject of nanotechnology. I am as pleased as he is to
see the full Committee's attention turn to this subject again.
The field of nanotechnology offers a unique pathway to the medical
practices, materials and major innovations of the future. Now is the
time not only to fund nanotech, but to marshal this country's efforts
into a cohesive drive to lead the world in this field. To do that, this
committee will need to ensure both adequate funding and expert advisory
resources to the nation's nanotechnology programs.
A lot of folks believe that nanotechnology is still the stuff of
science fiction--or that its widespread application is still far off in
the future. But on a recent trip home I was encouraged by Oregon
companies' practical applications of nanotechnology today. Nanoscale
and microscale technologies from computer printers to computer inks
have already been created by Oregon companies. Today, companies in my
state are fusing the sciences of nanotechnology and microtechnology,
which works on a slightly larger scale, to create new innovations. A
collaborative effort between Oregon's universities and technology
companies called Micro2Nano intends to go farther--using nanotechnology
to create biosensors, reactors, energy sources, medical devices, and
next generation semiconductors.
The key to all these advances will be adequate funding for research
and development. The Wyden-Allen Legislation, the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, will provide that funding
to nanotech not just in Oregon and Virginia, but across the country. In
addition to providing research and educational grants, our bill
establishes the nanotechnology infrastructure America currently lacks.
That includes a national program to keep abreast of our global and
economic competitiveness, and to consider ethical concerns. Research
centers created in the bill would bring together experts from various
disciplines to work together for better results.
I want to be very clear this afternoon, however, that I do not
believe funding and programs will do the job automatically. Equally
essential to America's nanotechnology future is the advice and guidance
of a qualified, expert panel of scientists who know this field inside
and out. For that reason, I am not satisfied with proposals to make the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology the
overseeing body for American nanotechnology efforts.
The last major explosion of technology--information technology--
offers a clear and positive precedent for the creation of a discipline-
specific, expert advisory panel as opposed to the use of more general,
less knowledgeable counselors. The Information Technology Research and
Development (ITRD) initiative has described their expert advisory
committee as quote, ``crucial'' to its effort to align federal research
of science and technology as well as to develop advocates for the
program. The expert guidance provided allowed America to move to the
forefront of the information technology wave. I want no less for this
country when it comes to nanotech.
My legislation calls for an independent advisory panel on
nanotechnology, and I intend to stick to that provision. A significant
financial investment in nanotechnology must be matched by a significant
intellectual investment. Only then can this country reap the full range
of rewards offered by this burgeoning field.
As today's hearing begins I would like particularly to welcome one
of our witnesses, Dr. Jun Jiao of Portland State University. Dr. Jiao
is a leader in the field of nanotechnology research and development.
She will be one of the great minds to lead this country into the future
with nanotechnology, and I look forward to today's discussion with her.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for your great
leadership and your comments about this hearing and the promise
of nanotechnology.
Now we're going to listen to the real experts. We're trying
to facilitate and help you all move forward so you're improving
our material sciences and biological sciences and life sciences
and so forth.
I'm going to first introduce the first panel and then hear
from you in the order in which--I've made some brief
predicatory remarks about each of you.
First is Dr. James Murday. Dr. Murday is the Acting Chief
of Science of the Office of Naval Research. Until recently, he
served as Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office, perfect to have you here. From May to August 1997, he
also served as acting Director of Research for the Department
of Defense Research and Engineering.
Dr. James Roberto is the Associate Laboratory Director for
Physical Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He is
responsible for ORNL's research portfolio in material science,
condensed matter, physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics. He
is a former president of the Materials Research Society and
chair of the Division of Materials Physics of the American
Physical Society. Now, is that right? American Physical
Society? All right.
And also we have, last but not least, Dr. Clayton Teague.
Dr. Teague is the current Director of the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office. The NNCO provides day-to-
day technical and administrative support to the National
Nanotechnology Initiative.
Gentlemen, thank you all for being with us. We'd now would
like to hear your insight and your views, and we'd like to
start with you, Dr. Murday. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES MURDAY, CHIEF SCIENTIST, ACTING, OFFICE
OF NAVAL RESEARCH
Dr. Murday. Thank you.
Chairman Allen, Senator Wyden, I'm pleased and honored for
the opportunity to share some of my enthusiasm on the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. As a scientist at the Office of
Naval Research, in the Naval Research Laboratory, I've been
engaged in fostering nanoscience since the early 1980s. And in
the last two years, I culminated in the privilege of serving as
the part-time director of the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office, or NNCO.
Senator Allen. Move the microphone a little bit closer.
Dr. Murday. Yes, sir. Thank you.
And hopefully that experience over these 20 years has
provided some insights that can help accelerate the rate of the
science discovery and its transition into innovative
technologies.
Concurrent with my involvement in nanoscience, DOD interest
dates back into the early 1980s. And by 1997, that interest was
sufficiently mature that the DOD created a nanoscience
strategic research topic in its basic research program. Thus,
the DOD was a natural participant in the 1997 to 2000 year
process of creating the national initiative, and that's one of
the reasons, my engagement there, that I was asked to serve as
the Director of the NNCO.
DOD's interest in nanotechnology stems from its huge
potential impact on national security and, by inference form
that, homeland security, homeland defense. And its early entry
into nanoscience means that we're in a position to enable some
transitions, even in this time frame, without looking for 20
years into the future. And I'll highlight one of those for you
in a moment.
For simplicity's sake, I tend to organize nanotechnologies
as they pertain to national security and homeland defense into
about three generic topic areas. One is nanoelectronics,
photonics, magnetics--that's basically information-technology
devices--sensors to acquire information, logic to process it,
memory to store it, communicate and transmit that information,
and ultimately to display it. And, from my observations in the
electronics industry, I believe that by the end of this decade,
essentially every electronic device that you, myself, and
Defense acquisition, is going to want to buy is going to be
enabled by having a nanostructure. Nanostructure inside will be
pasted, or should be pasted, on all those devices. Having the
capabilities that will add to those devices is going to be very
important for information warfare, metric-centric warfare, for
the uninhabited combat vehicles, the added intelligence
necessary to take the man out of those immediate vehicles,
automation to reduce manning--in fact, we're training through
virtual reality, which I think will, in turn, spill down into
our schools.
The second generic topic area is what we call nanomaterials
by design. And the DOD weapons and platforms frequently require
much higher performance than one sees in their counterparts in
the civilian sector. And the ability to maneuver things at the
nanometer size scale is going to provide much greater
capability to give higher performance.
Now, I've got here an example of this. This is a
nanostructured coating, the black coating you see. And these
parts have been introduced into the fleet now; they're actually
out in operation. They're in reduction gears on surface-ship
air-conditioning units, they're in hull ball valves on
submarines, and in several other applications. And the improved
performance that we expect, and we're evaluating now in the
field, are expected to yield considerable savings. The
nanostructured coatings have a wear resistance that's five
times greater than their microstructured counterparts, and they
have 10 times the fatigue life. So this is a significant
improvement.
Because of these enhancements, this particular coating won
an R&D 100 award in the year 2000. That's an award given to one
of the top 100 technologies introduced into the marketplace in
that year.
The third generic area is in nano-biotechnology. And, by
far, the greatest impact of that is going to be in medicine and
health, but it relates also to the warfighter. We would be able
to monitor physiological status. If you have a man out on
point, you want to make sure that he's alert and not going to
sleep on you. If you have somebody who's wounded, you'd like to
have a system that could detect the status and perhaps start to
take some recuperative action. But maybe more importantly, and
it leads into the homeland security, as well, as in the area of
chemical/biological warfare defense, weapons of mass
destruction.
If you think about this, if you work in the nanoscience,
you can pick up and manipulate and measure individual atoms.
These are very small. The chemical agents and the pathogens
that we worry about in chemical/biological warfare are large in
comparison. So it's relatively reasonable to expect that we can
take those tools we're using in nanoscience and morph them into
highly sensitive detection techniques. And, in fact, we're
beginning to see that will happen. Further, since these can be
miniaturized, you can have arrays of them, and that addresses
the selectivity part of the problem.
Dramatic advances in the sensor, you also can expect to see
advances in protection, decontamination and therapeutics.
Recognizing some of these opportunities, some of the DOD
scientists organized a workshop, about a year ago, about
nanotechnology innovation for chemical, biological,
radiological, and explosive detection protection. That workshop
came up with a set of recommendations, which has gone to the
national initiative and will be part of the planning process as
we go through a revitalization of that in NNI over the next
year.
Let me finish with a couple of observations from my tenure
at the NNCO. The first is that having sweated the uncertainties
in the transition from the Clinton to the Bush Administration
and wondering whether we were going to survive as an
initiative, I very much appreciate the incorporation of the
initiative into law.
The second point is, the Nanoscale Science Engineering
Technology Committee is populated by a dedicated group of
agency department nanotechnology champions, with Dr. Mike
Rocco, of NSF as leader. Those champions are essential to the
continued success of the NNI, and they now face a real task of
taking a program that is just now leaving its infancy and
moving into adolescence and making sure that we do that
appropriately and we do it in a way that will help accelerate
the transition into commercial products. And I can assure you
that the interest and support that you are showing for the
initiative is very important to this group of people and will
help them accomplish that task.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Murday follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. James Murday, Chief Scientist, Acting,
Office of Naval Research
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for
this opportunity to discuss Nanotechnology Research. You and the other
Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation have been leaders in calling attention, both nationally
and in the Department of Defense, to the importance of funding basic
research and to bringing new technology quickly from the scientist's
bench to our Sailors and Marines.
Department of Defense Interest in Nanoscience
The Department of Defense (DOD) has been investing in fundamental
nanoscience research for over 20 years. For instance, one of the early
programs dating into the 1980s was Ultra-Submicron Electronics Research
(USER). In 1997, the DOD identified several Science & Technology (S&T)
topics with the potential for significant impact on military
technology; nanoscience was selected as one of those special research
area (SRA) topics (see below for illustrative impact examples). A DOD
Nanoscience SRA coordinating committee was established; its current
membership is: Dr. Gernot Pomrenke, Air Force; Dr. John Pazik, Navy;
and Dr. William Mullins, Army. Further, each Service has a coordinating
group to guide its nanoscience program.
Nanoscale Opportunities with Potential Major DOD Impact:
Nanoelectronics/Photonics/Magnetics
Network Centric Warfare
Information Warfare
Uninhabited Combat Vehicles
Automation/Robotics for Reduced Manning
Effective Training through Virtual Reality
Digital Signal Processing and Low Probability of Intercept
Nanomaterials ``by Design''
High Performance, Affordable Materials
Multifunction Adaptive (Smart) Materials
Nanoengineered Functional Materials (Metamaterials)
Reduced Maintenance (halt nanoscale failure initiation)
BioNanotechnology--Warfighter Protection
Chemical/Biological Agent detection/destruction
Human Performance/Health Monitor/Prophylaxis
Since the DOD nanoscience programs are some 20 years old, one might
expect to see transition successes. One example from each Service is
illustrated here. Under Army funding Dr. Chad Mirkin, Northwestern
University, has invented a way to utilize nanoclusters of gold for the
sensitive, selective detection of DNA. This technology has been
demonstrated to work for anthrax, has been commercialized by a start-up
firm Nanosphere, and is under clinical evaluation. The Air Force is
funding Triton Technologies Inc. under an Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program to insert nanostructured clay particles in
polymers. One benefit of this composite is reduced gas permeability.
This new material was marketed by Converse in athletic shoe heels with
greater elasticity (He gas bubbles trapped by the low permeability
polymer composite); the reduced permeability is also of interest for
packages containing food, beverages and pharmaceuticals. The Navy is
interested because nanoclay particles increase the fire resistance of
organic composite materials for ship applications. Under Navy funding
Inframat has developed a thermally sprayed coating of alumina/titania
nanopowders. The properties of this coating are far superior to the
micropowder equivalent; this product was one of the R&D Magazine
selections as an R&D 100 award for the year 2000. The coating is
presently under field evaluation on Naval ships.
Each Service has its own laboratory nanoscience programs. The Army
efforts in nano-electronics, nano-optics, organic light emitting diodes
and displays, sensors, and Nano-Electromechanical Systems (NEMS) are
centered at Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Adelphi; the work on organic
nano-materials is largely at ARL Aberdeen. The Army's Natick Soldier
Center (NSC) also invests in innovative nanotechnology initiatives,
including projects in nano-photonics, nano-composites, nano-fiber
membranes and photovoltaics. The Air Force nano-materials program is
largely centered at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton. It has work on
nano-composites, inorganic nano-clusters, nano-phase metals and
ceramics, nanotribology, nanobiomimetics and nanoelectronics. The Navy
program is centered at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in
Washington DC. NRL has created a Nanoscience Institute with the goal of
fostering interdisciplinary research that cuts across the NRL
organizational structures. A new NRL Nanoscience Building will come on-
line in the fall of 2003; it has been specially designed to minimize
those noise sources that would limit the precision of nanostructure
measurement / manipulation. To fully exploit this new building
capability, NRL will welcome collaborations with external researchers.
In 2002, the Army established a University Affiliated Research
Center (UARC), the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN), at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), awarding a 5-year $50M
contract for the development of nanoscale technologies for soldier
performance and protection. ISN works in partnership with industry to
produce revolutionary technologies to enhance soldier survivability in
the battlespace. The industrial partners working with the ISN provide
needed core competencies, expertise in transitioning technologies from
the laboratory to the real world, and cost sharing.
DOD contributions to National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Planning/
Reporting
The DOD has been an active participant in the initial Interagency
Working Group on Nanostructures and its successor body, the Nanoscale
Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) committee. I, while a staff
member at the Naval Research Laboratory, served as the first director
of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. In addition,
several workshops have been executed by DOD scientists/engineers in
support of revisions to the NNI implementation plan.
Nanoscience shows great promise for arrays of inexpensive,
integrated, miniaturized sensors for chemical / biological /
radiological / explosive (CBRE) agents, for nanostructures enabling
protection against agents and for nanostructures that neutralize
agents. The recent terrorist events motivated accelerated insertion of
innovative technologies to improve the national security posture
relative to CBRE. Since DOD has considerable experience in this topic,
DOD scientists led the effort to redefine a NNI Grand Challenge to
address this important topic. They also organized an AVS (formerly the
American Vacuum Society) hosted workshop on Nanotechnology for CBRE
Protection and Detection. The report for that workshop is available at:
http://www.wtec.org/nanoreports/cbre/
In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003, Section 246,
addressed the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program.
It states that the Secretary of Defense shall carry out a defense
nanotechnology research and development program. The purposes of the
program are stated as:
(1) To ensure United States global superiority in nanotechnology
necessary for meeting national security requirements.
(2) To coordinate all nanoscale research and development within the
Department of Defense, and to provide for inter-agency cooperation and
collaboration on nanoscale research and development between the
Department of Defense and other departments and agencies of the United
States that are involved in nanoscale research and development.
(3) To develop and manage a portfolio of fundamental and applied
nanoscience and engineering research initiatives that is stable,
consistent, and balanced across scientific disciplines.
(4) To accelerate the transition and deployment of technologies and
concepts derived from nanoscale research and development into the Armed
Forces, and to establish policies, procedures, and standards for
measuring the success of such efforts.
(5) To collect, synthesize, and disseminate critical information on
nanoscale research and development.
The report directs the DOD Director of Defense Research and
Engineering to submit to the congressional defense committees an annual
report on the program. The report shall contain the following matters:
(1) A review of----
(A) the long-term challenges and specific technical goals of the
program; and
(B) the progress made toward meeting those challenges and
achieving those goals.
(2) An assessment of current and proposed funding levels, including
the adequacy of such funding levels to support program activities.
(3) A review of the coordination of activities within the
Department of Defense, with other departments and agencies, and with
the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
(4) An assessment of the extent to which effective technology
transition paths have been established as a result of activities under
the program.
(5) Recommendations for additional program activities to meet
emerging national security requirements.
The DOD will prepare these reviews, assessments, and
recommendations in conjunction with the related efforts for the NNI as
a whole.
In closing, the Department of Defense investment in basic research
over the last 20 years is paying off in transformational capabilities
to the DOD. I have mentioned only a few examples within the DOD
nanoscience Science & Technology program. I believe the Department of
Defense successes in nanotechnology are significant, and I appreciate
the opportunity to come before you today to tell you about them.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. Thank you very much, Dr. Murday, for your
insight, and I also like your enthusiasm. Some people may look
at this and think, ``Well, what is that? It's a piece of
pipe,'' or whatever. But the specifics of it and the
specifications and its longevity do mean a great deal, and it
is--the way that we're going to have to compete and succeed in
the future, is with these sort of, while seeming mundane, very,
very significant improvements. And thank you very much.
Now we'd like to hear from Dr. Roberto. Dr. Roberto?
STATEMENT OF JAMES ROBERTO, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE
LABORATORY DIRECTOR FOR PHYSICAL SCIENCES, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL
LABORATORY
Dr. Roberto. Chairman Allen, Senator Wyden, I'm the
Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, which is a Department of Energy
multi-program laboratory managed by UT/Battelle, a partnership
of the University of Tennessee and the Battelle Memorial
Institute. It is an honor to appear before the Committee in
support of the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act.
In my role at Oak Ridge, I oversee the physical sciences,
which includes nanoscale science and technology. This includes
the development of ORNL's Center for Nanophased Materials
Sciences, one of DOE's five planned nanoscale science research
centers. These centers are state-of-the-art user facilities
that we have located at Argonne, Berkeley, Brookhaven, Los
Alamos, and Sandia, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Each
center will focus on nanoscale research and development that
leverages the unique capabilities of the host laboratory,
including major synchrotron, neutron, and microfabrication
facilities. The DOE nanotechnology centers will help fulfill a
presidential priority of providing American researchers with
the foremost capability in this breakthrough technology. Not
only DOE researchers, but also other agencies, U.S. industry
and universities will benefit from these centers.
The excitement surrounding nanoscale science and technology
is real. Recently, we held a DOE Nanoscale Science Research
Centers workshop in Washington. We attracted more than 400
scientists and engineers from 94 universities, 40 industries,
and 15 federal laboratories. More than 2,000 researchers have
attended regional and national workshops for these centers. In
fact, it's difficult to find a month without a national or
international meeting in this field.
Nanoscale science and technology crosscuts the traditional
disciplines of material science, chemistry, physics, biology,
computational science, and engineering. It occupies the
frontiers of these fields and includes some of the most
challenging research problems. The solution to these problems
offer a line of sight to technical advances of enormous
potential in materials, information technology, health care,
and national security. Many see nanotechnology as the basis of
the next industrial revolution.
For the Department of Energy, the opportunities that are
afforded by nanoscale science and technology are unprecedented.
Research on the synthesis and properties of nanoscale systems
consisting of tens to thousands of atoms underpins progress in
a multitude of high-impact fields, including catalysis science,
photovoltaic, sensor technology, high-performance alloys, and
advanced materials for fuel cells and hydrogen storage.
Applications include low-cost, high-efficiency solar cells,
materials that are 10 to 100 times stronger than steel at one-
sixth the weight, energy-efficient smart coatings for windows,
high-efficiency solid-state lighting, and new catalysts for
energy conversion and chemical processing. These applications
offer enormous energy, national security, environmental, and
economic benefits.
John Marburger, the Director of OSTP, describes the
nanotechnology revolution as one in which the notion that
everything is made of atoms has a real operational
significance. This has been made possible by extraordinary
tools, such as synchrotron light sources, neutron sources,
electron microscopes, scanning probe microscopes, and high-
performance computers. These tools have enabled the atomic
scale characterization, manipulation, and simulation of complex
assemblies of atoms and molecules. This bottoms-up view of the
physical world embraces breathtaking complexity and seemingly
endless possibilities.
We are now at a crossroads in the physical sciences. The
boundaries between the scientific disciplines are disappearing
at the nanoscale. The study of simple isolated systems is
giving way to complex assemblies. We are moving from atomic-
scale characterization to atomic-scale control, from
miniaturization to self assembly. This paradigm shift for the
physical sciences rivals other revolutions in science, such as
the revolution in biology following the discovery of the
molecular structure of DNA.
It is this opportunity and the technological impact that
will result that underpins the 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act. This act is an important element
of the strategy to strengthen the physical sciences in the
United States. Other components include the Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act, the Energy Research Development,
Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act, and Energy
Science Research Investment Act.
The traceability of advances in the physical sciences to
economic growth, new medical technology, energy independence,
and enhanced national security is very strong. As you know, the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has
given high priority to strengthening the physical sciences,
including nanoscale science and technology.
I appreciate the committee's leadership in this area. I
firmly believe that the future of our Nation depends on
continued leadership at the scientific and technological
frontier, a frontier that includes nanoscale science and
technology.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Roberto follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Roberto, Ph.D., Associate Laboratory
Director for Physical Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is James Roberto, and I am the Associate Laboratory
Director for Physical Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
ORNL is a Department of Energy multiprogram laboratory managed by UT-
Battelle, LLC, a partnership of the University of Tennessee and
Battelle Memorial Institute. It is an honor to appear before the
Committee in support of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act.
In my role at ORNL I oversee the physical sciences, including
nanoscale science and technology. This includes the development of
ORNL's Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences (CNMS), one of DOE's
five planned Nanoscale Science Research Centers. The Nanoscale Science
Research Centers are state-of-the-art user facilities for nanoscale
science and technology that will be located at Argonne, Berkeley,
Brookhaven, Los Alamos and Sandia, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
Each Center will focus on nanoscale research and development that
leverages the unique capabilities of the host laboratory including
major synchrotron, neutron, and microfabrication facilities. The DOE
nanotechnology centers will help fulfill a Presidential priority of
providing American researchers with the foremost capability in this
breakthrough technology. Not only will DOE researchers benefit from
these centers, but also other agencies, U.S. industry and our
universities will benefit from these new capabilities.
The excitement surrounding nanoscale science and technology is
real. The recent DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers Workshop and
National Users Meeting in Washington, DC, attracted more than 400
scientists and engineers from 94 universities, 40 industries, and 15
federal laboratories. More than 2000 researchers have attended regional
and national workshops for the DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers.
It is difficult to find a month without a national or international
meeting in this field.
Nanoscale science and technology crosscuts the traditional
disciplines of materials science, chemistry, physics, biology,
computational science, and engineering. It occupies the frontiers of
these fields and includes some of the most challenging research
problems. The solutions to these problems offer a line-of-sight to
technical advances of enormous potential in materials, information
technology, healthcare, and national security. Many see nanotechnology
as the basis of the next industrial revolution.
For the Department of Energy, the opportunities provided by
nanoscale science and technology are unprecedented. Research on the
synthesis and properties of nanoscale systems consisting of tens to
thousands of atoms underpins progress in a multitude of high-impact
fields including catalysis science, photovoltaics and thermoelectrics,
sensor technology, high-performance alloys, advanced materials for fuel
cells and hydrogen storage, and membrane technology. Applications
include low-cost high-efficiency solar cells, materials 10-100 times
the strength of steel at 1/6th the weight, energy-efficient ``smart''
coatings for windows, high-efficiency solid state lighting devices, and
new catalysts for energy conversion and chemical processing. These
applications offer enormous energy, national security, environmental,
and economic benefits.
John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, describes the nanotechnology revolution as one in which ``the
notion that everything is made of atoms has a real operational
significance.'' This has been made possible by extraordinary tools such
as synchrotron light sources, neutron sources, electron microscopes,
scanning probe microscopes, and high-performance computers. These tools
have enabled the atomic-scale characterization, manipulation, and
simulation of complex assemblies of atoms and molecules. This is a
``bottoms up'' view of the physical world--Mother Nature's view--that
embraces breathtaking complexity and seemingly endless possibilities.
We are at a crossroads in the physical sciences. The boundaries
between scientific disciplines are disappearing at the nanoscale. The
study of simple, isolated systems is giving way to complex assemblies.
We are moving from atomic-scale characterization to atomic-scale
control, from miniaturization to self-assembly. Change is opportunity,
and this paradigm shift for the physical sciences rivals other
revolutions in science, such as the revolution in biology following the
discovery of the molecular structure of DNA.
It is this opportunity, and the technological impact that will
result, that underpin the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act. This Act is an important element of the strategy to
strengthen the physical sciences in the United States. Other components
include The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (H.R.
766), the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial
Application Act of 2003 (H.R. 238) and the Energy and Science Research
Investment Act of 2003 (S. 917 and H.R. 34). The traceability of
advances in the physical sciences to economic growth, new medical
technology, energy independence, and enhanced national security is
strong. As you know, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) has given high priority to strengthening the
physical sciences, including nanoscale science and technology. I
appreciate the Committee's leadership in this area, and I firmly
believe that the future of our Nation depends on continued leadership
at the scientific and technological frontier, a frontier that includes
nanoscale science and technology.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Dr. Roberto, and we'll have
questions for you later, because I'm all intrigued by some of
those great advancements you're talking about there at Oak
Ridge.
Now we'd like to hear from Dr. Clayton Teague, director of
the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.
Dr. Teague?
STATEMENT OF E. CLAYTON TEAGUE, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
NANOTECHNOLOGY COORDINATION OFFICE
Dr. Teague. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, and Senator Sununu, I am
pleased and honored to have this opportunity to appear before
you today to address the plans for the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office and the Nanoscale Science Engineering and
Technology, or the NSET Subcommittee, of the National Science
and Technology Council.
I believe strongly in the potential and the importance of
nanotechnology for the security, the economic prosperity, and
the welfare of our Nation. I also share this Committee's belief
that federal support for nanotechnology R&D is essential for
the nation to realize the full benefits of this emerging field.
I've submitted my written testimony for your consideration,
so here I would just emphasize three important points from that
record.
The first one, nanotechnology is practically limitless in
its potential for creating new materials, new devices, and
systems. The initial commercialization and economic impact that
we're just beginning to see is only a hint of what I think is
to come. Let me illustrate.
There are 6,720 ways to permute the six different letters
among the eight characters or places in the name of the
Chairman's State, Virginia. There are 6,720 ways to permute the
six different letters among the eight characters or places in
the name of the Chairman's State, Virginia. So if you took the
six different characters and you looked at all the possible
ways that you could relocate them, you would find there are
6,720 different ways that you could do that.
So now if you imagine the huge number of possible
permutations of the 91 atoms that make up the periodic table
among the millions of places in a small nanostructure, what we
can build, if you think about all of those possibilities, will
really be limited more by our creativity and our imagination
than by the laws of physics. However, the great promise that
we've just talked about, in terms of that rich area, must be
tempered with the realization that our nanotechnology
capabilities are in a very embryonic and infant stage, as Dr.
Murday had talked about.
As someone who was involved in it for many years, it's sort
of surprising to realize that it's taken us 20 years to
progress from the ability to see atoms, and then to manipulate
them, and finally, a few years ago, to build a simple three-
atom structure. Twenty years. So to build a nanostructure large
enough to observe in an optical microscope, about one
micrometer, would require assembling millions of atoms. I hope
that talking about that in that sense would give you a sense of
the amazing potential that nanotechology has and also a sense
of the tasks remaining for us to realize that potential.
My second point, nanotechnology research has potential
applications in all the multiple-agency mission areas, and the
NNI and the NCET were created to ensure coordination to ensure
federal funding and to engender the rapid development of
nanotechnology in the United States.
Technology transfer and commercialization have been the key
elements of the NNI plan from its inception. The NCET and
members agencies have responded by designing industry outreach
activities into their NNI-related programs. Some specific
examples are given in my written testimony, and I believe if
you examine those that you will see that their impact is
evidenced by the exponential growth over the past several years
in the number of technical papers and articles that have been
written on nanotechnology, the number of U.S. patents that have
been filed, nanotechnology companies formed, and products
brought to the market.
Nanotechnology-based products that have become available,
just even over the last year, range from water filters for
removing harmful microorganisms to protective and glare-
reducing coatings for eyeglasses and cars to stain-free
clothing and mattresses. For the future, nanotechnology
promises a lot of the things you've already heard about today,
but breakthroughs in biomedicine, sensor technologies, and
energy production and storage.
My third and final point, the NNI has grown in scope and
scale over the last four years, and it's now in a stage for
refocusing and strengthening, including a review by the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the
PCAST.
PCAST will serve as the independent-standing nanoscience
and nanotechnology advisory board called for in the recent NRC
report that Senator Wyden mentioned. The PCAST is well-suited
to conduct this review since its members have extensive
expertise in technological developments, the operation of
federal R&D programs and technology transfer. The PCAST panel
also has the seniority and the visibility that will assure that
its findings have impact. PCAST and co-chair Floyd Kvamme have
already begun their review and planning processes.
PCAST's work plan focuses on first refining the grand-
challenge topics to guide the NNI program; and, second,
assisting in the development of an NNI strategic plan that was
also called for in the NRC report. These two tasks are
complementary to the activities of the NCET toward formulating
a new NNI strategic plan.
In summary, nanotechnology is still at a very early stage
of development, and there are tremendous opportunities and
challenges before us. The NNI has, for almost five years now,
served as an effective means for coordinating federally funded
activities in nanotechnology. As this initiative matures and
grows, the NNCO is scaling up to meet the additional
responsibilities that this entails.
We greatly appreciate the endorsement of the NNI's
achievements and potential that was implicit in the language of
the proposed 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Wyden and Senator Sununu, we thank
you, again, for your support in bringing this bill forth. The
NNCO staff and I look forward to working with the other members
of the NCET, PCAST, and the legislative branch to move the NNI,
hopefully, into the next stage of the maturing era of the
nanotechnology program.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Teague follows:]
Prepared Statement of E. Clayton Teague, Ph.D., Director, National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office
Chairman Allen, Senator Wyden, Members of the Committee, I am
pleased and honored to have this opportunity to appear before you today
in behalf of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and
the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee
of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). I, and all
agency representatives on the NSET Subcommittee, believe strongly in
the tremendous potential and importance of nanotechnology for the
security, economic prosperity, and general welfare of our nation. We
also share this Committee's belief that federal support for
nanotechnology R&D is essential for efficient development of the
scientific understanding, advanced facilities, education, and standards
necessary for timely translation of R&D in nanotechnology into true
economic development.
As the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has defined it,
nanotechnology is the ability to work--to see, measure, and
manipulate--at the atomic, molecular, and supramolecular levels, in the
length scale of approximately 1-100 nm range, with the goal of
understanding and creating useful materials, devices, and systems that
exploit the fundamentally new properties, phenomena, and functions
resulting from their small structure. So, nanotechnology is not just
the study of small things. Nanoscale research and development is the
study of materials, devices, and systems that exhibit physical and
chemical properties quite different from those found in larger scale
systems. Take the semiconductor cadmium sulfide as an example. In its
large-scale form, it is typically used as a material for constructing
detectors of light. But, when it is formed as small crystals of less
than 10 nm--termed quantum dots--the material as a nanostructure has
the property of fluorescing with a color dependent on the size of the
crystal. In a demonstration accompanying this testimony, I would like
to show the Committee this nanoscale size-dependent phenomenon. When
illuminated with near-ultraviolet light, five vials of liquid
containing cadmium sulfide quantum dots ranging in size from 3
nanometers to 7 nanometers will be shown to fluoresce with colors
ranging from blue to red, the blue light being produced by the 3
nanometer quantum dots and the red light being produced by the 7
nanometer quantum dots. Such size-dependent quantum dots and nanorods
promise to have a wide range of applications in improved solar cells,
biological imaging of cells, and faster DNA testing.
This NSET focused definition of nanotechnology, along with the NNI
vision and program elements, were carefully prescribed in the basic
research directions document for the NNI, drafted in 1999. The
definition, vision, and program elements have served the program as
guiding principles for the NNI since that time. More than thirty other
countries have also modeled their nanotechnology programs on the NNI.
As a scientist who has worked for over twenty-five years in some of
the fields now included in nanotechnology, I'd now like to offer my
perspective on how this technology is developing. Then, I'll describe
plans for the NNCO and the interactions underway between the NNCO, the
NSET Subcommittee, and the President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST).
I had the privilege early in my career of observing the phenomenon
of quantum mechanical tunneling between two small gold spheres spaced
about one nanometer--ten atomic diameters--apart. In classical physics
no current flow would occur between metals not touching. But in quantum
mechanics, the electrons ``tunnel'' through this potential energy
barrier produced by the physical gap. With a small voltage applied
between the spheres, changing the spacing between them by only one
atomic diameter would cause the current flow to change by a factor of
ten, an extraordinarily large change. This characteristic of quantum
mechanical tunneling between two closely spaced metals--known and
predicted by theory--proved to be the basis for the totally unexpected
discovery later by Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rhorer that by carefully
moving a sharpened metal tip about one nanometer above a surface one
could resolve and draw images of the individual atoms constituting the
surface. For the first time in scientific history, we could virtually
reach down and touch the very rudiments of all matter--the atoms!
Nothing in my career has generated as much sustained excitement and
stirred as much imagination and creativity as did this discovery. That
was twenty years ago, and I still marvel at the beautiful and refined
images of atoms obtained with this instrument, the scanning tunneling
microscope.
About ten years later, Don Eigler and colleagues demonstrated that
using a scanning tunneling microscope they could not only reach down
and touch the atoms but, in addition, could controllably move
individual atoms around on a surface and build atomic structures they
designed--atomically precise letters of the alphabet and quantum
corrals for electrons. There have been many other developments since
then leading to the current rapid development of nanotechnology, but
these two demonstrations are clearly the events that energized the
scientific community to begin thinking seriously about the real
possibility of atom-by-atom structuring of matter.
Parallel to these developments in the direct mechanical
manipulation of atoms with the scanning tunneling microscope, similar
exciting things were taking place in other fields now included in
nanotechnology. The discovery of fullerene molecules--buckyballs and
nanotubes--sprang from the study of small clusters of carbon; ultra
miniaturization of microelectronics produced the burgeoning field of
thin film superlattices and quantum dots; DNA and other biomolecules
emerged from biotechnology as unique building blocks; the study of very
large or supramolecules produced surprisingly efficient catalysts. This
is only a small number of the fields overlapping with the field now
termed nanotechnology; each has its own exciting story of discovery and
rapid development over the last ten years or so.
With all these approaches and processes, just imagine the
astounding number of structures one can build with the 91 atoms of the
periodic table. The rich possibilities may be appreciated by
considering the large number of atoms in typical nanoscale sized
structures. Nanoscale structures with dimensions of 1 nanometer can
contain up to about 100 atoms; those with dimensions of 2 nanometers,
up to about 1000 atoms; and those with dimensions of 100 nanometers, up
to about 100 million atoms. The number of possible structures within
this nanoscale size range isn't infinite but it is huge. The structures
that we can build will be limited more by our creativity and
imagination than by the ultimate bounding of possibilities posed by the
laws of physics.
So where are we in our abilities to realize all these wonderfully
rich possibilities, and why is there a need for so much research and
development? First, even with the rapid progress made in scanning probe
techniques for assembling atoms, the first assembly of atoms involving
true molecular bonding was only achieved in 2000 and that was
assembling a three-atom structure. Currently, we have an inadequate
degree of control at the nanoscale and our tools and processes for
assembling atoms are very slow. We still do not have the understanding,
the tools, and processes for the full control of assembling reasonably
large numbers of atoms into desired structures. As an example, we
cannot form single wall nanotubes with a known twist or chirality. This
is critical because depending on the twist of the nanotubes; they may
be metals or semiconductors. Speed in forming a macroscopic quantity of
these nanostructures, say enough for a drug tablet, is critical because
it requires assembling about a million, billion, billion, atoms!
Innovative combinations of top-down tools such as lithography with
methods of directed self-assembly of atoms and molecules have provided
means to overcome some of the speed limitations yet with some resultant
loss in ultimate control of the atomic and molecular form of the
resulting structures.
This gives you a sense of the task remaining before us and the
amazing potential for making new materials, devices and systems as we
continue to engage the challenges.
In the Marketplace Today
Relative to the long-range potential just outlined, nanotechnology
is truly in its embryonic stage of development. Yet, many important
nanotechnology-based products are already in use today. Few people are
aware of these first commercial nano products because they are more
incremental than revolutionary.
Some applications of nanotechnology have been in use for many
years, and we can now begin to appreciate their economic impact. The
U.S. oil industry saves an estimated 400 million barrels of oil each
year, representing some $12 billion, through the use of nanoparticles
called zeolites, which act as molecular sieves. Zeolites extract up to
40 percent more gasoline from crude oil than the catalysts that were
previously used. Recently, the automotive industry was able to
substantially reduce the amount of precious metals used in its
catalytic converters and extend the longevity of the converters, in
part due to advancements in nanostructured catalysts. These examples
show how significant a contribution nanotechnology can make to our
economy, environment, and natural resources management.
Other nanotechnology based products that have become available over
the last year or two include:
Nanoparticle filters for removing viruses, bacteria, and
protozoa such as hepatitis A, E-coli and giardia from water
Nanocomposites in running boards and bumpers on automobiles
to decrease weight and improve corrosion resistance
Thin layers engineered at the nanoscale to produce
protective and glare-reducing coatings for eyeglasses and cars
Transparent sunscreens with superior UV protection
Longer-lasting tennis balls due to decreased gas
permeability of nanoclay coatings
Stain-free clothing and mattresses due to nanostructured
fiber coatings. In addition, exciting new applications are in
the product pipeline, with patents already licensed, and
partnerships sealed between product developers and
manufacturers. But these near-term applications are modest in
comparison to the potential applications of research now being
conducted under the auspices of NNI funding. Examples include
the following:
Microcantilever arrays incorporating nanostructured
coatings that will enable detection of multiple chemical
warfare agents, explosive vapors, and biological agents on a
single chip (A. Majumdar, U.C. Berkeley)
Dip-pen Nanolithography: Use of atomic force microscopes as
``ink pens'' for use in nanolithography for low-cost, ultra
high resolution chip manufacturing (C. Mirkin, Northwestern
University)
A variety of potential applications of carbon nanotubes,
including electrical interconnects for nanoscale electronics,
hydrogen storage, and even structural applications such as
nanotube-reinforced composites (R. Smalley, Rice University)
Digital logic and memory devices manufactured on the
molecular scale from rotaxane molecules using nanowire
interconnects (J. Heath, Caltech)
Novel antibiotics based on peptide nanotubes that punch
holes in bacterial cell walls (A. Olson, Scripps Research
Institute)
Low-cost, ultra lightweight, and flexible nanorod-polymer
photovoltaic cells (P. Alivisatos, UC Berkeley)
Metallic iron nanoparticles for low-cost, high-efficiency
remediation of groundwater contaminated with heavy metals (W.
Zhang, Lehigh University)
Nanotechnology is highly interdisciplinary. It is not just
chemistry, molecular biology, medicine, physics, engineering,
information science and metrology; it is all of these fields at once.
R&D efforts, accordingly, require extraordinary coordination and
cooperation within the scientific community, among federal, state, and
local agencies, and with industry. Further collaboration with industry
in particular is necessary to commercialize scientific discoveries.
Technology transfer and commercialization have been key elements of
the NNI plan from its inception. NSET member agencies have responded to
this challenge by designing industry outreach activities into many of
their funding programs within the NNI. Some examples are included
below:
1. Several agencies (e.g., NIH, NSF and DOE for example) have put
out special nano SBIR solicitations or have included language
specifically encouraging nanotechnology-related SBIR proposals. NSF
hosted an NNI SBIR workshop in March 2002 reporting on the results of
initial FY01 SBIR funding in nanotechnology. Six agencies (NSF, NIST,
NIH, USDA, EPA, and NASA) presented information on nanotechnology-
related SBIR funding activities at that workshop. In data later
provided to NNCO, these agencies reported a total of over 65 nano-
related SBIR awards made in Fiscal Year 2001, with a total funding of
over $11 million. This figure is not known in Fiscal Years 2002 and
2003, but the overall NNI budget has grown dramatically since FY 2001.
2. While some NSET agencies are restricted from funding R&D
activities in companies (SBIR excepted), other agencies do not have
such restrictions. Within the NNI, agencies that primarily fund
academic research are partnering with agencies that can fund industrial
development to assure the timely transfer of basic research
developments into industry. For example, the Department of Defense
plays a key role in carrying nanotechnology innovations all the way
from basic research funded at agencies such as ONR and DARPA into
industrial practice. Thus, ONR was able to accelerate the application
of wear-resistant nanostructured coatings developed under its basic
research funding, and these coatings are now deployed in some Navy
ships, reducing wear in turbine shaft bearings, in turn reducing the
need for major propulsion systems overhauls, and thus reducing costs
and increasing readiness of the Navy fleet. DOD research agencies
frequently work with NSF and other basic research agencies to co-fund
promising academic research, and DOD can pick up the results and
promote the accelerated development of military applications through
development work funded at major defense contractors.
3. The Department of Energy's Nanoscale Science Research Centers
(NSRCs) are designed to be ``user facilities'' open to researchers from
U.S. industry. Depending on intellectual property rules the industry
researchers may be working under, the use of the DOE facilities may be
free, or may entail the payment of a modest fee. DOE held a large
meeting on Feb. 26-27, 2003, to formally initiate the NSRC program; the
first annual users' meeting was held on Feb. 28. Members of Congress,
nanotechnology researchers, and industrialists participated in the
meeting, which was designed to highlight the opportunities that the new
DOE facilities will afford to researchers from both academia and
industry.
4. Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers funded by NSF require
industrial interest and effective plans for cooperation with industry.
The focus for FY 2003 is on manufacturing processes at the nanoscale,
so industrial participation is all the more important as NSF reviews
the new proposals that will be submitted in response to this year's
solicitation.
5. Industry participation is required in the NSF program entitled,
``Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI).''
Several of the GOALI awards that were made by NSF in FY02 were closely
related to nanotechnology.
6. The U.S. Army's Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at MIT
reflects a partnership among MIT, the Army, and private industry.
Currently active industrial partners include Dupont and Raytheon.
7. Similarly, the DARPA/DMEA Center for Nanoscience Innovation for
Defense (University of California at Santa Barbara) maintains close
industrial ties, with industry representation on the technical advisory
committee and with participation by Rockwell Scientific and Motorola.
8. NSF's National Nanofabrication Users' Network (NNUN) provides
nanofabrication and other research infrastructure at 5 universities
around the country, available for use by either industrial or academic
researchers. Each year industry researchers conduct hundreds of
research projects that involve use of NNUN facilities. NSF plans to re-
organize and roughly double the size of the NNUN program in the coming
year.
9. The Department of Commerce has assisted the NNI in organizing
workshops in Los Angeles and Houston aimed at building local and
regional alliances between researchers, local businesses, and
entrepreneurs and investors to promote the commercial development of
nanotechnology. Additional workshops are planned in the coming year for
the Boston and Chicago areas. Reports from these and many other
nanotechnology-related workshops are available at http://wtec.org/
nanoreports/.
10. NSF held a special workshop for public and industry outreach at
the Reagan Bldg. in Washington, DC on March 19, 2002. Entitled, ``Small
Wonders: Exploring the Vast Potential of Nanoscience,'' the meeting
featured presentations on promising applications of nanotechnology in a
wide variety of economic sectors, including materials, medicine,
instrumentation, and electronics. Industrial participation included
representatives from IBM, Lucent, Eastman Kodak, the Semiconductor
Research Corporation, Motorola, the California Molecular Electronics
Corporation, and Digital Instruments.
11. For the past two years running, the NNI has co-sponsored a
large annual NNI meeting at which representatives of NSET agencies have
explained the NNI programs, and at which leading NNI-supported
researchers present their most promising findings. There has been
significant industry participation in these meetings, which have
provided yet another forum for building connections between researchers
and industrial practitioners.
12. NNCO is now planning a workshop to enhance coordination between
federal NNI and state and regional nano initiatives that target
economic development and commercialization. Key objective of this
workshop are to find ways to better promote economic development
through commercialization of nanotechnology breakthroughs, and to
leverage the expertise and resources of existing state and local
nanotechnology efforts. Another objective is to assure the broadest
possible geographical distribution of the benefits of nanotechnology
development--the meeting will feature presentations from states that
have established nanotechnology initiatives for the benefit of states
and local governments that are hoping to establish such programs in the
future. We have been working closely with Dr. Nathan Swami of the
Virginia Nanotechnology Initiative, Sean Murdoch of Atomworks, and Mark
Modzelewski of the Nanobusiness Alliance to plan and carry out this
activity.
13. Industry leaders are participating in a series of workshops
being organized this year by the NNCO to help establish detailed
research plans corresponding to the NNI's nine grand challenge topics.
One example is a workshop held in September of 2002 entitled, ``Vision
2020 for the Chemical Industry.'' A chemical industry group manages the
Vision 2020 exercise in cooperation with the DOE/Office of Industrial
Technologies. This workshop was particularly targeted at identifying
nanotechnology research opportunities that would benefit the chemical
industry. Not all of the grand challenge workshops planned for the
coming year will be industry-led in the way Vision 2020 was, but all
will include representation from key companies in the relevant
industries affected by the respective grand challenge topics.
14. A new research and education theme on ``manufacturing at the
nanoscale'' has been added to the NSF's Nanoscale Science and
Engineering (NSE) program solicitation in Fiscal Year 2002, and the
program element ``Nanomanufacturing'' has been established in the
Directorate for Engineering. NSF invested about $22 million in
manufacturing research and education in Fiscal Year 2002, and two
Nanoscale Science and Engineering centers with a focus on nanoscale
manufacturing will be funded in Fiscal Year 2003. Also, SBIR
nanotechnology investment has reached $10 million in Fiscal Year 2002.
Because of the complexity, cost and high risk associated with
nanotechnology research, the private sector is often unable to assure
itself of short- to medium-term returns on R&D investments in this
field. Consequently, industry is not likely to undertake the basic
research investments necessary to overcome the technical barriers that
currently exist. The traditional government role of supporting basic
research is thus particularly important in this case. Additional basic
research will be needed to make these innovations ready for industry to
develop and market.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is a critical link between
high-risk, novel research concepts and new technologies that can be
developed by industry. Since the creation of the NNI in October 2000,
federal funding for nanotechnology has been coordinated through the
NNI. The NNI has continued to the present time as a successful
interagency program that encompasses and promotes relevant
nanotechnology R&D among the participating federal agencies. The
federal agencies currently participating in the NNI research budget are
as follows:
National Science Foundation
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
Department of Commerce
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Agriculture
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Justice
Funding for the NNI provides support for a range of activities,
which include: basic research on fundamental nanoscale science; focused
efforts aimed to achieve major, long-term objectives of high
significance--so-called ``grand challenges;'' and building research
infrastructure (instrumentation, equipment, facilities) and centers and
networks of excellence (larger, centralized facilities intended to
provide sites for cooperative and collaborative efforts among
distributed networks and groups of researchers at multiple affiliated
institutions). Depending on the agency, funding supports research and
applications of nanotechnology in support of the respective agency
missions, research at national laboratories, and research at academic
institutions and other research institutes. A portion of the funding is
also dedicated to addressing non-technical research problems in a
broader context, including societal implications and workforce and
training issues.
The NNI has benefited and grown under this Administration's strong
commitment to furthering nanotechnology research and development.
Support for the NNI is evidenced by significant funding increases for
this interagency initiative in each of President Bush's proposed
budgets. That trend continues this year, with a 10-percent increase
over last year's request for nanotechnology (to $849 million) in the
President's FY 2004 Budget. In addition, last year the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget and OSTP Director Marburger issued a
memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies identifying
nanoscale science and technology as one of six interagency research and
development priorities.
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Technology Subcommittee
The research agenda for the ten agencies currently participating in
the NNI is coordinated by the NSET Subcommittee of the National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC). As you know, the NSTC is a cabinet-level
interagency body through which interagency science and technology
issues are discussed and coordinated. The NSET Subcommittee is staffed
by representatives of the participating agencies, OSTP, and OMB. It
also includes other federal agencies that do not fund nanotechnology
R&D but nevertheless have an interest in these technologies--agencies
such as the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of the
Treasury. There are now 17 agencies participating in the NSET
Subcommittee. NSET members meet on a monthly basis to measure progress,
set priorities, keep abreast of nanotechnology R&D being proposed and
conducted in the agencies, plan and organize workshops, and plan for
the coming year. The agency representatives to the NSET, typically
program officers, and researchers, have extensive knowledge of and
experience with nanoscale R&D. This expertise has been of critical
importance to the success of the initiative, providing a necessary link
to nanotechnology researchers in industry and academia.
Because the cost of nanotechnology instrumentation, equipment and
facilities is rather high, government funding of such research
infrastructure can provide a great benefit to both academic and
industrial research. An important focus of the NNI, for instance, is to
develop measurements and standards, research instrumentation, modeling
and simulation capabilities, and R&D user facilities. Current examples
of how this type of funding is used are the National Nanofabrication
Users Network (NNUN), the modeling and simulation Network for
Computational Nanotechnology sponsored by NSF, and a group of five
user-facility Nanoscale Science Research Centers being created by DOE.
The need for this type of infrastructure is so great that federal
agencies are committing additional resources to support the NNI's
efforts. These include a dedicated nanoscience facility at the Naval
Research Laboratory (NRL) and portions of the new Advanced Measurement
Laboratory at the NIST.
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) assists
NSET-participating agencies by: (1) serving as secretariat to the NSET
Subcommittee, providing technical and administrative support, (2)
supporting the NSET Subcommittee in the preparation of multi-agency
planning, budget, and assessment documents, (3) acting as the point of
contact on Federal Nanotechnology activities for government
organizations, academia, industry, professional societies, foreign
organizations, and others for technical and programmatic information,
and (4) developing and making available printed and other
communications materials concerning the National Nanotechnology
Initiative including maintaining a Web site for the Initiative. As part
of this support, the NNCO produces annual supplements to the
President's Budget explaining the NNI portion of the budget request. It
also coordinates and assists in the conduct of regular workshops based
on grand challenge areas. The NNCO assists and coordinates the conduct
of regional workshops that explore commercialization opportunities for
nanotechnology discoveries. These conferences bring together
scientists, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and large businesses for
discussion and exploration of partnerships. Reports produced by the
NNCO provide a permanent record of conference proceedings and are used
by those not in attendance to learn more about developments in the
field. Under the auspices of the NSTC, the NNCO also contracts for
periodic program reviews to provide feedback on the NNI.
The annual budget of the NNCO is approximately $1 million. Three
years ago, the NSET subcommittee and NNCO coordinated the efforts of
six agencies involved in nanotechnology R&D. Today, through the NNI,
the NSET and NNCO coordinate the efforts of 17 participating agencies.
The scale of the workload for the NNCO parallels this increase in
participating agencies. The NNCO staff is coordinating an increasing
stream of workshops proposed by the agencies, and prepares the post-
conference reports. Planning and administrative functions have
expanded, as will reporting requirements resulting from the pending
legislation.
With an increased number of discoveries and acceleration of
commercialization activities here and abroad, staff tracking and
reporting to the scientific community and government agencies must keep
pace. Increased activity at the state and regional levels has brought
welcome support for commercialization and another level of involvement
for the NNCO.
Current high-priority NNCO projects include the following:
(a) NNCO is working with OSTP and OMB to finalize a supplement to
the President's FY 2004 Budget to explain the NNI activities within the
request.
(b) NNCO will follow this with a more detailed report this year,
the revised Implementation Plan for the NNI. This will be an update of
a similar detailed plan that was submitted in July of 2000.
(c) An interagency workshop being led by the Environmental
Protection Agency will address environmental implications as well as
applications of nanotechnology. The purpose of this September workshop
is to define the future research agenda for EPA and other agencies in
the NNI that support nanotechnology research aimed to enhance
environmental quality through pollution detection, prevention,
treatment, and remediation.
(d) The National Institutes of Health is taking the lead in
organizing a workshop to explore opportunities for supporting more
research at the intersection of nanotechnology and biology, as
recommended in the NRC report. This is tentatively scheduled for
October.
(e) Another workshop scheduled for September will facilitate
collaboration and best practices among state and regional initiatives.
(f) NNI and the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) are
organizing a workshop this Fall on nanoelectronics.
(g) A workshop is tentatively scheduled for this December to assess
broader societal implications, including ethical, economic, education/
workforce, medical, and national security implications. This is follow-
on to a workshop held in September 2000 on these same subjects.
(h) A project is underway to produce a brochure for industry,
explaining the state of nanotechnology, R&D opportunities and resources
toward commercialization of nanotechnology discoveries.
(i) Following from all the above activities, NNCO will be
coordinating a large workshop in early 2004 to integrate inputs from
all the grand challenge workshops, PCAST suggestions, new legislation,
and recommendations of the NRC report and produce a new ``crisp,
compelling plan'' for the NNI. This will be a reprise and 5-year update
of the January 1999 workshop that produced the first detailed technical
plan, the report entitled, Nanotechnology Research Directions.
Recognizing the growing complexity of this multi-agency effort,
OSTP asked me to begin serving on April 15 of this year as the full-
time Director of NNCO. (In the past, Dr. James Murday had served as the
Director of the NNCO in a half-time capacity.) Among my specific
charges are increasing communications between the OSTP, NNCO and the
NSET; promoting a higher level of coordination of nanotechnology R&D
among the Departments and agencies participating in the NSET; and
providing an increased level of support for the NSET Subcommittee in
preparation of planning, budgeting, and assessment documents.
Recognizing the increasing need for public outreach for greater
understanding of nanotechnology and its societal implications, the NNCO
has hired a full-time communications director and will be undertaking
an array of communication tasks, including enhancing the NNI Web Site.
NSET and NNCO Interactions with PCAST
Relevant to the legislation before the committee is the report of
the National Research Council (NRC) following their study of the NNI.
Entitled Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, the report, published in the summer of 2002,
highlighted the strong leadership of the NNI, praised the degree of
interagency collaboration, and lauded the early successes of the
research programs.
As you know, the National Research Council (NRC) recommended that
the federal nanotechnology research program would benefit from an
outside review. As noted in the President's FY04 Budget, the
Administration concurs that an independent review is warranted, and has
asked the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) to undertake this effort.
PCAST has already begun its work in this regard, and the NNCO staff
is excited to be working with the PCAST membership on this task. PCAST
is well suited to conduct this review, as its members have extensive
experience and expertise in technological developments, how federal R&D
programs operate, and how R&D effectively translates to the economy.
This type of broad experience offer perspectives on how nanotechnology
can address key issues facing industries today (e.g., the ``red brick
wall'' referred to in the recent ``International Technology Roadmap for
Semiconductors'' report).
The preliminary PCAST work plan for its role in advising the NNI,
approved at the March 3 PCAST meeting, sets out as one of its first
tasks the review and assessment of the NNI's ``grand challenges''--the
nine areas where nanotechnology can make significant contributions to
national goals and priorities outlined in the current NNI program plan.
The industrial backgrounds of many PCAST members are particularly
appropriate to this role, providing a broader perspective beyond
laboratory research.
PCAST also offers the benefits of timeliness and effectiveness.
PCAST already exists, and has already begun its nanotechnology work
with the intent on providing some recommendations by late summer, in
time for the FY05 budget process. Importantly, too, PCAST is an
established and well-regarded entity within the Administration. Its
advice will be well-received.
The PCAST review of the NNI will be an ongoing project that
provides continuing recommendations to the President on how to improve
the program. PCAST will work in coordination with the National Science
and Technology Council, as well as the NNCO. PCAST's initial effort
will be assisting in the development of a crisp, compelling and
overarching strategic plan, and refining the list of specific ``grand
challenge'' topics to guide the NNI program. NSET and NNCO are working
with OSTP already in organizing a series of workshops aimed at setting
specific objectives within those grand challenge topics and clarifying
the research agendas for NSET member agencies that will lead to the
achievement of those objectives. PCAST then intends to explore
additional issues, such as program metrics, and also to monitor the
response to the guidance it provides.
To assist in these activities, PCAST has formed three internal task
forces--one on materials, electronics and photonics, one on energy and
the environment, and one on medical, bio and social issues. In
addition, PCAST is forming an external technical task force to gain
input on technical nanotechnology issues as may be needed. Additional
consultations will naturally occur as well. At its March 3rd meeting,
for example, PCAST met with three leading nanotechnology scientists--
Richard Smalley, Richard Siegel, and Samuel Stupp (who led the NRC
review). PCAST co-Chair Floyd Kvamme also met with the NSET members at
NSETs last meeting in early April and I, as the new NNCO coordinator,
have already met with Mr. Kvamme as well.
The NNCO is pleased to have PCAST's experience available for
counsel, and looks forward to working with PCAST in the months and
years to come.
In another structural change, the OSTP has proposed that the NSET
Subcommittee be re-constituted with higher level agency membership to
enable enhanced coordination and priority setting. We at the NNCO
recognize the importance of high-level agency involvement in the NNI.
For the active support of planning and conducting workshops and
generally tracking technological innovations, we will rely on the
current membership of the NSET, which under the OSTP plan would be re-
formulated as an interagency working group. The members' extensive
knowledge of and experience with nanoscale R&D has been and will
continue to be of critical importance to the success of the initiative,
providing a necessary link to nanotechnology researchers in industry
and academia.
Summary and Final Comments
In summary, nanotechnology is still at a very early stage of
development, and there are many challenges and opportunities before us.
The NNI has for almost five years now served as a very effective means
for coordinating federally funded activities in nanotechnology. As this
initiative matures and grows in scope and scale, the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office is also scaling up to meet the
additional responsibilities that this entails. We greatly appreciate
the endorsement of the NNI's achievements and future potential implicit
in the language of the proposed 21st Century Nanotechnology Research
and Development Act.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you again for your
support. The NSET, NNCO staff and I look forward to continuing to work
with you and your staff to refine and improve the program and the
legislation currently under consideration.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Dr. Teague.
Thank you, all doctors, here. I'll go, perhaps, a line of
questioning here. I'll begin and then turn it over to Senator
Wyden, and Senator Sununu may also, I'm sure, have some
insightful questions of you, as well.
Listening to you all, you all talked about all these
different developmental levels. They're something tangible,
which is good. A lot of this, again, is very early. There is
much research and development going on in a variety of ways,
some at colleges and universities, clearly in the private
sector, some in your variety of perspectives in governmental
agencies.
I'd ask each one of you, what--and I was thinking, looking
at each of you is--what are the greatest barriers today for the
application for the variety of these very exciting
opportunities of nanotechnology and a variety of disciplines
and getting the applications of this into the commercial
sector? Now, some of it is research. But, more importantly,
could you share with me, and share with the Committee, what's
the biggest barrier, what is, let's say, the greatest challenge
for the transfer of these advances of nanotechnology to the
commercial sector?
And I'll go with you, Drs. Murday, Roberto, and Teague.
Dr. Murday. Okay, you've identified a problem that I'm sure
you're well aware is not unique to nano----
Senator Allen. Right.
Dr. Murday.--how you get something out of science and
discovery into technology is a never-ending challenge, and so
this is just one variant on it.
There are a couple of things that I think that need to be
addressed. One is, we are just now opening up these
nanostructures that Dr. Teague talked about. Their quality
factor, to be able to manufacture on the large scale in a cost-
effective fashion is still somewhat limited. We've got to
address manufacturability, especially to get the reliability
and cost improvements that are necessary.
Second, we've got to look to moving ideas out of
universities, since most of the funding out of the NNI is in
the universities, by intent. We have the science discoveries
happening there and the mechanisms to move the ideas out of the
universities and into the commercial sector is the challenge,
as it is for the other discoveries in science, as well. But
we're trying to work with the States and local bodies to help
that process to create, through NSF, in particular, the NSECs,
which have university involved directly with industry. Within
the DOD, there has been a UARC, a university affiliated
research center, for soldier nanotechnologies up at MIT. So
deliberately reaching out into the university community and
helping them form alliances with companies.
We've also tried to pay attention to the SBIR programs,
because that is a mechanism to reach out and push new ideas
into new businesses. And a number of the State, both private
and public, universities are creating science parks where you
can get these SBIRs nurtured and the SBIR provides some of the
funds that's appropriate to it.
Finally, we're trying to reach out into the venture-capital
community, as well, keep them aware of what are the true
opportunities, trying to be careful not to over-hype the area
to lead to unrealistic expectations. But I have a viewgraph
that I sometimes use that says ``nanotechnology is the real
dot-com,'' as opposed to the bust of 10 years ago.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Dr. Murday.
Dr. Roberto?
Dr. Roberto. I guess I'd like to say three things. First of
all, the line of sight from the scientific discoveries in
nanotechnology and applications is a lot clearer than many
other areas of science, and so, in this sense, I think that a
very difficult job is made a little bit easier in this field.
Second, certainly coming from a DOE national laboratory,
I'm aware of the level of effort that goes into technology
transfer and into bringing in the university partners and to
identifying opportunities into the effort to get technology out
into the marketplace. I'm also aware that many research
universities have similar efforts underway. And my general
feeling is that, in the area of nanoscale science and
technology, that we are finding there's a very significant
interest, and we are making those partnerships in a more
productive or easy fashion, not that it is ever an easy task
bringing these various parties together.
Finally, the DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers really
are developed to help enable this process. These will be state-
of-the-art centers. They will be located at laboratories. We've
already made a billion-dollar level investments in neutron
sources or synchrotron sources or micro-fabrication equipment.
And they will be available to universities and industry, and
will provide an opportunity for labs and universities and
industries to work together in areas that can help bring the
science into the marketplace.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Dr. Teague?
Dr. Teague. I guess I'd like to comment on it, first, from
a scientific standpoint, in terms of taking things from the
research laboratory to the commercialization. But I think one
of the things that you probably have heard some other people
say, but just to re-emphasize it, is that I think that,
following up on Dr. Murday's comments about the
manufacturability and the manufacturing process, is that one of
the things that is so needed, in almost all the different many
processes that you were referring to when you talked about how
we make nanotechnology products, is the degree of control of
the processes that are being used.
Probably you've heard many times about nanotubes and how
important and how valuable the nanotubes are. And it's hard to
realize that as much as we had them and as much as you hear
about them being manufactured as products and things like that,
we have a very, very loose control over the properties of the
nanotubes which are manufactured.
If you've looked at--maybe you saw that there's a pencil
that some people have that has the nanotube structure printed
on the surface of the pencil, and it shows you two different
ways in which you can construct a nanotube. One of them is
called the way that you--it's made out a sheet of carbon, and
if you roll up a sheet of carbon, you have a nanotube. And
depending upon the twist that you put into it as you roll it
up, it totally changes the properties of the nanotube. In one
way of it being twisted, it's almost like a conductive of
metal. If you twist it a slightly different way, it's like
semiconductor. If you twist it a slightly different way, it's
an insulator.
Professor Smalley, several times he said, ``If I had one
big challenge right now, it would be how could we manufacture
nanotubes with a known twist so that I could predict, when I
made a nanotube, that it would be a metal, a semiconductor, or
an insulator?'' And if you look at a lot of the other products
that are nanotube-based, their structure and their properties
are so dependent upon the exact atomic structure of the
materials, until that degree of control is absolutely essential
for being able to produce, in quantity and at low cost, the
wonderful things that we can produce in ones and twoseys in the
laboratory and say, ``Look at these neat things.'' Until you
can have control, it's hard to go from ones and twos in the
laboratory to something that you can produce as a
manufacturable product at a good cost.
And how do you get that better control over the processes?
I think that that's the essential part of the federal funding
for R&D. I think one of the absolutely key parts of the whole
nanotechnology program in the United States is a very firm
realization that there's a lot of investment and a long time of
R&D, probably as long of an R&D investment to bring something
to this high degree of control as has been with almost any
other technology. So I think one of the ways to bring something
to market is to realize that it's going to take good support at
the federal level to carry out and complete the really
underlying fundamental research and development so that
companies can pick it up at a level that is economically viable
for them to move into the marketplace and make good production.
Senator Allen. First to Dr. Murday. The answer to my
question really is nothing new. That's the--basic economics,
commercial application, no matter what's coming out of
universities, the commercialization or obviously protecting the
intellectual property, whatever the method of--or whatever the
nanotech application may be, venture capital opportunities, all
of that really is just basic economics that we've seen before
with any sort of advancement in any new idea or process.
The same applies to what you were saying, Dr. Roberto,
although you're saying that the applications are more clear in
nanotech, and to the extent that those applications are more
clear, that does help with the venture capital. It all then
comes back to standard and, probably by analogy, making sure
that the methods or standard or control of processes----
Dr. Roberto. Yes.
Senator Allen.--in what you talk about. Again, I guarantee
you there's some analogy. This is not the first time. This is
not an issue of first impression.
Dr. Roberto. Right.
Senator Allen. And I'm sure this applies to extrusion and
the manufacturing of all sorts of material----
Dr. Roberto. Yeah.
Senator Allen.--plastics, metals, and films, where there
needs to be that standard or that grading or the method of
production that has that quality that is desired by whomever
the ultimate user may be.
So, fortuitously, we're at the early stages, but none of
these are never considered problems. Again, you may have to
just use some common sense and creativity. And the best of all
with this is that we're only limited by our imagination. All of
the challenges you all brought up here are easily--I shouldn't
say easily surmountable, but have been faced before and
certainly can be--the challenges can be surmounted in the
future.
Thank you all. Thank you so much.
And I'd like to turn it over to Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was really
excellent. That was almost like a teach-in on nanotechnology,
and I thank you for it.
The panel is just terrific, and I thank you all. And let me
get into a couple of nuts-and-bolts issues that we're going to
have to work out to wrap this up.
Dr. Teague, on the advisory panel you were quite passionate
about PCAST, in effect, being the lead, and Senator Allen and I
have already had all kinds of people lobbying us and jockeying
with respect to this whole issue. And let me get a sense, a
bit, of your reaction to how I come at it.
I mean, if you look at the President's Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology, this is an extraordinary group. I
have worked with many of them myself. This is not--in
questioning, I mean, people like Dr. Healy, Floyd Kvamme--I
mean, these are people I've known for years and I have looked
to for help on technology questions. That is not what's at
issue.
What is at issue is, at first impression, this does not
look like a group that has a history of involvement in the
nanotechnology area. This looks like a group of incredibly
dedicated, thoughtful people, who are going to be coming to
nanotechnology for the first time.
So what we did in the last Congress, when I put this
legislation together with Chairman Allen again now, is we said,
what we need to do is follow the recommendations of the
National Research Council, which is, from the get-go, go out
and find the very best people who, on day one, are going to
have some history and some involvement with respect to
nanotechnology.
My question to you is--I'd like to hear your reaction to,
sort of, how I approach this and also your thoughts on how we
figure out how to work this out and get it resolved, because
it--I mean, this is a terrific bill. Chairman Allen and I have
spent a ton of time on it. I've already gotten the sense from
the House, there's been a dust-up a bit on this issue, and
we're not going to let that happen. Chairman Allen and I have
worked out much tougher issues than this. So let us see if we
can have your great minds give us your insight on this, and
your thoughts, Dr. Teague, with respect to how I've come to my
assessment of this, and what you think we might do to make sure
we just get this to the President's desk quickly.
Dr. Teague. Well, I could certainly concur with that last
sentiment. And relative to PCAST, and one of the reasons I
guess I was very enthusiastic about it is, is that I think that
there are members, and some of the ones you mentioned,
certainly, who have some experience with nanotechnology----
Senator Wyden. Tell me who, of the PCAST membership now,
has experience with nanotechnology. I'm not aware that they do,
and that's what's in question, and we need experts like you--I
mean, just, if you would, Charles Arntzen, Norm Augustine,
Carol Bartz, Kathleen Behrens, Eric Bloch, Stephen Burke, Wayne
Clough, Michael Dell, Raul Fernandez, George Scalise, Luis
Proenza, Steve Papermaster--tremendous group. Who has
background today in nanotechnology?
Dr. Teague. Well, the two, I guess, that would come to mind
most immediately would be the president of the Georgia
Institute of Technology, Wayne Clough, and the president of
MIT, Charles Vest. I think certainly both of those have a lot
of nanotechnology-related activities within their universities.
Certainly they are the highest level of the administration of
their institutions. But I think both of them would have a great
deal of knowledge of what would be going on in the field of
nanotechnology, just from interacting with, I would say, the
physics departments, the chemistry departments, the material-
science departments within their respective institutions. So I
would think they would be quite informed relative to that.
Gordon Moore, certainly in terms of looking at the ultra-
miniaturization of microelectronics, I would think is
definitely familiar with the extreme miniaturizations that one
might achieve down to the nano-electronics and the molecular-
electronics level. I would think that he, in his many years of
experience with electronics, would have a very good perspective
on the basic understanding of what would happen to electronics
at the nanoscale level.
So some of the other ones, I think even if you look at--I
forget one of the Members of the Committee also had a lot of
background in the bio area, and I think that the biotechnology
aspect and its heavy overlap with nanotechnology is going to be
very crucial in, again, having the proper perspective on what's
happening in the area of nanotechnology.
Finally, I guess, relative to that, the PCAST itself is--
they've decided, in their proceeding of their assessment, that
they're going to obtain additional technical expertise through
the formation of different technical task forces to assist them
in their assessment. So they're not going to do it just on
their own; they're going to be actually forming and pulling
task forces of experts in the field, very much as you're
indicating is being needed, and I would agree that there are
some additional possible inputs needed onto it.
I guess two other points that I think are so important
about PCAST. The first one is that relative to the question
that Mr. Chairman was asking, in terms of the technology
transfer, I think the business acumen and the experience of
many people on the PCAST would be tremendously valuable in
understanding the transition of the technology out into the
commercial and into the economic factors that would be involved
in that.
And, finally, I guess, from my perspective, one of the
greatest assets of the PCAST so far is that they've become
engaged, and they are taking--they're really taking action
relative to trying to understand and to do some real assessment
of the NNI. I think that, to me, is one of the most important
aspects of any kind of council or any kind of Committee of this
nature, is that they really do engage with whatever their
charge is. And, so far, PCAST has indicated very good interest
and very good action in tackling the problem.
Senator Wyden. Well, again, I can't say enough good things
about PCAST, generally. This is not what the discussion is
about. But there are 25 people on there, and you mentioned
three who you thought had some involvement in nanotechnology,
and I want to make sure that, on day one----
Dr. Teague. Okay.
Senator Wyden.--we've got everybody with some proven
expertise and a track record in this area, and we're going to
work this out. This is too important, and the bill is too good
to have this be an issue it flounders on. And, by the way, I
agree with your point with respect to technology transfers----
Dr. Teague. Yes.
Senator Wyden.--as well. We're going to hear from another
witness--I noted, Mr. Chairman, we have another private sector
witness who points out something you and I have talked about,
which is that Bayh-Dole has not worked as well as it needs to,
neither for industry, universities, or taxpayers. And the point
that Dr. Teague is making with respect to how important it is
to improve tech transfer is one that I very much share, and
that involves getting the private businesses in early with
their suggestions for how to do it.
A couple of other quick questions, and then I know Senator
Sununu's got a great interest in this, too. I want to let him
get at it.
Gentlemen, how are we doing with respect to the global
competition? Last year, Japan spent $650 million on
nanotechnology research. Europe was at $400 million. A host of
other countries have spent substantial sums. Really the two
areas that I want to touch on--maybe you can talk about them
together--one was, how do we fare with respect to global
competition? And the second is, what needs to be done with our
universities and particularly the multi-disciplinary approach
that's going to be so important. And so perhaps, in the
interest of time, maybe you could take both of those two
together for our other witnesses.
The question, global competition, where we stack up, and
what do we need to be doing with our universities to foster a
multi-disciplinary approach?
Perhaps, you start Dr. Murday.
Dr. Murday. Okay. With respect to the global competition, I
did take a quick look earlier this year at the science
literature. There's about 18,000 articles that came out in
2002, to put some numbers behind your concern. They're roughly
divided; one-third in the Asian theater, one-third in the U.S.,
and one-third in Europe. That says, in terms of quantities, we
are one-third.
Then there is always the concern that maybe the quality--
maybe we're ahead on quality, if not quantity. So I did another
search on some key journals that are considered high-impact
journals and looked at that. And there, if you look at it, the
U.S. has got about 50 percent of the articles. So we're fairing
a little better in the quality war, if you want, but there is a
clear trend for the other nations to be growing. So we're
presently at 50, but that's a diminishing fraction.
So the concern about global competition is a real one, and
one of the aspects that we need to be very careful--as we go in
this process of developing a crisp, compelling strategic plan,
one of the recommendations from the NRC is, part of that has
got to be, how do we incorporate the global perspective and
invest more smartly? We're clearly not going to outspend any
longer, so we have to spend more smartly. And that's part of
what's got to be built into this strategic process.
It's quite clear--you had asked about multi-disciplinary,
and Jim Roberto commented on it, and maybe at this high a scale
essentially all the disciplines sort of blur into one. But it's
important to get these different perspectives, because it's the
boundaries between traditional perspectives where you get the
most frequent and scintillating advances.
Now, there, I believe the U.S. has still got a clear lead,
compared to other nations. Where I would be more concerned in
our university environment, not can we out-compete them in that
aspect of it, but, rather, we're drawing a significant fraction
of our students, our graduate students, from other nations. And
as their research investment goes up, as their capabilities
grow, there will be less likelihood we're going to attract
those students here to the U.S. That means we'd better have our
own pipeline stoked to replace them. And that is a very
daunting challenge for us, and it goes--as we commented in
terms of being able to transfer into technology--this is not
unique to nano--getting American students into science and
engineering is not unique to nano, but maybe nano's enough
interesting, enough scintillating that, you know, we can get
some people really excited about it. I know I am.
Senator Wyden. Well, without letting the hearing divert,
Senator Allen's been very supportive to me on another one of my
crusades, which is getting more women into these fields, and
even looking at Title IX, which many people think is a sports
statute, but was--its origins are really academics, using Title
IX as a lever to do it. So your point about students is a good
one, as well.
Dr. Roberto?
Dr. Roberto. Yes, I think that we are in a tough fight. I
think the kind of investments that you all are talking about
making in the various bills that I talked about in my remarks
are, sort of, what's needed in order to keep us abreast and
moving ahead. I don't think there is a clear leadership in the
world now in this field. I think that the leadership is ours,
in many respects, to win or lose, depending on the kind of
investments that we make as a nation. This is a field that I
think is very important to have leadership, because I think it
is going to be the basis for a new industrial revolution.
With respect to the issue of whether we're going to have
the scientific person-power for the future, I guess I'd like to
add that I go out in the community and give a lot of talks at
schools and in public forums, and often those talks are on
nanotech. And the response that I usually get, whether it's the
third grade or whether it's the grandmother, is, ``Can I come
work for you?'' I mean, they really get excited when we talk
about nanoscience.
And I think that one thing that we could do is, we could
use nanoscience as a way to catalyze interest in our secondary-
school students in science and technology. And I think the
kinds of investments that we're talking about making provide a
path that can then keep them interested in science as they go
through college and graduate school.
So I think there's an opportunity here not only on the
technology-transfer side, but also on the human-capital side.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allen. Thank you. They're very good questions,
Senator Wyden.
At the outset, I was talking about competition, and I guess
the summary is, we're in competition, and we were more
preeminent than we are now.
Again, the issue in the science--and we've run into this in
a lot of areas in technology, in the H1B visas and the issues
associated also in aeronautics--there's a lot of areas where we
do need to somehow motivate and excite more Americans, whether
they're--all genders, all races, all ethnicities, all
Americans, regardless of their background, to get involved in
it.
So thank you all.
I'd like to turn it over to Senator Sununu, who may have
some questions, I suspect.
Senator Allen. Senator Sununu.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased that you're having the hearing. This is
obviously an extraordinary area of investigation and research,
just as evidenced by the amount of resources that have already
been dedicated, at least at the federal level, toward this type
of research across a number of different agencies. I think well
in excess of $500- or $600 million last year, over $800 million
proposed in the President's budget across a good handful of
different research areas. NSF, even the Department of Commerce,
HHS, have their own initiatives investigating opportunities in
nanotechnology. So it's an exciting area. It really does
require some continued support and investment.
I want to begin by talking a little bit about the exchange
between Dr. Teague and Senator Wyden on the advisory group.
But, first, I think it's important to note that--Dr. Teague
mentioned three or four people with some background,
experience, expertise, knowledge about nanotechnology, its
potential applications, even some of the scientific principles,
and I would venture that the list goes even a little deeper
than that. I mean, we have individuals that were former
directors of the National Science Foundation, that were
directors of the Brookhaven and National Laboratories. We
have--Mr. Kvamme, in his role as a venture capitalist, you
know, if he doesn't have experience working with people that
are interested in laying out their own risk capital in areas
involving nanotechnology, then we can certainly find a venture
capitalist that has. But I think that Kleiner Perkins has dealt
with more than one potential application involving
nanotechnology.
So I think there's a wealth of experience and understanding
of how this technology may affect research in scientific
institutions or institutions of learning. You mentioned Georgia
Tech, and another smaller school in Cambridge, I think----
[Laughter.]
Senator Sununu. MIT, that was it.
But this is, from my perspective, very much the kind of
background we would want, for a couple of reasons. One is the
understanding of how this technology can fit into these
different areas--education, research, of course, the business
world, you mentioned Intel, there's a representative from--
who's done some work with IBM, Lockheed--not that these
companies are any more unique than many others, but there's
that private sector perspective, as well.
But if you look at the other side of the coin, I would also
like to have, ultimately, a review board, an advisory board,
that doesn't have an interest that is vested solely in
nanotechnology.
Now, academics are wonderful people, but I'm sure that once
in a while you can find an academic that's a little bit
parochial, you know, that is very particular about funding for
their area of interest. I saw a few of those, you know, as an
undergraduate trying to do research. And they don't necessarily
have the best perspective when it comes to allocating scarce
resources into different areas of interest or research.
The same principles may be at stake in nanotechnology, but,
as was pointed out, some of these fundamental areas of
investigation might affect biotechnology, they might affect
material science, they might affect construction. And I think
it serves us very well to have a slightly broader perspective
on the advisory board.
Naturally, there's also the concern about creating yet
another layer of bureaucracy. There's nothing wrong with
bureaucracy when it's properly utilized, but advisory boards
are--it's the bureaucracy. And the more advisory boards you
have, the more layers of advice and consent and review.
Obviously, that carries with it an expense; not necessarily in
dollars, but in time and certainly in effort of those that are
involved.
And I note, given the background of some of our witnesses
today, we already have a National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office. I think that's important to have an office that's
focused in a professional way on trying to make sure
information is appropriately shared, that there's some
coordination going on. We have the Subcommittee, the NSTC, that
is also fulfilling an important role. And, of course, then we
have PCAST.
I would be very concerned about creating another layer of
bureaucracy and then not taking advantage of a board that
already exists and that I think can lend a great deal of value
and substantive advice when it comes to these issues of
nanotechnology.
A few other concerns that I have, or caveats, and not
specifically with the legislation. Obviously, this is an issue
that the Subcommittee Chairman and the ranking Member are aware
of, and I trust you to work this through, not just here in the
Senate, but with our counterparts in the House, so that we end
up with a structure that works. But I do have a couple of other
concerns where this kind of research is--where we make
investments in this kind of research. And I want to share that
with the panel and with my colleagues here, as well.
I noticed, first, with regard to applications, that we come
to these hearings, and we want to talk about the future and
about the potential growth and economic benefits and returns
and job creation and such. But I always get nervous when I hear
anybody in government talking about doing scientific research
with the express objective of creating a certain number of jobs
or a quantifiable benefit to the economy. Because if you can
tell me what the economic value of your research is, then I'll
ask you to leave the room, and I'll call Mr. Kvamme, because he
can, as well as anyone, evaluate what the net-present value of
that--if you can tell me what the net-present value, the
economic benefit of your research is, he certainly can, and
he'll go out and find somebody to put $1 million or $10 million
or $50 million or whatever the warranted investment is.
I believe, as a society and as a country, we should be
investing in research, because, societally, it creates very
significant benefits. But the kind of research that we should
be investing in is precisely that research for which the time
horizon is so long or the benefits are spread over such a large
number of areas that you cannot quantify the economic benefits.
Physics and chemistry, computational mathematics, obviously the
very areas that I hope the bulk--I would hope that all of our
National Science Foundation funding is being invested in. And
nanotechnology is one such area. You know, nobody knew what a
Bucky ball could be used for when the concept was first
developed and there wasn't a venture capitalist that was
looking at this, you know, wringing their hands and excited
about the prospects.
That's where we should be making investments. So I look at
the list of products that have become available over the last
year or two, and this is certainly interesting, but I guess, in
clearest terms, the caveat is, we should not be making
investments with the specific goal of strengthening our
nation's tennis ball industry or mattress industry or sunscreen
industry or automotive industry. Those are great industries and
great companies that populate them, and I'm pleased that
nanotechnology has provided them with exciting and lasting
benefits to their product-development areas. But that's not why
we invest the money, that's not why we do the research; not for
any specific benefit, but because we know that, in the long-
run, the scope and the breadth of the benefits will be
significant even if we can't quantify them today.
And, finally, with regard to global competition, I think
that the last point that was touched on is an extraordinarily
important one, and that is the strength of our Nation's
education system. And one way to measure that is the number of
advanced degrees in science and mathematics that we're turning
out. And the statistics have probably been touched on in here
before by this Subcommittee, and I won't belabor them. I think
that's extremely important.
But there was another discussion about the global
competition and some interesting statistics given about this.
You could look at patents or papers published or--I like the
quality measurement, too. And I believe that to be absolutely
accurate. But we shouldn't allocate funds to any area of
research just because some other country is doing the same.
Now, if there's significant value, long-term value, societal
value, to the area of research, I'm sure there are many
countries that will be pursuing it. But if just did what all of
our competitors do--in fact, the notion that we should do what
our global competitors are doing is what nearly drove our
Government to invest several billion dollars, maybe $10
billion, in the HDTV market and HDTV technology about, oh, 12
years ago now. We chose not to do that, and that was $10
billion or so that was very, very well spent on other things in
this country.
So, you know, the Japanese, I think, in retrospect, made an
enormous mistake in thinking that they needed to, you know,
make this investment so that they could keep their television
industry healthy. I love the television industry, too. They
make good products, and I've used them from time to time. But
we need to be very careful about just making an investment
because somebody else is putting money in the same area.
So this is a wonderful opportunity. I'm excited that we've
made so much progress over just a few years with the
Nanotechnology Coordination Office, that we have senior Members
of the Senate here that are great advocates for these programs,
with a President who has put in his budget over $800 million,
and I think, with this legislation, as it's developed and as
it's refined, we can be confident that the programs will remain
strong. And I do hope that the money will be put to very good
use.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Allen. Yes, thank you, Senator Sununu.
Senator Wyden?
Senator Wyden. Just so I can make one quick point very
clear, since we're having this discussion, about the advisory
panel. The advisory panel was never, neither as originally
envisioned or today, to be made up solely of academics, and
that's made very clear at page 17 and 18 of the bill, where we
call for those with a reasonable cross-section of views and
expertise and make it clear that recommendations from industry
are invited, which is at the top of page 18. So just since
we're talking about the nature of the advisory--having this
debate, I want to be clear that, as the lead author of this now
for two sessions of Congress, with the help of Chairman Allen,
it has never been my desire to just go off and bring together a
handful of academics and to have them go sit in a corner, but
to make sure that we are getting the cross-section of views
that I think's important to develop this, and that's outlined
on page 17 and 18 of the bill.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
As a practical matter, it's going to be PCAST anyway, who
we're seeming to evolve to in that respect.
I want to thank all our doctors. Thank you so much for your
expert advice, your enthusiasm, and your leadership in this
area in a variety of ways. You're articulate, you're smart, and
I also like the fact that you're competitive and recognize that
it's just basic market forces and issues that none of us in
government can solve, nor should we, but make sure that those
creative, innovative ideas can start improving our lives,
whether it's in health care, materials sciences, energy, or a
variety of other ways.
So, again, thank you all so much for your testimony and
answering our questions.
I'd like to have our second panel please come forward.
Thank you, Doctors.
I want to thank our second panel for joining us today. We
look forward to your testimony. I'll make a brief introduction
of each of our witnesses on the second panel.
First, Dr. Davis Baird, who's a professor and chair of the
Department of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina, a
fine institution. My wife is a graduate of the University of
South Carolina, the real USC.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. And Dr. Baird is now leading a National
Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary team of Researchers
from 10 Departments in 6 colleges at USC and is working in
cooperation with USC's Nanocenter on the societal implications
of nanotechnology. One of the concerns are that a lot of the
limits we have here are simply in our imagination, but ethical
limits and values still do apply; legal, as well. And so we
look forward to hearing from you.
And then we have Dr. Jun Jiao--am I saying it close enough?
Dr. Jiao. Yes.
Senator Allen. Senator Wyden got to meet Dr. Jiao just
before the meeting, and she's a wonderful doctor and person.
She's co-director of the Center of Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology and a professor of physics at Portland State
University. Dr. Jiao's principal research interests concern
nanoscale materials and the application of analytical
techniques of electron----
Dr. Jiao. Microscopy.
Senator Allen.--microscopy, thank you. These are not words
we normally use, but I guess we will as we become more
familiar.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. In the last 10 years, Dr. Jiao has proposed
and conducted several studies on the preparation and properties
of carbon-related nanometer-scale materials, including carbon
nanotubes, which we heard about earlier, and carbon-coated
magnetic nanoparticles.
Next, we have Dr. Kent Murphy, who is the founder and
president of Luna Innovations. Luna Innovations is located in
Blacksburg, Virginia. They have over 180 employees working in
the technology sector in biotechnology, nanomaterials, optical-
fiber telecommunications and instrumentation, and control and
predictive-based maintenance, as well as other key technologies
of the future.
Thank you for being with us, Dr. Murphy.
And, finally, James Von Ehr II, is the founder and Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of Zyvex Corporation, which I've
had the invigorating pleasure of visiting. As we were talking
about where employees are coming from and where the talent is,
I did observe that I think you had employees that must have
been--you might not have had anybody from Australia, but you
certainly had them from every continent of the world, as it
seemed. You may have had an Australian in the midst. No
Australian, all right, every continent except Australia.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Von Ehr. We have a New Zealander on our advisory board.
Senator Allen. New Zealander, close.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. Well, I will say Mr. Von Ehr is also the
founder of the Texas Nanotechnology Initiative, a nonprofit
organization dedicated to establishing Texas as a world leader
in the discoveries, development, and commercialization of
nanotechnology. Mr. Von Ehr is also co-founder of the Feynman
Grant Prize, a $250,000 prize for a particular embodiment of
nanotechnology.
I welcome all these esteemed witnesses, and we look forward
to hearing your testimony this afternoon.
If you'll please proceed, we'll start with you, Dr. Baird.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVIS BAIRD, PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT
OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dr. Baird. Well, thank you, Chairman Allen, Senator Wyden.
I wish to thank you both, and the Committee, for inviting me to
testify about the need for social and ethical dimensions
research on nanotechnology.
At the University of South Carolina, I'm leading a broadly
interdisciplinary team of researchers working in cooperation
with the Nanocenter. Our mission is to examine the societal
implications of nanotechnology. It's a topic I feel strongly
about, and I'm happy to speak to you about it here.
And this is my primary point. It's essential that research
into the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology be
undertaken. It's essential because nanotechnology presents
itself as a transformative discipline. So these are the words
of the 2002 National Nanotechnology Initiative Report, and I
quote, ``The impact of nanotechnology on the health, wealth,
and lives of people could be at least as significant as the
combined influences of microelectronics, medical imaging,
computer-aided engineering, manmade polymers developed in the
century just past.'' We would be foolish not to investigate the
human implications of such a fundamental technology.
Research into the societal and ethical implications is
essential also because of the nano size that we're dealing
with. Immediately, privacy issues come to mind, but there are
also important issues concerning toxicity, about environmental
uses and abuses of nanotechnology. Possible military uses of
nanotechnology raise concerns.
Beyond these concerns about specific nano-size products, we
need to think carefully about how nanotechnology is framed. Ray
Kurzweil, in testimony to the House on their version of this
bill, about, oh, a few weeks ago, spoke of conquering aging.
Were we to do so, it would be a societal nuclear bomb, and we
need to think this through.
Ideas about nanotechnology come to the public through two
main avenues, science fiction--Michael Crichton's ``Prey,'' for
instance--and what I call ``science faction,'' meaning more
than fiction, but less than fact--for instance, Bill Joy's
``Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.'' If we're not careful, we'll
have a real political football on our hands. Already, we can
see resistance building.
For all of these reasons, I think it's imperative that we
undertake research under the societal and ethical dimensions of
nanotechnology.
Targeted funding is necessary here. Funds for research into
the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology need to
be targeted to those with the expertise, training, and interest
to focus on these issues. If they're not, the funds will be
gobbled up, reasonably enough, by hungry scientists and
engineers. This much has been said by the recent National
Research Council's 2002 Review of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, the ``Small Wonders'' book that's been referred to.
A center for research is necessary. In order for the
promise of the work on societal and ethical implications of
nanotechnology to have a significant impact, the work needs to
be concentrated in one or, preferably, more than one center.
There are numerous science and technology centers, a veritable
juggernaut. Such centralization is needed for the societal and
ethical voice to be heard above the roar of the scientific and
technological excitement. In addition, a center can help
coordinate and assess the various approaches to these problems
that we attempt. So I was pleased, and I underline that Section
4 (c)(5) of the bill you're considering, S. 189, is very
important.
Interdisciplinary research is necessary. The research must
be done in a broadly interdisciplinary way. We need to draw on
the full spectrum of voices--the humanities, arts, social
sciences, the legal and medical professions, and, of course,
the scientists and engineers.
Productive work on societal implications needs to be
engaged with the research from the start. Ethicists need to go
into the lab to see what's possible. Scientists and engineers
need to engage with humanists to start thinking about this
aspect of their work. Students need training now that will take
their understanding of nanotechnology from laboratory to
society. These students today, trained in the right
interdisciplinary setting, will become a cadre of scientists,
engineers, and scholars used to working together, thinking
about the societal and technical problems side by side. Only
thus, working together in dialogue, will we make genuine
progress on the societal and ethical issues that nanotechnology
poses.
We have a real opportunity here. Instead of calling on
ethicists to patch things up as best they can after the fact,
if we start now, bringing social scientists, humanists, legal
and professional scholars to the table, our understanding of
the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology can co-
evolve with the technology itself. This will make for better,
more socially responsive work in nanotechnology and for few
problems to patch up later on. Nanotechnology can avoid the
fate, most recently, of the genetically modified organisms.
Thank you for considering my testimony. In my written
comments, I map out, in somewhat more detail, the kind of
interactive interdisciplinary model that we're building here at
USC. I should also note similar work being done at the
University of Virginia. But it's a big country and there's lots
to do. And I welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Davis Baird, Professor and Chair, Department
of Philosophy, University of South Carolina
I wish to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify about the
need for research on the social and ethical dimensions of
nanotechnology. At the University of South Carolina I am leading a
broadly interdisciplinary team of researchers working in cooperation
with the USC NanoCenter. Our mission is to examine the societal
implications of nanotechnology. It is a topic I feel strongly about,
and I am happy to speak to you about it.
I have one primary point, and three follow-up clarifications.
Primary point: It is essential that research into the societal and
ethical dimensions of nanotechnology be undertaken.
Targeted Funding Necessary: Adequate funding for this research must
be specifically targeted for investigating nanotechnology`s societal
and ethical dimensions.
Center for Research Necessary: It would be more productive for some
of the research to be concentrated in one--or preferably more--centers.
Interdisciplinary Approach Necessary: This research should be
conducted in a broadly interdisciplinary way that includes humanists,
social scientists legal and medical professionals and nano scientists
and engineers.
Primary point: Research into the societal and ethical dimensions of
nanotechnology is essential for many reasons:
(1) Nanotechnology presents itself as a fundamentally
transformative technology, with changes promised in nearly every
important sector of human endeavor. According to the 2002 report of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative: ``The impact of nanotechnology on
the health, wealth, and lives of people could be at least as
significant as the combined influences of microelectronics, medical
imaging, computer-aided engineering, and man-made polymers developed in
the century just past.'' \1\ We would be very foolish not to research
carefully the potential societal and ethical consequences of
nanotechnology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Science and Technology Council 2002, National
Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan.
http://www.nano.gov/nni2.pdf, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) In virtue of its defining characteristic--nano size--
nanotechnology immediately raises several social and ethical concerns.
Privacy comes quickly to mind, but also the human and environmental
toxicity of manufactured nanoparticles. Nanotechnology will be
important for other environmental issues including waste disposal and
the remediation of natural sites. Potential military uses of
nanotechnology raise concerns.
(3) Beyond concerns about such concrete products of nanotechnology,
we need to consider how the goals of different segments of society for
the use of nanotechnology are framed. In oral testimony to the House of
Representatives Ray Kurzweil said, ``Nanotechnology and related
advanced technologies of the 2020s will bring us the opportunity to
overcome age-old problems, including pollution, poverty, disease, and
aging.'' \2\ Problem or not, ``overcoming'' aging would be a societal
nuclear bomb. Such goals need careful reflection, not ``damn the
torpedoes, full steam ahead'' technical pursuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Hearing, April
9, 2003, on H.R. 766, ``The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
of 2003,'' (the House version of S. 189). The quoted material is from
the transcript p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Information about nanotechnology is coming to the public
through two main avenues science fiction--Michael Crichton's Prey--and,
what I call ``science faction'' (more than fiction, less than fact)--
Bill Joy's ``The Future Doesn't Need Us.'' Without some serious
reflection on the genuine opportunities and risks posed by
nanotechnology, this field could very easily become a political
football. Already one can see resistance building in, for example, the
efforts of the ETC group.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ An April 14, 2003 news release from the Action Group on
Erosion, Technology and Concentration [ETC Group]: ``Size Matters: New
Information Provides More Evidence for Mandatory Moratorium on
Synthetic Nanoparticles,'' available for download at http://
www.etcgroup.org/search.asp?theme=11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all these reasons, and others as well, it is imperative that we
undertake research on the societal and ethical dimensions of
nanotechnology.
Targeted Funding Necessary: Funding for this research needs to be
specifically targeted to societal and ethical work. When this doesn't
happen hungry scientists and engineers--reasonably and appropriately
enough--gobble up all the funds. They may add some words to a largely
scientific or engineering grant application that suggest an interest in
societal implications, but if the work is not organized and led by
those for whom societal and ethical concerns are the focus, the words
will only be window dressing. This much has been reported in the
National Research Council's 2002 review of the NNI.\4\ Philosophers,
ethicists and social scientists are trained--variously in different
ways--to think through ethical and social issues. Furthermore, they are
well situated to mediate between the scientists and engineers working
on nanotechnology and the broader public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the National Research Council's words: ``There appear to be
a number of reasons for the lack of activity in this [societal and
ethical] area. First and foremost, while a portion of the NNI support
was allocated to the various traditional disciplinary directorates, no
funding was allocated directly to the Directorate of Social and
Behavioral and Economic Sciences, the most capable and logical
directorate to lead these efforts. As a consequence, social science
work on societal implications could be funded in one of two ways: (1)
it could compete directly for funding with physical science and
engineering projects through a solicitation that was primarily targeted
at that audience or (2) it could be integrated within a nanoscience and
engineering center.
There are a number of reasons both funding strategies failed to
promote a strong response from the social science community. First,
given the differences in goals, knowledge bases, and methodologies, it
was probably very difficult for social science group and individual
proposals to compete with nanoscience and engineering projects in the
NIRT and NER competitions. (Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2002, p. 34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Research Necessary: In order for research on the
societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology to have significant
impact, some of this research needs to be concentrated in a center--or
better several centers. Already there are numerous well-funded state
and university centers for the pursuit of the scientific and technical
challenges posed by the nanoscale. NSF has funded six nanoscale science
and engineering centers [NSECs]. Similar centers have been funded by
NASA, DOE and DOD. There is a scientific and engineering juggernaut
here, and some concentration will be necessary for the societal and
ethical dimensions voice to be heard. Section 4 (c)(5) of the bill you
are considering, S. 189, is important.
Interdisciplinary Approach Necessary: Investigations into the
ethical and societal implications of nanotechnology must be done in an
interdisciplinary collaborative way, drawing into dialog the full
spectrum of perspectives on this work--the humanities, arts, social
sciences, the professions and, of course, the various scientific and
engineering disciplines that are jointly pursuing nanoscale research.
Productive and useful social and ethical considerations of
nanotechnology cannot occur outside the research and development
itself. We will be much better off integrating such concerns into the
research from the ground up. To do this we need to establish channels
of communication between and among the various stakeholders in
nanotechnology. We need to bring humanists and social scientists into
the lab so they can begin to grasp what is genuinely possible at the
nanoscale, and then it will be possible for the scientists and
engineers to hear and to begin to engage social and ethical concerns.
Students, who will be developing the nanotechnology for the next
generation need to be broadly educated now in the whole picture of
nanotechnology, laboratory to society. None of these groups has a
monopoly on what is right and true, and only through careful open
dialog can we hope to make meaningful progress reconciling different
viewpoints and building societal and ethical concerns in at the
beginning.
Let me close by saying we have a real positive opportunity here. In
contrast to the typical case where ethical and social consequences are
dealt with after the fact, patching up problems as best as we can, in
this case research into the social and ethical dimensions of
nanotechnology can co-evolve with the technology itself. This will make
for better, more socially responsive work in nanotechnology and for
fewer problems to patch up. Nanotechnology can avoid the fate of
genetically modified organisms.
Thank you for considering my testimony. In my written comments I
sketch out in somewhat more detail the kind of interactive
interdisciplinary model I have in mind. I would be happy to entertain
any questions you may have.
Appendix 1: USC NIRT ``From Laboratory to Society: Developing an
Informed Approach to Nanoscale Science and Technology'' as a Model for
Developing a Center of Ethical and Societal Implications of
Nanotechnology
1. Background
On June 15, 2001 the NanoCenter at the University of South Carolina
was founded. But the pursuit of nanoscale research here--and
elsewhere--takes on a particular intellectual risk. Gary Stix
characterizes it in a recent issue of Scientific American: ``Any
advanced research carries inherent risks. But nanotechnology bears a
special burden. The field's bid for respectability is colored by the
association of the word with a cabal of futurists who foresee nano as a
pathway to a technical utopia: unparalled prosperity, pollution-free
industry, even something resembling eternal life.'' Caught between
nano-visionaries and nano-skeptics, ``the nanotech field struggles for
cohesion'' and a clear definition. Even serious publications and
reports about the totally new promise of research at the nanoscale echo
many of the nano-visionaries' predictions. Though they indirectly
profit from, and are to some extent inspired by the ``hype''
surrounding nanotechnology, the serious scientists at USC need to
distance themselves from such overreaching claims. They need to do so
not only for reasons of intellectual honesty, but also because
overstated technological promise has a flipside: It can easily engender
irrational fears that undermine public acceptance. The field's bid for
respectability therefore concerns not only its standing in the larger
scientific community but also its perception by those who shape public
understanding of science and technology.
In July 2001, a number of humanities scholars at the University of
South Carolina formed a Working Group for the Study of the Philosophy
and Ethics of Complexity and Scale [SPECS]. Their goal is to develop a
scientifically, philosophically and ethically informed understanding of
the critical developments of the sciences and technologies that are set
to define and transform the 21st century: nanoscience and
nanotechnology, robotics, genetic engineering, earth systems science,
the study of complex and autocatalytic systems. One of the group's
first topics for discussion was Bill Joy's ``Why the Future Doesn't
Need Us.'' Joy moves far too hastily from contentious predictions to a
sweeping call for a moratorium on many kinds of basic research.
Nonetheless, his dystopian vision should stimulate careful scrutiny of
how basic research takes shape in the wider context of the university,
the economy, and contemporary culture. This is SPECS's task. A search
of databases in the history and philosophy of science and technology
revealed that nanoscale science and technology had received only
limited attention. This also held in the area of legal studies. The
March 2001 NSF report, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology, produced a template for discussion but left particular
investigations for the future. SPECS was therefore the first
university-based interdisciplinary initiative to bring close scrutiny
to this new area of science and technology. In August 2001 SPECS
received seed funding from USC's Office of Research for AY 2001/02. By
December 2001 SPECS had consolidated as a Nanoscale Interdisciplinary
Research Team, and had submitted an application to NSF for a NIRT
grant. Our NIRT grant was partially funded for 2002/03, and we were
encouraged to reapply in 2002 for a full four-year award, which we did
with a research proposal entitled ``From Laboratory to Society:
Developing an Informed Approach to Nanoscale Science and Technology.''
The final decision is still pending, but we are optimistic that our
project will be recommended for an award.
In the following I provide an outline of our research fields as
well the infrastructure that we use to perform research in a truly
interdisciplinary manner, with currently 17 faculty members from 10
departments involved. I suggest that this might be taken as the
beginning structure of a model for a Center of Ethical and Societal
Implications of Nanotechnology.
2. Research Fields
Our interdisciplinary research team is divided into four smaller
sub-teams, each devoted to a specific Task Area of research. These Task
Areas are structured to focus attention on how our understanding and
control of nanotechnology moves from the laboratory to society. Before
we debate the ethics of ``assemblers,'' for example, we should be clear
just how understanding and control is achieved at the level of basic
research, and then how this hard-won mastery can structure and inform a
broader public and political understanding and control of
nanotechnology. Three kinds of collaboration result from the manner in
which we have structured these research Task Areas: (1) collaborations
among the members of each Task Area as they prepare joint seminar
presentations, workshops, publications; (2) collaborations between
these sub-teams and members of USC's NanoCenter; and (3) the
collaboration among the participants of all four Task Areas as the
results of various researches are brought together and presented for
general discussion. Underlying the research in all of these Task Areas
is an interest in working out a shared language, a joint appreciation
of the scientific and cultural/societal issues involved, and a desire
to articulate the background assumptions and models used to address
these issues.
Task Area 1: Ideas of Stability and Control in the Theory and Practice
of Nanoscale Research
Otavio Bueno (Philosophy, USC) joins Davis Baird (Philosophy, USC)
and R.I.G. Hughes (Philosophy, USC), who continue here an earlier
collaboration. They undertake a systematic philosophical examination of
nanoscale research. To this end, the projects in this task area examine
nanoscience from three different philosophical perspectives. Two
projects provide complementary analyses of nanoscale research as it is
currently practiced. Baird examines the instruments that allow
nanoscience to exist, and Hughes the theoretical tools that the science
employs. What Ian Hacking said about science in general applies also to
nanoscience in particular: ``In nature there is just complexity, which
we are remarkably able to analyze. We do so by distinguishing, in the
mind, numerous different laws. We also do so by presenting, in the
laboratory, pure, isolated phenomena.'' In other words, as the sciences
mature, theory and instrumentation work together to produce stable
facts and a stable grasp of the facts. Stable facts trump fantastic
visions and defeat skeptical doubts. In their collaboration (which
involves close interaction with the scientists at USC's NanoCenter)
Baird and Hughes explore the various ways in which nanoscale research
can itself become the inherent source of stability and trust. In
contrast, Bueno's project deals with one of the forerunners of
nanoscience, John Von Neumann. Not only does it add a historical
dimension to our understanding, but it also provides an exploration of
the limits of physical and mathematical possibility within
nanotechnology.
The members of task areas engage in a close collaboration with
Alfred Nordmann and his collaborators at the Technical University of
Darmstadt, Germany. Together they produce a monograph on ``The
Philosophy of Nanoscience.'' This includes chapters on (1) nanoscale
research between science and technology, (2) the role of
instrumentation in the development of nanoscale research, (3)
experimental and technological control of interventions at the
nanoscale, (4) historiography and the self-definition of the nanoscale
research community, and (5) disciplinary issues of nanoscience. This
collaboration furthers the establishment of the Center for the
Philosophy and Ethics of Complexity and Scale [CPECS] at the University
of South Carolina and a corresponding program on the Philosophy and
History of the Technosciences at the Technical University of Darmstadt.
The long-term interdisciplinary collaboration between these two Centers
serves researchers and students alike.
(1) Extending Eyes and Hands to the Nanoscale: Bringing previous
experience developing a philosophy of scientific instruments, Davis
Baird (Philosophy, USC) here focuses on the instruments used in
nanoscience, in particular on the scanning tunneling and atomic force
microscopes [STM and AFM]. These instruments establish a central node
in a network of relations between scientists and engineers from various
disciplines. USC's NanoCenter represents one such network, but the USC
Electron Microscopy Lab represents a different node. Baird investigates
how data are produced in these overlapping networks and how data are
then differently interpreted in their various ``home disciplines.'' To
borrow a metaphor from Peter Galison, data move in and out of ``trading
zones,'' they are framed differently by people working in different
institutional and disciplinary contexts. But the instabilities produced
by these differences are counterbalanced by the stability of the
phenomena observed and produced by these instruments. Baird is pursuing
three specific areas of research. (1) According to a widely reported
``standard story,'' nanoscience has been propelled by improvements in
microscope technology, in which early electron microscopes were
supplanted by STM and AFM. This story is examined to see if it is
accurate and, if not, why it remains so compelling. (2) How has the
commercialization of the STM and the AFM impacted their development?
(3) The relation between two different kinds of imaging used in
nanoscience--electron microscopy and probe microscopy--is explored. One
is analogous to seeing, the other analogous to feeling--though even in
the latter case the data obtained is made to yield a visual
representation (see also Task Area 2).
(2) The Disciplinary Reconfiguration of Nanoscience: Having
recently finished a manuscript on theoretical practice in science,
R.I.G. Hughes (Philosophy, USC) adopts a complementary approach.
Instead of focusing on instrumentation and experimentation, he
considers how theoretical representations are reconfigured in the newly
emerging ``trading zone'' of nanoscale science and engineering.
Theoretical practice at the nanoscale uses a great diversity of
theoretical tools. The NSF description of them lists ``techniques such
as quantum mechanics and quantum chemistry, multi-particle simulation,
molecular simulation, grain and continuum-based models, stochastic
methods, and nano-mechanics,'' and there is no reason to think that
this list is exhaustive. Investigators study: (1) the tasks that these
various tools perform, and the sub-disciplines within nanoscience that
employ them; (2) the extent to which different theoretical approaches
are integrated, and the problems that can make such integration
difficult; (3) the interaction between theoretical and experiment work;
and (4) the narratives that nanoscientists employ, and which make
interdisciplinary communication possible. Additionally, (5), the topic
of theoretical representation provides a bridge to Task Area 2.
(3) Precursors to Nanotechnology, Feynman and Von Neumann: Otavio
Bueno (Philosophy, USC) focuses on the forerunners and immediate
antecedents of nanoscale research. He is investigating the limits of
both physical possibility and mathematical possibility in this domain,
examining how the interaction between what is physically and
mathematically possible has shaped the constitution of nanoscale
phenomena. In ``There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom,'' Richard Feynman
outlined a vision for the development of nanoscience, advancing for the
first time the idea that it should be possible to build objects atom-
by-atom. Not surprisingly, the nanoscience community has taken this
work as a founding document. In it Feynman was concerned with what it
was physically possible to do at the nanoscale, and he outlined the
benefits that should be expected from such a research. In contrast, in
a series of seminal papers on the theory of automata, John Von Neumann
explored what was mathematically and logically possible--but also what
was mathematically impossible--to do in the process of building
reliable organisms from unreliable components. Although there has been
a considerable amount of research on Feynman's contribution, especially
by those in the nanoscience community, Von Neumann's work has received
significantly less attention. A focus on Von Neumann's contribution
sheds light on nanoscience in two ways. (1) It provides a better
understanding of the emergence of the theory of automata and self-
reproduction, and in this respect, Bueno's work connects with the work
undertaken in Task Area 3. (2) It allows a new perspective on the role
played by this theory in the constitution of the field.
Task Area 2: Imaging and Imagining the Nanoscale: From Atomic Force
Microscopic Topographies to Science Fiction Utopias and
Dystopias
Task Area 2 aims at developing a comprehensive understanding of how
images and imaginings of the nanoscale work, and how they might work
better. How we see the nanoscale, both with our (aided) eyes and in our
mind's eye, has a powerful impact both on the science and technology of
the nanoscale and on the public reception to nanoscale research and its
fruits. Indeed, it is widely argued that the development of our ability
to produce images of nanoscale objects has been the sine qua non of any
serious understanding and control of the nanoscale. The concerns of
Task Area 2 thus reflect back on those of Task Area 1. But our ability
to image and imagine the nanoscale drives more widely held popular
understandings--and misunderstandings--of the nanoscale, and it is here
that debate over the societal impact of technology takes place. For
this reason Task Area 2 concerns also reflect forward to the concerns
of Task Areas 3 and 4. It is through the images and imaginings of the
nanoscale that understanding and control of the nanoscale moves from
the laboratory to society.
The issues raised in Task Area 2 do not fit any single discipline,
and our approach to these issues is multi-disciplinary and
collaborative. Five team members work in Task Area 2, two philosophers,
Davis Baird and Ot vio Bueno (both Philosophy, USC), an engineer,
Richard Ray (Civil Engineering, USC), an expert on science fiction,
Steven Lynn (English, USC) and a conceptual artist, Chris Robinson
(Art, USC). Together they examine the variety of ways we image and
imagine the nanoscale. They approach the concerns that Task Area 2
embraces in four areas of study.
(1) A Taxonomy of Kinds of Representation of the Nanoscale: The
first area of study, fundamental to the rest, aims at articulating the
nature and domain of application of the various different kinds of
representation of the nanoscale. Furthermore, it aims to identify the
gaps that exist between the different levels of representation:
Quantum mechanical representations of individual atoms;
Molecular models (of various sorts);
STM/AFM/EM images of nanoscale material;
Scientific representations of bulk matter;
Nano-visionary designs (e.g., for ``molecular
assemblers'');
Artist renderings of the nanoscale;
Science fiction that uses textual descriptions of the
nanoscale;
Creative works of art inspired by the nanoscale.
These different ways of representing the nanoscale differ from one
another, both logically and rhetorically, and these differences need to
be articulated. Only then can we begin to appreciate how different ways
of representing the nanoscale should be used in the various contexts in
which they are needed, how, for example, an image of the nanoscale
developed for one context may be misleading or ineffective in another
context.
Work at this first stage, crossing as it does from largely
technical issues--about quantum mechanical and molecular models of
atoms--to largely cultural issues--about science fiction and visual
art--involves a collaboration of all Task Area members. Bueno brings a
background in the philosophy of physics to bear on quantum mechanical
and molecular models of atoms. Baird brings a background in the
philosophical study of scientific instrumentation to bear on the STM/
AFM/EM images of the nanoscale. Ray, with a background in computer-
aided design for structures, joins Baird and Bueno to examine how
scientific representations of bulk material can work with nano-
visionary designs. Robinson, with a background as a creative artist,
and Lynn, with a background in the study of science fiction, contribute
an understanding of how these more popular genres draw from and
contribute to the scientific and technological images, and how the more
popular understanding of the nanoscale is thereby established.
(2) Better Images: The second area of study aims at improving
images of the nanoscale. The images that we use to ``see'' the
nanoscale are produced using a variety of different technologies.
Sometimes the same image combines data from (e.g.) atomic force
microscopy, quantum molecular simulations and artist's renderings.
These different visual techniques work differently, and these
differences need to be appreciated, and ultimately deployed to make
better images. Drawing on the work done at the first stage, our team
works with scientists and science journalists to develop better images,
images that communicate without misleading, and that can do so while
moving from one context of use to another. Robinson leads work on this
stage, bringing his expertise as a visual and conceptual artist to bear
on developing better ways to use the visual medium to communicate
ideas.
(3) Scaling Up, Images Crossing from the Nanoscale to the
Macroscale: The third area of study examines, first, the gap between
the possible manipulation of matter atom-by-atom as it is painstakingly
done in the laboratory and as it is rather more easily imagined by
nano-visionaries, and, second, the unavoidable engineering difficulties
that scaling up to humanly useful dimensions encounters. Here we
confront the differences between representations that work in the
laboratory and those that work for manufacturing. Ray, with his
expertise in computer-aided design for structures, leads work on this
stage.
(4) The Nanoscale in Art: The fourth area of study both examines
and produces art inspired by the nanoscale. Lynn, with a background in
the study of science fiction, examines the history of the incorporation
of nanotechnology into science fiction, and relates this history both
to simultaneous developments in scientific research at the nanoscale
and to cultural aspirations for and concerns with this research.
Robinson creates and exhibits visual artworks inspired by his
encounters with the research done by members of USC's NanoCenter. This
work is open for public viewing, and serves to provoke its viewers to
think about how nanotechnology will impact their lives and society.
Task Area 3: Problems of Self-replication, Risk, and Cascading Effects
in Nanotechnology: Analogies between Biological Systems and
Nanoengineering
Another area of collaboration, involves Robert Best (School of
Medicine, USC), George Khushf (Philosophy & Center for Bioethics, USC),
Loren Knapp (Biological Sciences, USC), and Walter Piegorsch
(Statistics, USC), and explores the models and cultures that inform
risk assessment of nanotechnology. In both the visionary and dystopian
literature are arguments that nanotechnology, genetics, and robotics,
when taken together, involve new ethical issues, qualitatively
different in scope and character from those associated with previous
technologies. The visionaries highlight the potential and promise, and
suggest there is an ethical obligation to accelerate development. The
anti-utopians argue for a moratorium, fearing a ``brave new world.'' At
the heart of the more negative assessment is the assumption that these
technologies can produce ``cascading effects,'' which have the
potential to alter the environment on a massive and unprecedented
scale. The fear is that a new technology such as nanotechnology will
introduce a precursor stimulus or hazard, which will lead to other more
substantive hazards, and thence to detrimental hazards, catastrophic
hazards, on and on. In ``Why the Future Doesn't Need Us,'' Bill Joy
speaks for all those who are worried that we will always be one step
behind in our capacity to respond.
In order to properly put these concerns into perspective, Task Area
3 team members engage with team members working in Task Areas 1 and 2.
Our ability to produce new nanoscale phenomena in the laboratory may
unleash a cascade of irreversible hazards that spiral out of control.
Task Area 1 considers how stable phenomena and a stable understanding
of the phenomena might serve as a deterrent to such risks. Task Area 2
considers how our abilities to image and imagine the nanoscale provide
the tools to consider these risks. Members of Task Area 3 take these
considerations further to consider the management of risk in three
clusters of investigation.
(1) Models of self-replication and self-regulation: Most important
is the need to articulate the range of meanings encompassed by self-
replication and self-regulation, from a simpler, bench-oriented model
to the vision associated with assemblers, and everything in between.
Nanoscientists have already developed a variety of new materials that
show promise for nano-engineered products--nanotubes, electrically
conducting compounds, quantum dots, etc. Now, they need ways to
organize these materials into larger structures that might be useful to
society. In order to do this, they have focused upon mechanisms of
replication and the regulation of these mechanisms. But, as the
complexity of a self-replicating process increases, the possibility of
an undesirable medical or environmental outcome seems likely to
increase as well, and there are additional concerns about potential
mutations of the original process. In order to help anticipate and
prepare for such possibilities, Task Area 3 team members seek to
identify the multiple models and meanings of self-replication and self-
regulation, ranging from current techniques (e.g., for growing
nanotubes) to universal assemblers. In between, we consider
possibilities on the near horizon (e.g., the use of viruses to engineer
at the nanoscale) and the more distant horizon (e.g., limited
assemblers, the stated goal of the company Zyvex).
Task Area 3 members approach this work by drawing on analogies
between these engineered mechanisms and those found in natural
biological systems. In order to appreciate the challenges involved in
designing and manufacturing nano-structures capable of self-replication
and correction without loss of control, they examine the properties of
natural self-replicating systems. What methods does nature use for
self-replication? Will nanotechnologies resemble genetic systems in
such a way that an understanding of the natural principles governing
the latter might guide the development and application of the former in
safe and controllable ways? In what ways will they differ? Armed with
this understanding we will be able to explore the philosophical and
ethical implications of aspects of self-regulation.
(2) Taxonomy of Risk Assessments for Nanotechnology: Scientists
know that complex, non-linear, self-replicating systems can produce
unanticipated medical and/or environmental harm. In some cases
statisticians can quantify risks associated with such systems, but in
many other cases the uncertainty is too great, and the best that can be
done is to provide a less precise qualitative analysis. Along these
lines, Task Area 3 team members develop a taxonomy of the kinds of risk
assessment that could be used in ethical debates on nanotechnology.
They do so in the following manner.
First, they identify risk paradigms for possible medical and
environmental outcomes (e.g., the way a new virus can pose a public
health risk). Then they consider whether the associated risks could
have been anticipated and quantified in a risk analysis. They examine
cases where established methods of quantifying risk worked well and
cases where the outcomes could not have been anticipated and
quantified. Next they draw on their earlier work, developing the
analogy between engineered and natural nanosystems, and they extend
this analysis to consider the possibilities of quantifying risks
associated with the types of self-replicating, artificially engineered
nanosystems identified earlier. The goal is to identify and structure
the variety of cases posed by nanotechnology in terms of the degree to
which the risks can or cannot be quantified. Finally, within this
structure they consider how such risks can and should be incorporated
into ethical analysis and communicated to the public.
(3) The literature and culture informing ethical analysis of
nanotechnology: There are several new areas of research that involve
significant challenges to our understanding of ourselves and our
prospects in the world. These include, (1) robotics/cybernetics, (2)
genetics, and (3) nanotechnology. In most of this literature, these
three technologies are considered in isolation. However, some of the
most troubling ethical issues occur where all three technologies
intersect. Task Area 3 members explore analogies, similarities, and
differences between the ethical discussions in each of these areas and
then consider how their combination could raise issues that have been
insufficiently considered when viewed in isolation. The focus here is
not only on the substance of the issues, but also on the climate and
culture that frames the way the issues are addressed and resolved.
All phases of work in Task Area 3 is fully collaborative, bringing
together the science (Best and Knapp), probability theory (Piegorsch),
and the philosophy/ethics (Khushf). Best is trained as a toxicologist,
with research in environmental hazards and genetics; he currently
directs USC's program in clinical genetics. Knapp is a developmental
and evolutionary biologist. Together with faculty in the USC
NanoCenter, they identify the paradigm medical/environmental cases,
explore the analogies between natural and artificial nanosystems, and
provide the scientific expertise to assure that the statistical and
ethical analysis is appropriately scientifically informed. Piegorsch
has extensive practical experience in quantitative risk analysis,
including work in environmental hazards and toxicology. He directs the
development of taxonomies of risk, assessing the degrees to which
quantification is possible. Khushf guides the review of the literatures
and cultures informing ethical analysis of nanotechnology, exploring
the ways risk analysis is integrated into ethical and policy debate,
and addressing the conceptual and philosophical issues of complexity,
scale, and self-replication.
Task Area 4: Moving Nanotechnology into the Public Sphere
At the end of the day, all the advances in our understanding of
nanotechnology that work in Task Areas 1-3 provide are of little value
if they are not integrated into the public, political and legal
discussions of nanotechnology. Task Area 4 is concerned both with
developing models for how to accomplish this, and with bringing the
insights from all Task Areas to the public sphere, drawing on the
collaborative infrastructure established by our project (see below). In
this way Task Area 4 ties together all of the separate strands of work
that make the project a conceptual whole.
The first stage of this work is itself conceptual. Each of the five
members of Task Area 4 considers how nanotechnology might best be
brought to the public. Each of them comes at this issue from a
different point of view, and as their collaboration develops over the
course of the project, these differences inform each other, as together
they model the various ways nanotechnology can be taken up by the
public sphere.
(1) Rhetorical Analysis: David Berube (English, USC) focuses on the
analysis of the structure of discourse about nanotechnology. He brings
an extensive background in debate and a long-running interest in the
visionary rhetoric found in some work on nanotechnology. He pursues two
projects. The first, building on earlier work, is an analysis of the
rhetorical place of nanovisionary contributions, mostly that of Eric
Drexler and the Foresight Institute, in the development of
nanotechnology. The second is an empirical study of how the inclusion
into USC's NanoCenter of scholars with a primary focus on the
philosophical and societal impact of nanotechnology--the members of our
team--alter the structure of discussions at the NanoCenter. This work
is pursued in a process of cooperative inquiry aimed at uncovering the
dynamics of an organizational culture that facilitate or impede
communication across disciplines, and it starts with the assumption
that communication between members of the NanoCenter changes when the
members our team are part of the mix. The procedure begins with a
Likert scale (e.g., 1. Agree; 2. Somewhat Agree; 3. Not Sure; 4.
Somewhat Disagree; 5. Disagree) survey of NanoCenter members on a
series of questions concerning the societal place of nanotechnology to
establish a baseline. As the work proceeds Berube develops analyses of
communication protocols, observing and recording outcomes. His
findings, following the protocols of cooperative inquiry, are added to
the dialog among members of the NanoCenter. Follow-up data accumulation
may include collection at locations beyond USC and with different
populations. Quantitative and qualitative findings will be published.
(2) Science Journalism: Lowndes Stephens (J. Rion McKissick
Professor of Journalism, USC) pursues an experimental study of ways to
improve science journalism, particularly that covering nanotechnology.
The experiment will be conducted during summer 2004 on a group of
experienced science writers who have a weeklong training course in
Newsplex, a $2 million state-of-the-art multi-media, micro newsroom
laboratory at the University of South Carolina. Using information from
other team members and from members of USC's NanoCenter, the subjects
will be asked to research, source and write news stories on several
significant advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology. The subjects
and their stories will be examined both before and after their
experience in Newsplex, as a way to determine the degree to which this
experience improves their ability to write about nanotechnology.
Results will be analyzed during summer 2005. The project contributes to
our understanding about how recommendations in the academic literature
might be used to improve the quality of science reporting. An important
possible outcome of this work may be that we can train journalists in
the manner used during the week at Newsplex to improve the accuracy of
media portrayals of the flaws and promises of scientific innovations in
nanoscience.
(3) Politics: Ed Munn (Philosophy, USC). As nanotechnology emerges
into the public's consciousness, discussions about the desirability of
emerging technologies that nanotechnology is making possible become
more common and tendentious. Within a democratic society these
discussions are pivotal in setting both public policy and the social
and ethical guidelines for the use and pursuit of nanotechnology. Munn
studies the emergence of these discussions using the approach favored
by the proponents of deliberative democracy. Richard Sclove writes,
``If citizens ought to be empowered to participate in determining their
society's basic structure, and technologies are an important species of
social structure, it follows that technological design and practice
should be democratized.'' Munn explores what this view of democracy
implies for the development of nanotechnology. In particular he looks
at the role of ``the expert'' in both communicating and guiding the
development of nanotechnology. Munn argues that the expert's
appropriate role is as a facilitator for the creation of an analogue to
Jurgen Habermas' ideal speech situation that allows for effective
citizen participation in decisions about nanotechnology.
(4) Law: Robin Fretwell Wilson (School of Law, USC) is an expert on
the regulation of new technologies. She brings her experience in health
law and biomedical ethics, areas in which new technologies challenge
traditional notions of regulating behavior, to develop a model for how
best to facilitate nanotechnology. The aim is to do so while preserving
a role for the incorporation of democratic values input into this
emerging technology, and in doing so allowing for appropriate state
oversight. Consistent with her examination of past efforts to regulate
emerging technologies--ranging from our experiences with allocation of
scarce life-saving technologies, like organs, to mapping the human
genome and human cloning--she draws on and integrate all of the various
insights produced by other members of her Task Area, and those from the
other Task Areas into discussions in the policy forum. Because the best
possible course for the regulation of nanotechnology necessarily
requires deliberative and engaged debate between all the stake-holders
involved--journalists, educators, industrialists, scientists, funding
and government agencies and citizens, groups--the policy forum brings
together these stakeholders and members of the nanotechnology
community.
Here, then we reach the second stage of Task Area 4's work:
Actually engaging the public sphere in discussions of nanotechnology.
The first stage provides three conceptual and two empirical studies of
how to take nanotechnology into the public sphere. The results of these
studies may differ, but the fundamental assumption of our
interdisciplinary research team is that only by bringing such divergent
approaches to the study of nanotechnology are we able to find a model
for constructive debate concerning nanotechnology in the public sphere.
But a model for debate is not enough. Our project aims to produce
informed constructive debate itself, and here the key element is the
active participation of all the members our project's research team,
the members of the NanoCenter, and other members of USC's faculty,
student body and staff. The divergent contributions of the members of
Task Area 4 are essential to developing genuinely useful discussion of
nanotechnology, a discussion that is particularly important in the
final conference planned for the project, ``Nanotechnology in the Legal
and Political Sphere.'' Wilson will organize this conference. She will
structure discussion between national, international and local
stakeholders by acting as a reporter for the conference participants,
circulating drafts, and mediating between academics and other
stakeholders. With this conference we will have taken our understanding
and control of nanotechnology from laboratory to society.
3. The Collaborative Infrastructure
A variety of events and publications stimulate informed and
integrative dialogue about the significance of nanoscale research, and
thereby promote the goal of what we call, ``the nano-literate campus.''
I. Annual Summer Workshops
These weeklong workshops bring together all investigators. They are
joined by scientists at USC's NanoCenter, graduate and undergraduate
students, as well as a small group of interested academics and non-
academics. Each workshop features contributions by invited experts on
various aspects of nanoscience and nanotechnology; these contributions
serve to structure the task-oriented collaborations of all
participants. Our inaugural workshop took place on August 5-9, 2002:
``Reading NanoScience.'' The next four workshops (2003, 2004, 2005, and
2006) are organized around selected research questions from the four
Task Areas:
2003 [TA 2]: ``Imaging and Imagining NanoScience,''
2004 [TA 1]: ``Self-Assembly and the Construction of Nanostructures;''
2005 [TA 3]: ``Biological Machines, Genetic Engineering, and
Nanobiotechnology;''
2006 [TA 4]: ``Nanotechnology and Its Publics.''
II. Annual Spring Conferences & Monthly NanoCulture Colloquia Series
Spring Conferences: The Spring Conferences aim at promoting
dialogue between national and international scholars. Since our
interdisciplinary research team raises new questions for science and
technology studies, these conferences are to foster disciplinary
interest in these questions. The first of these, ``Discovering the
Nanoscale,'' was held on March 20-23, 2003. Its discussions will be
deepened and continued on October 10-12, 2003 in Darmstadt, Germany.
Together, both meetings feature about 40 presentations that will be
collected in a volume of proceedings. The conferences are free and open
to the public. Plans for future conferences are as follows:
2004, organized by Davis Baird: ``Tools for Imaging and Imagining the
Nanoscale;''
2005, organized by George Khushf: ``The Philosophy and Ethics of
Emerging Technologies: Nanotechnology, Cybernetics, and Genetics;''
2006, organized by David Berube: ``Visionary Rhetoric Confronts Real
Science;''
2007, organized by Robin Wilson: ``Nanotechnology in the Legal and
Political Sphere.''
NanoCulture Colloquia Series: Each semester our group organizes and
hosts a series of colloquia featuring issues associated with our
project's four Task Areas. The NanoCulture Colloquia Series is open to
the public, but our target audience includes scientists at the
NanoCenter, other USC faculty, and interested graduate and
undergraduate students. Their themes are generated as research on the
four task areas progresses.
III. Educational Outreach
Research Based Learning: In coordination with USC's Honors College,
Loren Knapp (Biological Sciences, USC), with the cooperation of other
team members, develops a research-based learning course for
undergraduate honors students at USC. In a case-oriented manner, it
explores the relations between what is theoretically possible,
technologically feasible, and ethically defensible. Historically, how
has this balance been struck? In the case of a newly emerging science
and technology, such as nanotechnology, how can it be found? The course
focuses on biological systems and biotechnology as they become fused in
the concept of biological machines. It therefore considers how
nanoscale science and engineering challenges the traditional separation
of nature and culture by using biological systems and processes as
models for engineering. Along with an extant course on
``Ultramicroscopy,'' this new course will be part of our Honors College
``Nano Semester'' (see below). In addition it will afford several
undergraduate research assistants the opportunity to gain the technical
skill and theoretical perspective required to produce a research-based
Honors Thesis.
Textbook, Understanding Nanotechnology: This volume is aimed at
introducing an undergraduate audience to the full spectrum of societal
issues raised by nanoscience and nanotechnology. It consists of
selected primary readings, with substantial introductory essays for
each section, and brief introductions for each essay. Team member,
Steven Lynn (English, USC) coordinates the editing of the volume
drawing on the efforts of other team members to write all introductory
material. The volume has the following structure:
Section 1, Nano Fundamentals: Background readings explaining what
nanotechnology is, what its current state of development is, and what
it may make possible;
Section 2, Nano Science: Annotated excerpts from science journals
that show how the science of nanotechnology is being conducted;
Section 3, Nano Fiction: Short stories that indicate how
nanotechnology has been represented in science fiction;
Section 4, Nano Publics: Readings and illustrations from newspapers
and magazines that show how nanotechnology is being presented to the
public;
Section 5, Nano Politics: Readings the engage the ethics and
politics of potential uses and abuses of nanotechnology.
Nano Semester: During the spring of 2005, the Honors College will
host a collection of coordinated, interdisciplinary courses, each
concentrating on a different aspect of nanoscience and nanotechnology.
These will follow the pattern of previous semesters fielded by the
Honors College--spring 1999: ``Darwin across the Disciplines,'' spring
2003: ``The Sustainable Futures (on environmentalism).'' Catherine
Murphy, working in cooperation with other team members, will coordinate
this set of courses. In addition to the Research Based Learning course
(see above) planned courses include ``Ultramicroscopy,'' ``Chemistry
and nanotechnology,'' ``Post-humanism and nanotechnology,''
``Philosophy at the nanoscale: Creating a new reality.'' In addition,
we will use one or more of these courses to help us develop our reader,
Understanding Nanotechnology, on the multiple aspects of the cultural
significance of nanoscale research.
IV. Publications, Website and Archive
All of the various collaborative ventures involve an exchange of
ideas and manuscripts among investigators. These culminates in a
collection of papers that brings together the work of the research on
the four Task Areas that we will publish in a peer-reviewed academic
press. As a matter of course, the preparation of scholarly manuscripts
and the participation in the workshops and colloquia leads to a variety
of other publications in peer-reviewed academic journals and in other
outlets, aimed at a more general readership. Given the current state of
the field, we expect the collection of papers that flow out of this
project to provide a foundation for this emerging important field of
research.
The project's webmaster manages the website and archive of our
research team http://www.cla.sc.edu/cpecs/nirt/. This website features
the general outline, scheduled events and specific projects included in
this proposal. It includes a searchable and expanding database of
abstracts of research materials for people interested in doing research
on the societal implications of nanotechnology. Links to each
investigator provide access to their research projects. Website also
points to a moderated listserv on the philosophical and social
dimensions of nanoscale science and technology, with about 200
subscribers from all over the world. The listserv also allows
investigators to present new ideas and arguments for consideration by
this audience. The website also includes a collection of ``works in
progress,'' available for further public consideration and comment. One
team member, Ed Munn, is fluent in Spanish, and is translating much of
the website to make our work accessible in Spanish.
V. Engaging USC's NanoCenter
At every stage of our research, we are looking for ways to
integrate our critical reflections with the interests and concerns of
the scientists and engineers at USC's NanoCenter. Over the course of
the grant, the science/humanities collaboration between the NanoCenter
and our research team takes a variety of forms: (1) NanoCenter
scientists are instructing humanities scholars in the fundamentals of
nanoscience and engineering; (2) members of USC's NanoCenter have
introduced members of the team to the instruments on which their work
relies; (3) the opinions and contributions of NanoCenter researchers
are solicited at monthly colloquia; (4) members of the NanoCenter have
helped us to compile a collection of classical readings, used in our
August 2002 workshop: ``Reading Nanoscience.'' Similar collaborations
are envisaged for the future. In addition, (5) claims about the
philosophical significance of bottom-up nano-engineering are checked
against the insights and assessments of engineers themselves; (6) the
laboratory work and disciplinary interactions at the NanoCenter are
observed by members of our team; (7) all research produced by the team
are made available to the scrutiny and criticism of NanoCenter
researchers; (8) members of the NanoCenter are invited to participate
in our listserv discussions; (9) in the annual assessment phase,
members of the NanoCenter are asked to comment on our activities and to
suggest future activities or topics for discussion; (10) Richard Adams,
Director of the NanoCenter, is a member of our Advisory Board. Finally
(11) we aim to encourage the scientists and engineers at the NanoCenter
to more fully examine the hidden societal assumptions behind their
research, and to see how the research projects they pursue may be
integrated into the broader society they serve.
Appendix 2: Ethical and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology: A
Research Agenda
Reflecting the goals of nanotechnology
Nanotechnology is frequently presented as improving wealth, health,
environment, and security. While all these four values are, each in
their own way, compelling, detailed studies need to analyze (1) if
there are possible conflicts between these values, (2) if there are
conflicts with other culturally embedded values, and (3) if there are
consequences that may arise when the goals would be really achieved.
For instance, creating a perfect health control system by nano-bio-
information technology may raise issues of privacy and informational
autonomy. Or, improving health condition to the state of overcoming
aging, as some have promised, would cause radical societal and cultural
changes and would also require rethinking individual life plans.
Identifying possible moral issues
Moral issues of new technologies usually arise (1) if the
applications have either unintended bad consequences or (2) if the
benefits are distributed unjustly. For instance, new kinds of risks
might arise from nanoparticles if they have unpredictable catalytic
effects in the human body or the environment, or if their built-in
capacities to self-assembly or to replicate get out of control. Or, new
nanotechnologies, because of their improvement of human performances,
might cause or increase a social divide between the privileged and
skilled who can use these technologies and the underprivileged and less
educated who are not able to use them.
Identifying possible gaps in the legal regulation of nanotechnology
Once moral issues of nanotechnology are identified, juridical
analysis is required to check the present regulation system whether it
is sufficient to cope with them or not and to develop suggestions for
additional regulatory instruments.
Distinguishing the critical from the uncritical fields of
nanotechnology
Current definitions of nanotechnology are so broad and vague that a
vast field of hardly related scientific and engineering research is
included and, given the present trend, much more will be included in
the future. Should public concerns about single moral issues ever grow
to the condemnation of whatever is labeled nanotechnology, the effect
on science and technology could be disastrous. It is imperative,
therefore, to clearly distinguish between critical and uncritical
fields of nanotechnology and to mediate this distinction to the public.
Analyzing the implicit moral messages of metaphors and images
From media reports to visual images and fiction writing,
representations of nanotechnology convey implicit values and moral
messages that can powerfully shape the public opinion. It is therefore
important to analyze the metaphors and visual images used in
communications about nanotechnology, with respect to their normative
implications, the fears and hopes they raise, and their cultural roots.
Studying how ideas about nanotechnology transform cultural belief
systems
The promises and far-reaching scenarios of nanotechnology, from
longevity/immortality to the intimate entanglement of the human body
with machines and computers, are able to undermine and transform
traditional cultural belief systems, regarding the physical, mental,
and social nature of human beings, and the distinction between nature
and technology. It is important to study this interaction in order to
understand the public reception of nanotechnology, either as extremely
conservative reluctance or as quasi-religious embracement, such as in
``transhumanism'' or ``extropianism.''
Observing the public attitudes toward nanotechnology
In the long run, nanotechnology will flourish only if the public
supports it. It is therefore imperative to understand not only the
public concerns but also on what moral basis such concerns are grounded
and whether conflicts can be reconciled or not. To that end, a detailed
apparatus for sociological investigations needs to be developed and
applied, from classical instruments such as questionnaires and oral
interviews to more participatory models such as consensus workshops or
science cafes.
Studying how nanotechnology transforms the traditional scientific
landscape
Nanoscale research is currently about to transform the traditional
scientific landscape, in which researchers as a subsystem of the
society are involved. The success of nanotechnology will essentially
depend on the researchers' willingness to take an active part in that
process. The transformation particularly regards the disciplinary
structure of the sciences, the science-technology relationship,
research values, and methods. Since it is likely that these changes
affect our scientific and educational infrastructure overall, it is
important to study these impacts in detail and to understand its
positive and negative consequences as well as potential obstacles.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Dr. Baird.
And every one of our witnesses' written testimony will be
put into the record in its totality.
Thank you, Dr. Baird.
Dr. Jiao?
STATEMENT OF JUN JIAO, Ph.D., CO-DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY, PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Jiao. Yes, good afternoon, Chairman Allen and Senator
Wyden.
As Chairman Allen mentioned, I have been working in the
field of nanotechnology for more than 10 years, and I have made
significant advances in this area. So I serve as the co-
director of the Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology and
the Director of the Electron Microscopy and the Microanalysis
facility, both at Portland State University. I have received
the fundings from the government agencies and private
foundations and high-tech companies for the research, including
the development of nanofabrication techniques for carbon
nanotubes and nanowires and the investigation of carbon
nanotubes and semiconductor nanowires as the new generation of
electron emitters.
I'm pleased to appear before you today to discuss
nanotechnology and this landmark legislation, S. 189. There is
great excitement about nanotechnology on college campuses.
Before I could confirm that I would appear today, I asked my
students for permission to reschedule a class that I missed on
Thursday. They said yes. They want me to tell you how important
this legislation is to their future.
Portland State University has made a tremendous commitment
to nanotechnology research. We have built a first-class
nanocharacterization and nanofabrication facility, which is
unique in the Pacific Northwest. This enables researchers to
study the materials' properties at the atomic level and to
create novel materials, as well as nano-devices.
Nanotechnology research allows us to have unprecedented
control over the electronic, magnetic, optical, and thermal
properties of nanoscaled materials. Consequently, the resulting
nanomaterials are stronger, lighter, and have better quality.
This will improve our lives in the future--from safer airplanes
to cars and to reduce the power consumption in more
miniaturized electronic products, such as cell phones and
computers.
I have tremendous excitement about the possibility of new
discoveries that can happen as a result of the S. 189. Existing
industries, including those not typically characterized as
high-tech, will see their production lines and they manufacture
influenced by our growing capability in nanotechnology. The
business-development progress will be even more rapid as the
relative risk from investing in nanotechnology becomes lower.
I wanted to emphasize that the research being done today in
nanotechnology is producing exciting results, but the cost of
production of innovation is beyond the reach of today's
consumers. Therefore, research has to be done to optimize those
processes.
As a scientist who has received significant support from
our work, I know that federal funding is highly competitive. At
the same time researchers in this area are compelled to present
their proposals that are, by their nature, high risk, but they
have potentials for high gains. The result is that few
proposals are funded, thereby limiting the work that can be
done in universities throughout the United States.
S. 189 will ensure that U.S. scientists receive reasonable
funding for research to compete with their Asian and European
counterparts, which has been strongly supported by their
nations.
S. 189 supports long-term nanotechnology research and
development leading to potential breakthroughs in areas such as
materials and manufacturing, medicine, environment,
biotechnology, agriculture, information technology, and
homeland security. I support this broad-based approach because
nanotechnology cannot be advanced without an interdisciplinary
focus and federal support.
History has shown us that without the Federal Government
providing long-term funding, there are fewer breakthroughs to
translate into products and economic prosperity.
Another important aspect of this legislation is that it
also focuses on our promising scientists and engineers of
tomorrow. These young people know that investment in nanoscale
research is the key to their future.
Over the past several years, I have been involved in an
outreach program called the Apprenticeship of Science and
Engineering organized by the Saturday Academy of Oregon. This
program aims at--encourages high-school students to pursue
higher education in science and engineering. My experience with
those young students suggests that we need an imperative such
as S. 189 to ensure that our scientists of the future have a
firm training ground with consistent financial support.
In closing, thank you for the invitation to testify today.
It is an honor to be asked to participate in this crucial
national discussion. My colleagues and I strongly believe that
nanotechnology will lead to a new and improved future. S. 189
is the commitment we needed to continue American leadership and
innovation in the latest nanotechnological frontier. I urge the
Committee to pass this bill.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jiao follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jun Jiao, Ph.D., Co-Director, Center for
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Portland State University
Good afternoon, Chairman Allen and Members of the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I am Jun Jiao, Assistant
Professor of Physics at Portland State University. I have been working
in the field of nanotechnology for more than 10 years and have made
significant research advances in this area. My original contributions
in the area of nanomaterials growth and characterizations have been
documented in more than 60 publications. My carbon nanotube work has
been granted patent protection. In 1993, I was selected as a
Presidential Scholar of the Microscopy Society of America. I serve as
co-director of the Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, and
director of the Electron Microscopy and Microanalysis Facility both at
Portland State University. I have received funding from the National
Science Foundation, Petroleum Research Foundation, FEI Company, and
Intel Corporation for research including the development of
nanofabrication techniques for nanotubes and nanowires and the
investigation of carbon nanotubes and semiconductor nanowires as the
new generation of electron emitters.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss nanotechnology
and S. 189. I want to thank Senator Wyden and Members of the Committee
for introducing this landmark legislation. There is great excitement
about nanotechnology on college campuses and before I could confirm
that I would appear today, I asked my students if they would give me
their permission to reschedule a class that meets today. They said
yes--because they wanted to make sure I told you how important this
legislation is to their future. They are excited about the
possibilities S. 189 presents and want you to know that they stand
ready and willing to be a part of this important national initiative.
Portland State University's Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
is Key to Oregon's Economy
Portland State University, Oregon's only urban university, located
in the heart of the silicon forest and Oregon's largest economic
center, has made a commitment to building a world-class program in
nanotechnology. Portland State University has formed an
interdisciplinary research center on nanoscience and nanotechnology.
The Center involves faculty from Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Biology,
Engineering, and Environmental Science. Funding and equipment for the
Center has come from the University, industry partners, government, and
private foundations. The support PSU has received has allowed it to
establish a first class, state-of-the-art electron microscopy and
microanalysis facility including an ultra highresolution transmission
electron microscope equipped with various analytical capabilities and a
high-resolution scanning electron microscope capable of nano-
characterization and electron beam lithography nano-fabrication. Both
microscopes were made by the FEI Company, which is located in
Hillsboro, OR. Portland State University is the only educational
institution in the Pacific Northwest having such comprehensive
nanostructural characterization and nanofabrication capabilities. This
enables researchers to study the materials' properties at the atomic
level and to create novel materials as well as nano-devices.
Portland State University has made a tremendous commitment to this
area of research in part because it is essential not only to the future
of the economy of the Pacific Northwest but to the global economy. The
University faculty's research in the areas of carbon nanotubes, quantum
dots, ultra high-resolution near-field microscopy, bio-physics, nano-
imprinting, and fabrication of nano-devices is strong and carries
national and international reputation. Many faculty research groups
have engaged in collaborative research endeavors with local high tech
industries such as Intel Corporation, FEI Company, LSI Logic, and
Boeing Company, to mention just a few.
Academic and industrial research teams know that joint academic-
industry partnerships on nanotechnology will make our economy stronger.
Nanotechnology as currently practiced by scientists and engineers in
the academic sector is not just an exercise in pursuing sophisticated
science, it will have a significant impact on industry and society as a
whole. The research in these areas allows us to characterize and
structure new materials with precision at the level of atoms and to
have unprecedented control of their electronic, magnetic, optical, and
thermal properties--in fact, any property that we want to enhance.
Consequently, the resulting nanomaterials have stronger, lighter, and
better quality than conventional materials. This will have innumerable
beneficial effects on our lives in the future--from safer airplanes and
cars to low-power consumption and higher application efficiency of
miniaturized electronic products, such as cell phones, computers, and
other instruments.
Additionally, Portland State University is part of a collaborative
request to the Oregon State Legislature by the Oregon University System
to support a signature research center in multiscale materials and
devices development. This proposal involves Oregon State University,
the University of Oregon, the Oregon Health and Science University, and
Portland State University. It has received favorable support from
Oregon's Governor and key legislative committees and is awaiting final
approval and funding.
All of this demonstrates that Portland State University and Oregon
recognize that the impact nanotechnology currently has on new and
existing industries is significant, but the potential for the future
will be even greater. Therefore, significant investment in research and
development in nanotechnology is essential and especially needed in the
academic sector.
Nanoscale Research is the Foundation for the Next Generation of New
Scientific Discoveries and Engineering Developments
Nanotechnology is concerned with materials and systems whose
structures and components show significantly improved physical,
chemical and biological properties because of their nanoscale size.
Structural features in the range of a nanometer dimension, which is
10,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair, exhibit
remarkable novel phenomena as compared to the behavior of bulk
materials. We can exploit the novel properties and phenomena of nano-
based entities as we learn to manipulate structures and devices at the
atomic, molecular and supramolecular levels, and as we develop
techniques to efficiently manufacture and use them. Important changes
in their behavior are caused not only by the order of magnitude size
reduction, but also by new phenomena such as size confinement,
predominance of interfacial interaction, and quantum effects. Such new
forms of materials and devices herald a revolutionary age for science
and technology provided that we can discover and fully utilize the
underlying principles.
As a materials scientist, my research focus is on the development
of carbon nanotubes and nanowires as new generation of electron field
emitters as well as building blocks for nanoelectronic devices. As
individual nanoscale molecules, carbon nanotubes are unique. They have
been shown to be true molecular wires, and have already been assembled
into the first single- molecule transistor ever built. In the future,
we will see our current silicon-based microelectronics supplanted by a
carbon-based nanoelectronics of vastly greater power and scope. I have
developed strong partnerships with local high tech companies such as
Intel, FEI Company, and LSI Logic because of their interest in the
research developments in these areas. Some midsize and small size
companies are initiating active conversations with Portland State
University's Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology and exploring
partnerships with us for some specific nanotechnology investigations.
Portland State University's President Daniel Bernstine has made
business development and job creation a key element in our mission. The
University is a hub for faculty expertise, specialized facilities, and
highly-talented students who become leaders in the workforce.
I believe that current estimates suggesting that nanotechnology
will have a one trillion dollar impact on the global economy throughout
this century are reasonable. I have tremendous excitement about the
possibilities of discoveries and innovations that can happen. For
example, existing industries including those not typically
characterized as ``high tech'', will see their product lines and the
way they manufacture influenced by our growing capabilities in
nanotechnology. Moreover, aspects of nanotechnology will help small
companies whose products are developed for niche markets including
sensors, bio- and chemical-analytical devices and chemical ingredients
expand. These small businesses are not likely to require the multi-
billion dollar investments that `chip' manufacturers must face in re-
tooling their plants to the new advances in technology. The progress
will be even more rapid as the relative risk from investing in
nanotechnology becomes lower. I want to emphasize that the research now
being done in nanotechnology is producing exciting results, but the
cost of production of innovations is beyond the reach of today's
consumers. Therefore, research has to be done to optimize those
processes.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act Will
Ensure That the Nation's Work in This Area is Funded,
Coordinated, and Focused.
As an active researcher in the area of nanotechnology, I am very
pleased by the findings, goals, and programs outlined in the ``21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.'' This Act will
enable our nation to establish a comprehensive, intelligently
coordinated program for addressing the full spectrum of challenges
confronting a successful national science and technology effort. In
particular, those related to funding, coordination, infrastructure
development, technology transfer, and social issues. Currently the
funding available through government agencies and private foundations
and companies is limited. As a scientist who has received significant
support for my work, I know that funding from federal programs is
highly competitive. At the same time, researchers in this area are
compelled to present proposals that are by their nature high-risk--but
have the potential for high-gains. The result is that few proposals are
funded, thereby limiting the work that can be done in universities
throughout America. S. 189 will ensure that U.S. scientists receive
reasonable funding for research to compete with their Asian and
European counterparts, which have been strongly supported by their
nations both financially and politically.
I want to address two specific issues emphasized in the Act. First,
S. 189 supports long-term nanoscale research and development leading to
potential breakthroughs in areas such as materials and manufacturing,
nanoelectronics, medicine and healthcare, environment, energy,
chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture, information technology, and
national and homeland security. I support this approach because
nanotechnology offers great promise in diverse fields and cannot
advance without federal support. The foundation of knowledge in this
area is incomplete, and significant fundamental research is needed.
Particularly, in the current competitive and economically-challenged
climate, private sector investment will fall far short of what is
needed. Therefore, a strong federal role will be necessary for the
field to realize its full potential. Also, history has shown us that
each of the critical breakthroughs in science and technology has been
based on years of sustained federal funding for research. The
breakthroughs funded by the federal government are the foundation that
enables subsequent efforts by the business sector to translate that
research into products for the marketplace. Without the Federal
Government underwriting the long-term funding, there will be fewer
breakthroughs to translate into products and economic prosperity.
The Act also requires the Director of the National Science
Foundation to collect data about the growth of the workforce that is
anticipated as a result of expanded research in nanotechnology. This
initiative will provide important information to workforce policy
planners about the investment of key economic development and job
training funding. I want to speak to this issue because I believe that
nanotechnology has strong implications for high-wage jobs and will pay
big dividends to communities that make this area of research and
development a priority. By this I mean, we need to provide professional
development and continuing education for those already working in this
field, and make it a priority area of education for tomorrow's
workforce. Among three classes I teach each year, two of them are
concerning transmission electron microscopy and scanning electron
microscopy of nanomaterials. These classes attract students not only
from our campus but also from local industry. The classes are full each
time they are offered. Most importantly, through these classes as well
as the hands-on laboratory experience, students are able to learn
state-of-the-art materials characterization skills and are actively
involved in the latest nanomaterials research. The students who are
already working in the field leave the class prepared to tackle more
challenging technical jobs.
A Federal Investment in Interdisciplinary Research Centers Will
Leverage Local, State, and Industry Support
S. 189 authorizes $50,000,000 for Interdisciplinary Research
Centers and provides grants of up to $5,000,000 to support
geographically diverse centers that support the initiative priorities
including those addressing the fundamental research, grand challenges,
education, development and utilization of specific research tools, and
promoting partnerships with industry identified in the legislation.
These are exactly the missions that the Center for Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology at Portland State University is pursuing. It is our
long-term goal to secure additional federal funds and attract
foundation and private contributions to expand the work we are doing
and to build an internationally recognized multidisciplinary
nanoscience and nanotechnology research center.
Additional support from the Federal Government for research in this
area will help programs like mine, and those around the country, lead
the way for innovations and discoveries. I support the calls for
interdisciplinary work and collaboration outlined in the legislation
because most of today's challenging problems in science and engineering
are complex and will not be solved by investigators working within the
borders of their own chosen fields. That is the philosophy that guides
the work we do at Portland State University. Federal funding for
nanotechnology will assist important interdisciplinary research efforts
which may lead to curing cancer and AIDS, reducing reliance on fossil
fuels, or building the next-generation of sensors to help safeguard our
homeland.
S. 189 is Legislation That Will Resonate With Young People Today--
Tomorrow's Scientists and Engineers Know That Investment in
Nanoscale Research is Key to Our Nation's Future
My research laboratory is one of the areas of excellence at
Portland State University. As a result, I host many visiting
dignitaries to campus who are interested in learning about ways the
University is addressing the workforce and research needs of the
future. Many of those visiting truly understand the research area.
Others don't understand the specifics of the work we do, but have
enthusiasm for its possibilities. For example, they may have grown up
when the nation focused on the imperative of getting man to the moon.
Or they have experienced the sophistication and evolution of computers
from those that took up whole rooms to the pocket personal computer
they carry. So, people of our generation typically have a general
appreciation of why this area of research is important.
I want to assure you though that young people today--those in
middle school and high school--are truly excited about this area of
research. Let me give you two examples. In the past several years, I
have been involved in an outreach program called apprenticeship of
science and engineering organized by the Saturday Academy of Oregon.
This program aims at promoting high school students to pursue higher
education in science and engineering. Each summer, I host one or two
high school students selected among the high schools in Oregon and
Washington to work with me on my nanomaterials research. For one
position there are usually more than 40 applicants. In reading their
application essays, I was amazed by the depth of the knowledge that
young people have about nanotechnology. I was touched by their strong
desire to participate in nanomaterials research. In my spare time, I
also serve as a judge for the Intel Northwest Science Expo. This is an
annual event designed to encourage middle and high school students to
apply their interest in science and engineering to real world
innovations. Each year, more than 500 students from Oregon and
Washington participate in this event. The students present their own
research at this event and every year I am encouraged by these young
people who I know will become great scientists. These students are
excited about nanotechnology, however we need an imperative such as S.
189 to ensure that our scientists of the future will have a firm
training ground with consistent financial support.
In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for the invitation
to testify today. It is an honor to be asked to participate in this
crucial national discussion. My colleagues and I strongly believe that
nanotechnology will lead to a new and improved technological
revolution. S. 189 is the commitment we need to continue American
leadership and innovation in the latest technological frontier. I urge
the Committee to pass this bill.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Dr. Jiao, for your enthusiastic
testimony. I can see why your students enjoy your courses.
Now we'd like to hear from Dr. Kent Murphy, from
Blacksburg, Virginia Tech, Hokie country.
Dr. Murphy?
STATEMENT OF KENT A. MURPHY, Ph.D., FOUNDER AND CEO,
LUNA INNOVATIONS
Dr. Murphy. Thank you very much. Thank you, again, for the
invitation to speak today, Chairman Allen.
Again, my name is Kent Murphy. I'm the founder and CEO of
Luna Innovations, a research and development company located in
Blacksburg, Virginia. We are a leader in nanotechnology
production. We produce the largest, most pure quantities of
carbon nano-based materials that there are; but, more broadly,
we are a company that is specialized in technology transfer,
bringing research to products.
We have been a recipient of several NIST ATP awards,
several SBIR programs, and have been able to utilize that to
grow Luna to a little more than 200 employees at this point in
a rural area in Southwest Virginia. And for that, we'd like to
say thank you.
Two major points that I hope to bring to your attention
today. One is the importance of commercializing work at the
university and government labs; and, two, the crucial role
nanotechnology will play in our future.
The investments our country has made in the past 50 years
in our university and government-research labs has created an
enormous potential. I was very fortunate in the seventies to
work for a multibillion-dollar corporation with a team of
people who focused on basic research, bringing research to
products and handing it over to production crews. Later on, I
accepted a position at Virginia Tech as a professor, worked
there for 9 years. I was very excited to be in the university
environment, but, after a few years of that, began to realize
there was an enormous amount of potential--many, many
inventions, many publications, many opportunities and important
technologies that were just left on the shelf. I took a leave
of absence from my position at Virginia Tech, started Luna
Innovations, and we began to try to transfer that technology
out and, hopefully, create jobs from that.
Our future economic growth in this country is going to be
led by collaborative research, development, and
commercialization efforts across universities, government labs,
and corporations, both large and small. Large corporations have
continued to cut back on their R&D budgets, based on quarterly
earnings requirements. They're looking more and more towards
small companies for those innovations, and we hope to provide
that.
We must recognize the importance of these strategic
alliances and continue to find ways to improve the efficient
use of these national resources that we've created at our
universities and government labs. The Bayh-Dole Act has been a
great start, but we need to continue to do more.
As we've heard today from many speakers, every facet of
human life will be touched by advances in nanomaterial
development. We've heard many different areas in medical,
homeland defense, power generation and distribution,
telecommunications, transportation, and things that we've never
dreamed. Luna strongly believes this proposed legislation will
help secure our country's position as a leader in
nanotechnology by funding this basic research and also the
technology-transfer programs required to make them a reality.
With this funding, we'll also be able to move the discoveries
of our greatest researchers to the marketplace and create high-
quality jobs in the U.S. more rapidly.
Nanotechnology, as we've heard, is not a specific
technology or discipline. Instead, it's a broad term used to
define work conducted on the nanometer scale. True
breakthroughs are often just accidental discoveries that happen
when basic research has been funded, as Senator Sununu pointed
out, but the majority of the progress towards problem solving
is usually incremental work done on a collaborative effort
across many different fields of expertise.
We have listed, in the written testimony, many different
applications that we, personally, are working on and others,
and I'd like you to try to imagine the different areas of
scientific and business expertise that will be required to
bring some of the products from the laboratory to the consumer
in a timely fashion.
We are currently working on radio-pharmaceuticals, with
cell targeting, that will deliver therapies directly to a
cancer cell. They are carbon nanocages filled with radioactive
materials functionalized with ligands that are searching out a
particular cancer cell. Just in that alone, we need chemists,
materials scientists, manufacturing experts to be able to
manufacture these in large quantities, biologists,
radiologists, oncologists, toxicologists, long lists, it goes
on and on, of the experts that will be required to bring these
products to a reality.
Again, Luna Innovations' business model is to license
patents, we've licensed dozens of patents from universities in
the U.S. and government labs and created a wide variety of
products. We've currently licensed patents from Drs. Dorn and
Stevenson, of Virginia Tech, who discovered a way to put
materials inside of a buckyball.
The fellow that discovered the buckyball and won the Nobel
Prize actually wrote an article just last year and said--the
title of the article was, ``Why, After 18 Years, Is Bucky Still
Out of a Job?'' Well, it was basically because the carbon cage
doesn't interact with much. We've figured out a way to put
things inside those cages and make products that will increase
contrast agents for MRI scans, to diagnose disease, and other
things
I'd like to point out also that Virginia is a leader in
collaborative nanotechnology research and development, with the
CIT and the Secretary of Technology, the first of their kind in
the country, also, INanoVA and VRTAC, who have also testified
here before, and point out that the Federal Government must
take a leadership role in funding these nanotechnology research
and coordination efforts, and also point out that the economic
success of our Nation is at stake. We must remain in a
leadership position. And this legislation is necessary for the
United States to ensure our future health and well-being and
safety in this rapidly advancing global economy.
And, again, thank you for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Murphy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kent A. Murphy, Ph.D., Founder and CEO,
Luna Innovations
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding the 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act. I am the Founder and CEO of Luna
Innovations, a research and development company located in Blacksburg,
Virginia. I also serve on Governor Warner's Virginia Research and
Technology Advisory Commission.
Luna Innovations is an industrial leader in the area of
nanotechnology, and technology transfer. I would like to recognize the
support of the Virginia congressional delegation, especially Senator
Allen, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Advanced Technology Program at
NIST, and Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) programs from
multiple agencies for helping Luna to achieve the level of success we
have in our rural location in southwestern Virginia. It is these
agencies that will benefit greatly from this legislation, giving them
the ability to propel our country's leading researchers in
nanomaterial-related science and applications to great discoveries.
There are two major points I hope to make clear today, 1) the
importance of our investments in university and government labs and
moving their ideas into the commercial sector, and 2) the importance
nanotechnology will play in our future.
Future economic growth around the globe will be led by
collaborative research, development and commercialization efforts
across university, government labs and industry both large and small.
Investment in university and government research labs has placed the
United States in a global leadership position in science and
technology. We must recognize the importance of these strategic
alliances and maximize the enormous investments made in our university
and government labs by bringing their intellectual properties to the
marketplace in the most efficient way possible. The Bayh-Dole Act has
been a great start, and the work to facilitate technology transfer must
continue to improve to utilize one of the greatest assets of our
country.
Every facet of human life will be touched by advances in
nanomaterial development. These areas include medical, homeland
security, power generation and distribution, telecommunications,
transportation and applications never before conceived. To realize this
potential, this country must improve the transfer of technology from
our universities and federal laboratories to the commercial world. Our
internal threat is not transferring great discoveries made in the U.S.
from the laboratory to commercial products. These discoveries are far
too important to leave on the shelf. And, we must do it now to protect
our competitive advantage from external threats, as other countries
continue to make even larger investments in nanotechnology.
Luna strongly believes this proposed legislation will help secure
the country's position as a leader in the nanotechnology field. By
funding basic research, and technology transfer programs we will move
the results of our nation's greatest researchers in nanotechnology to
the market place creating higher quality jobs here in the U.S.
While there may be revolutionary discoveries in the nanomaterial
world, it is most likely to be evolutionary progress that requires
extensive collaborative efforts working over extended periods of time
to truly utilize the capabilities of nanotechnology to address the
problems of the world.
Nanotechnology is not any specific technology or discipline;
instead it is a broad term used to define work conducted on the
nanometer scale. True breakthroughs are often accidental discoveries
while the majority of progress towards problem solving is incremental
work done in a collaborative effort across many different fields of
expertise. Try to imagine the different areas of scientific and
business expertise that will be required to bring the following
products from laboratory to consumer in a timely fashion:
Health
Radio-pharmaceuticals which allow never before seen cell
targeting giving ``magic bullets'' for cancer therapy,
Less toxic photo-therapy agents for advanced cancer
treatment,
Contrast media for greatly enhanced diagnostic imaging,
Super sensitive detection systems for drug discovery tools,
reducing time to market and costs of drugs,
Homeland Defense
Nanotube-based sensing devices allowing single molecule/
cell detection of chemical/biological warfare agents,
Lightweight, durable protective materials for soldiers, and
military vehicles,
Power Generation and Distribution
Next-generation fuel cells with improved efficiencies for
household, and handheld devices use,
Solar cell improvements with increased efficiency,
Communication and Computing
Quantum computing for future generation systems that
calculate on a neverrealized- scale for defense systems,
Molecular electronics for next-generation computing; single
molecule transistors and storage devices,
Optical devices using nano-structured materials for higher
rate communications,
Transportation
Superconducting compounds for higher strength magnets for
transportation and medical imaging,
Fuel cell improvements and safe hydrogen storage for
automobiles,
Catalysts for higher- efficiency, cleaner-burning, fossil-
fueled engines, and
Other Applications
Exotic teflon-like nanomaterials which provide a new class
of lubricants for today's applications and tomorrow's nano and
micro machinery.
Luna Innovations has recognized the enormous value of discoveries
made at our research institutions and is continually improving the
technology transfer process to move these innovative ideas from the
laboratory setting to the marketplace. Through this business model,
Luna has licensed valuable patents from universities, government labs
and large industries and has created competitive products in
telecommunication, power generation and distribution, transportation,
manufacturing, and pharmaceutical industries. Luna currently has a
significant focus on several nanomaterial-related technologies and
applications. For example, Luna has licensed patents and transferred
intellectual property from a major discovery made by Dr.'s Dorn and
Stevenson both at Virginia Tech, and are beginning to produce revenues
from sales of these novel nanomaterials.
Virginia is a leader in this country in collaborative
nanotechnology research and development. Virginia is one of the first
states to establish a state-wide technology organization, the Center
for Innovative Technology (CIT), focusing on the support of
collaborative efforts and the creation of high-tech jobs. Also,
Virginia was the first state to create the position of Secretary of
Technology directly reporting to the Governor in order to enhance the
climate for technology within the Commonwealth. Other Virginia
organizations, such as INanoVA and VRTAC, complement this
infrastructure allowing nanotechnology-specific communication to the
upper levels of the state government.
The Federal Government must take the leadership role in funding
nanotechnology research and the coordination of technology transfer for
our nation. The creation of a National Nanotechnology Coordinating
office and National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, under the proposed
legislation, will facilitate collaboration between federal and state
government agencies, research universities and industry.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, with
new vision and leadership, will ensure the U.S. a leading position for
growth in the nanotechnology sector, thus creating high quality jobs,
increasing the tax base, while solving significant problems in our
society. It will allow us to not loose ground to foreign competition
seeking to overtake our current advantage. The economic success of our
nation is at stake. We must remain in the leadership position. This
legislation is necessary for the United States, to ensure our future
health, well being and safety in this rapidly advancing global economy.
Again, I would like to thank Senator Allen and the Committee for
this opportunity to address you today.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Dr. Murphy, for your very
positive and cogent information and testimony.
Now we'd like to hear from Mr. Von Ehr.
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. VON EHR II, CEO, ZYVEX CORPORATION
Mr. Von Ehr. Well, thank you, Chairman Allen and Senator
Wyden.
I'm the Chief Executive Officer of Zyvex Corporation. I
started Zyvex in 1997 to develop molecular and nanotechnology
and revolutionize the quality and economics of how we make
physical goods. We currently offer products in the area of
tools and materials, and we're working on nanomanufacturing
systems.
I commend you for your leadership on this important
legislation. It's leaders like Senator Allen and Wyden who make
a difference by meeting with and listening to leading
nanotechnology small businesses.
Thanks to my previous business success, I've been able to
generously fund Zyvex myself. Today, we employ over 50 people,
and we're one of the few nanotechnology companies generating
revenue. I've also given nearly $4 million of my own money to a
number of universities to help them enter this field. With that
experience, I'd like to comment on technology transfer and
commercialization, the two most important aspects of this
legislation.
Senators Allen and Wyden know this is an important time for
nanotechnology. Actions taken today will decide who, 30 years
from now, will be the leader in science, manufacturing, and
technology. Will it be the United States or another country?
The current bill calls for an advisory panel of scientists
from academia and government. The voice of business is missing,
and I'm really concerned about that. We need a business focus
to ensure that the research we develop is commercialized in the
United States. Therefore, I strongly recommend that
representatives from both large and small businesses be
included on the advisory panel. Without a commercialization
focus, other nations may surpass us, become a dominant force in
the global economy. Specific technology, such as the
nanomanufacturing system, could be disastrous from the
standpoint of national defense and economic competitiveness if
it was in the hands of another nation.
I used to oppose any government funding for any industry;
however, our private sector has now gone global, and it can
invest anywhere. It's reasonable for the government to
encourage economic competitiveness for national security
reasons. And while I worry about the industrial policy
implications of that, I worry even more about losing
nanotechnology to nations able to invest for periods longer
than 2 or 3 years.
Today, it's very difficult for small technology businesses
to secure acceptable funding; however, small businesses employ
39 percent of high-tech workers and are responsible for 45
percent of the jobs in our nation. Small businesses also
produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large
firms. High-tech private-sector jobs benefit the economy with a
return of over $3 for every dollar invested in research.
The NIST Advanced Technology Program has been instrumental
to Zyvex in overcoming this funding gap. It helps fund high-
risk, high-reward projects and evaluates commercialization
plans just like a venture capitalist would. An ATP award often
requires cost sharing by the company, including ours. Thanks to
our ATP, the impact of our nanomanufacturing effort will allow
our nation to regain strength in manufacturing and bring jobs
back to the U.S.
I think the NIST ATP should take on an even larger role,
similar to the role of the NSF, by commercializing
nanotechnology research. It could be elevated to an office
within the Technology Administration in the Commerce
Department. More nanotechnology dollars allocated to the NIST
ATP and the SBIR program would accelerate the innovation and
commercialization of nanotechnology.
As Senator Allen pointed out, 3 years ago I founded the
Texas Nanotechnology Initiative to create a nanotechnology
cluster. That has become a model for similar regional
initiatives. It's important. Good jobs are at stake in this
field. I really think it's our duty, as Americans, to assure
these jobs stay in the United States.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative defines nine grand
challenges. But what if we had one or two that the American
public could embrace, where government, universities, and
industry worked together? These could address serious problems
for our Nation, such as how the United States can regain our
position as the world leader in manufacturing or how we can
reduce our dependence on imported energy. In fact, with a major
nanoenergy program, we would reduce our dependence on fossil
fuel by over 50 percent over the next 15 to 20 years. The
economic benefit would be hundreds of billions of dollars per
year. And nanomanufacturing could be part of the solution to
both these problems.
Now, much vision and foresight are at the core of this
legislation, yet long-term fundamental research alone will not
guarantee leadership in nanotechnology. It requires a balance
of fundamental and applied research, support for our regional
initiatives, a constant voice from industry, and a competitive
process for awarding federal dollars. So I, once again, applaud
your vision and foresight to ensure that the United States is
the nation that brings this powerful technology to the world.
The legacy you leave now will be remembered by future
generations. Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, I thank you for your
kind attention, and I appreciate being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Von Ehr follows:]
Prepared Statement of James R. Von Ehr II, CEO, Zyvex Corporation
Introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this distinguished Committee
for allowing me to address you on S. 189. I am Jim Von Ehr, Chief
Executive Officer of Zyvex Corporation. I started Zyvex to develop
molecular nanotechnology and revolutionize how we make physical goods.
Today, we offer the promises of nanotechnology to our nation through
tools, materials, and nanomanufacturing. As the founder of one of the
first nanotechnology businesses, I am honored to share my unique
perspective.
First, I commend you for your leadership on this important
legislation. It is leaders like United States Senator George Allen who
make a difference by taking the time to really understand the issues
and ensure the success of our nation by meeting with and listening to
leading nanotechnology small businesses.
Senator Allen, and other Members of this Committee know that we are
at a pivotal moment that will decide whether thirty years from now, it
will be the United States or another country that will be a world
leader in science, manufacturing, and technology. S. 189 shows that our
nation's leaders understand the benefits of nanotechnology and the need
to educate more scientists and engineers. However, it is also vital
that we more effectively commercialize university research.
International competitors are aggressively developing their own
nanotechnology industry, quite often based on discoveries first made in
our own university labs here in the United States. We want a healthy
manufacturing sector in the United States to assure good jobs for these
newly educated technologists.
Thanks to my previous, significant business success, I've been able
to generously fund Zyvex myself. Today, we employ over 50 people and
are one of the few nanotechnology companies with revenue. I've also
given nearly $4M of my own money to a number of universities to help
them enter this field. With this experience, I feel entitled to comment
on technology transfer and commercialization--the two most important
aspects of this legislation.
As my friend, Nobel Laureate, Professor Rick Smalley says,
``Nanotechnology is the art and science of building stuff that does
stuff on the nanometer scale. The ultimate nanotechnology builds at the
ultimate level of finesse--one atom at a time--and does it with
molecular perfection.'' I started Zyvex seven years ago to
commercialize that level of control and perfection.
The current Bill calls for an Advisory Panel staffed by academic
and government scientists. The voice of business is missing, and I'm
concerned about that. As you know, our nation's record of
commercializing research from universities and government labs is good
in the biosciences, but disappointing in most other areas.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is inspiring competitive
programs worldwide. The societal benefits of the NNI will come in the
form of products. The role of business is to develop and sell products
in a capital-efficient manner. We must have a business focus to ensure
that the research we develop is commercialized in the United States.
Therefore, I strongly recommend that representatives from both large
and small businesses be included on the Advisory Panel.
Competition
Competition is a key reason U.S. business is the most competitive
in the world. Competition is also important to science. Peer review is
a powerful approach to filtering out junk science, but it also can
filter out novel ideas from young researchers. We need ways to
differentiate scientifically crazy ideas like building time machines
from delightfully wild ideas like sequencing the human genome in three
years. Of course, when Craig Venter decided that such a sequencing
timetable was achievable, it probably would not have passed muster with
a conservative peer review committee. He properly framed the issue as a
business problem--not a scientific problem--and solved it.
Our most competitive industries are also our least regulated--
semiconductors, personal computers, software, and the Internet, to name
just a few. S. 189 has a light regulatory touch, and I urge you to
follow the example of the Internet, and avoid premature regulation
while the industry develops. There will be pressures from the usual
anti-technology voices to ban or limit nanotechnology, but we should
continue on the path of progress that has always been our nation's
strength.
We also need to inject private sector competition into our
nanotechnology program. The current Bill calls for significant funding
for government labs to build new user facilities. Providing shared
access to exotic equipment is a smart way to stretch funds and
accelerate overall development. These facilities will not be available
for at least five years. This is too long to wait in this dynamic
field. Awarding competitive contracts or grants to the private sector
to upgrade and reopen surplus or shuttered facilities could achieve
faster deployment at a lower cost.
Barriers to Industry
Applied Research
While fundamental long-term research is a vital component of this
legislation, nowhere is there a mention of the importance of funding
applied research. I urge this Committee to consider this issue very
carefully. Without a commercialization focus, other nations may surpass
us and become a dominant force in the global economy. Specific
technology, such as a molecularly precise nanomanufacturing system, in
the hands of another nation would be disastrous from the standpoint of
national defense and economic competitiveness.
Technology Transfer
The technology transfer programs at our nation's leading
universities have produced dismal results. The barriers for small and
large industry to commercialize this ``long-term'' research performed
under federal dollars have brought very little economic benefit to the
American Public. Stan Williams of Hewlett Packard has addressed this
issue in previous testimony, so I won't belabor the point.
Funding
I used to oppose any government funding for any industry. The
private sector is the most efficient way to make investment decisions.
However, our private sector has gone global and can invest anywhere.
The short-term economic decisions that make sense for a particular
company might not be the best long-term decisions for our country.
Perhaps it is reasonable for the government to encourage economic
competitiveness for national security reasons. While I worry about the
``industrial policy'' implications, I worry even more about losing
nanotechnology to nations able to invest for periods longer than two to
three years. Nothing makes this point clearer to me than a recent trip
to Taiwan where I witnessed, ITRI, a government/industry partnership
staffed with 6,000 researchers developing an advanced technology base
and focused on industrial competitiveness.
Funding is vital for any enterprise. Private equity funding today
is short-term oriented. Taking research from the lab into the
marketplace is a long-term endeavor. The gap between lab and market
leads to the ``valley of death'' funding crisis--it is rare to find
investors willing to take the risk of an investment lasting five years
or more.
Today, it is more difficult for small technology businesses to
secure acceptable funding. Small businesses employ 39-percent of high
tech workers and are responsible for 45-percent of the jobs in our
nation. Small business produce 13-14 times more patents per employee
than large firms. These patents are also twice as likely to be among
the 1-percent most cited.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commerce Department has the NIST Advanced Technology Program,
which has been instrumental to Zyvex in overcoming this funding gap. It
helps fund high-risk, high-reward projects, evaluating
commercialization plans as a venture capitalist would. The NIST-ATP
program requires, in many cases, including ours, cost sharing by the
company. The ATP helps put small companies on a more even research and
development footing with large companies. The program wisely recognizes
that small businesses are unable to afford the kind of R&D of an IBM or
Lucent, yet are responsible for a majority of our nation's innovations
and technical advancements.
Thanks to our ATP, we will have hired fifteen new employees in
2003; we also support researchers at two universities in Texas and one
university in New York. We are developing a new manufacturing
technology that will drive innovation in the silicon micromachine
domain. The impact of parallel microassembly on the broader economy
will be in the billions of dollars and will ultimately create thousands
of jobs here in America.
We should consider a nanotechnology initiative with a greater
balance between university long-term fundamental research and applied
research and industrial development. The Advanced Technology Program
should take on a larger role, similar to the role of the NSF. It could
be elevated to an office within the Technology Administration in the
Commerce Department. Outside venture capitalists with a longer-term
viewpoint would help review competitive business plans. The program
would focus on commercializing nanotechnology research. More
nanotechnology dollars should be allocated to flow through the SBIR
program, which will also help accelerate the innovation and
commercialization of nanotechnology.
Components to Our Success as a Nation
Society
Studying the impact nanotechnology may have on the world is vital,
and S. 189 addresses this issue head-on. Those of us in the field
believe that we will be able to manufacture products in a clean,
environmentally sound manner, and welcome qualified people to review
our technology.
Three years ago, I founded the Texas Nanotechnology Initiative, a
non-profit organization whose goal is to establish Texas as a world
leader in the discoveries, development, and commercialization of
nanotechnology. TNI has become a model for the NanoBusiness Alliance
and other regional initiatives. We want to develop a nanotechnology
cluster as an economic engine for the region. Good jobs are at stake
here. While TNI is working to assure many of them are in Texas, it is
our duty as Americans to do all we can to assure that they are in the
United States. High tech private sector jobs benefit the economy, with
a return of $3.32 for every dollar invested in research. \2\ Funding
and support for these statewide initiatives needs to be addressed in
the Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Office of the Texas Comptroller
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Challenge
You already know that we have a problem in the number of Americans
pursuing study in science and engineering. To turn this around, we need
to get government, universities, and industry to work in partnership to
achieve the great promises of nanotechnology. This would be a grand
challenge similar to the ``man on the moon'' challenge. The National
Nanotechnology Initiative defines nine ``grand challenges,'' but it is
difficult to focus on nine things with undefined outcomes. What if we
had one or two grand challenges? And what if these grand challenges
were to solve serious problems for our nation? Such as how we reduce
our dependence on imported energy. Or how the United States can regain
our position as the world leader in manufacturing. Nanomanufacturing
could be part of the solution to both of these problems.
Energy
With a major nanoenergy program--on the order of ten to twenty
billion per year--we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuel by 50-
percent over the next fifteen to twenty years. That would pay benefits
of several hundred billion per year. It is hard to calculate the
security benefits of being less dependent on energy imports. The
nanotechnology that would come out of this program would provide
multiples of that benefit in all the other areas identified as
priorities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ James R. Von Ehr II, ``NanoEnergy Project--Vision 2020.'' 2003.
Publication Pending. (For a copy, please email kgreen@zyvex.com.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanomanufacturing
Nanotechnology isn't just about making small ``stuff,'' but
includes interfacing that ``stuff '' to the real world. We must be able
to manufacture with molecular precision at all length scales--from
molecular to the size of a jumbo jet. A nanomanufacturing program would
be complementary to the energy program, and would also result in
technologies that could be applied to materials, medicine, and
computing.
Conclusion
Much vision and foresight is at the core of this legislation. To
truly ensure the success of our great nation, we must now have the
courage and perseverance to take such visionary steps. Long-term
fundamental research alone will not guarantee commercialization of
nanotechnology. It requires a balance of applied and fundamental
research, support for our regional initiatives, a constant voice from
industry, and a competitive process for awarding federal dollars.
I once again applaud your vision and foresight to ensure that the
United States is the nation that brings this powerful technology to the
world. The legacy you leave now will be remembered by all our future
generations.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee--thank you for your time
and for this honor.
Senator Allen. Thank you very much for all your testimony.
Senator Wyden and I will have a few questions here.
I'd like to focus on Dr. Murphy and Mr. Von Ehr, since
you're in the private sector. You're the ones trying to adopt,
utilize, and find a marketplace, whether it's the manufacturing
or your ultimate nanoproducts, whatever they may be. And I was
seeing yours, Mr. Von Ehr and Dr. Murphy. I've talked in many
occasions about the precision of medical treatment. And with
your technologies, you're killing the bad cells, so to speak,
as opposed to just these shotgun blasts that weaken someone's
whole body while trying to kill off the bad or non-cancerous--
they're trying it kill off the cancerous cells. And I think
there's just tremendous opportunities there for better
application of pharmaceuticals and other aspects.
What could you all share--and, Dr. Murphy, I'll ask you
first. Your business model is one that probably is similar to
other professors or scientists that are in colleges and
universities, where they're saying, ``Well, for whatever
reason, things aren't getting out, whatever is being
developed.'' So you set up your own company and obviously have
been successful. What is in your business model or what lessons
can you share with all of us, including--and when I'm talking
about ``us,'' I'm talking about the government, but for other
entrepreneurs, other scientists, whether in a university or a
government, some other sort of government agency function--what
could we learn from your success, both of you are successes
here, as to how this can be approached? And I'm not talking
about the specifics, ``We did this, then we saw so-and-so, and
then he had us go talk to this lady, and she then said, `Here,
I have another friend who'll invest,' '' but what are the basic
principles or lessons that you would see as applicable to
others who would want to find the commercial applications of
your research and your nanoscale products?
Dr. Murphy. In general, one of the things that we've found
at university settings is there's a lot of tendency towards
being enamored with the technology rather than the application.
Finding the end goal, finding a problem that you're going to
solve, and then coming back and looking at the technologies
that are being developed--certainly, basic research needs to be
funded. Those technologies need to be moving forward. But
someone's got to be in the go-between making sure that
significant problems are being solved with those basic
findings.
And then, just within the university itself, some things
that I encountered personally there was, in general, a split
between the university community as to--was this activity
beneficial or negative for the university trying to
commercialize technology out of a university and looking into
how we could possibly change the university culture?
And I know this is not something that can be legislated,
but something that can be discussed is the tenure and promotion
process looks at teaching research and public service. Having
the universities look towards technology transfer as something
that they actually measure and pursue would be very, very
beneficial. A lot of the folks that I ran into at the
university saw what I was doing as something that tainted the
university atmosphere, when I believe it actually brings real-
life applications into the classroom.
Senator Allen. I would think that that would interest
students, that the research is interesting, all of that is, but
then the actual application towards a beneficial utilization of
that would, I think, make it more exciting, more tangible, more
practical.
Dr. Murphy. Absolutely.
Senator Allen. Mr. Von Ehr, you mentioned--both of you all
mentioned the NIST and ATP grants. What would you say would be
the keys to it? And you mentioned, insofar as awards are
concerned, the competitive awards--would you have any
suggestions as to what the standards of assessment would be?
Because there's so many people who have so many great ideas,
and, you know, there's just millions of them, and then you have
to determine which of these have the greatest potential.
Mr. Von Ehr. Well, that is the crux of the issue.
Senator Allen. Well, maybe you could give us some
standards. Mr. Teague was telling us standards. I do want to
ask you about standards, but----
Mr. Von Ehr. Well, if venture capitalists, who are the best
people at that job----
Senator Allen. Don't want to invest.
Mr. Von Ehr.--if they could figure it out, they would all
be rich and retired now.
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Von Ehr. The fact that the venture capitalists lost a
ton of money in the dot-coms and the telecoms----
Senator Allen. They're a bit skittish these days.
Mr. Von Ehr. The best people we have are not perfect. But I
think the benefits of the ATP are vast, in terms of bridging
the gap, the Valley-of-Death funding between a good idea at a
university and a product that a customer can buy. And there are
few VCs that want to step up and invest in something that may
be a multiple-year payback. Their time horizon got very
compressed during the Internet days. It's lengthening out
slowly now; but still, they have been burned so badly, a lot of
them are risk-averse. And we see that the ATP can help that.
And in terms of the judgment, I think it's just a matter of
judgment again. They look at the business plan. They evaluate
whether there's some credibility the company can pull that off.
It's very similar to how peer review works for science. You
know, you look at the scientists, you look at their track
record, you look at what they've done, and you say, ``Do I
think they can do it again?''
Senator Allen. What would you--back to my original
question; I got you off on that tangent--and all of you all
may, but particularly Dr. Murphy and Mr. Von Ehr. Dr. Teague
mentioned the need for control of processes. And I forgot which
one of you all brought up polymers and so forth. And, you know,
there's standardization of processes for that reliability,
credibility, certification, so to speak. And having listened to
you, Dr. Murphy, and learned about what Luna is doing and
seeing what Zyvex is doing, as well, with the nanotubes, and
actually seeing it on some of the amazing microscopes--they're
more than microscopes, but, at any rate, on the nanotubes and
the different ways those are processed--and there are, there's
all those variables to it--would you agree with what Dr. Teague
was saying, that there needs to be a standard or a control of
processes--and I hate limits or controls; those are words
that's very hard for me to say in a positive way--I'm just
saying, you know, standards, standards of quality, so to speak,
of your processes, do you all share that concern? Because I
think that does matter in the commercialization, the
reliability, and people worrying about liability, if certain
nanoproducts might not uniformly meet a standard of
performance.
Mr. Von Ehr. Certainly, we are dying to start working on
the process and make sure it's a good process. But, frankly, a
lot of nanotechnology now is still in the early stages, and
it's hard to put process control into something that has been
demonstrated in the lab in milligram quantities or maybe with
one experiment. So I'd say the technology has a little further
to come, in our case, we're working with nanotubes and polymer
mixtures, and the nanotube process development is not nearly as
far along as Luna Innovations' process is.
We certainly are going to have to put process controls in
place when we get a process to control.
Senator Allen. Understood. It's still very early.
Dr. Murphy?
Dr. Murphy. We're very fortunate at Luna to have a product
that is an extremely unique molecule and lends itself towards
better process control. So, again, we're able to make things
that are 99.99 percent pure materials and in kilogram
quantities at this time. So, yes, it is going to be a very
important factor.
In fact, recent things that I've read about nanotubes is
that when you purchase a quantity of nanotubes, it's 40-45
percent of what you want and 50-55 percent of something else.
So it is a very important point.
Senator Allen. Thank you both.
Senator Wyden?
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Jiao, we're thrilled you're here and representing
Portland State, and you've really sparked tremendous interest.
And I'm curious, when you mentioned that your students were
excited that you were coming and you, sort of, gave them the
day off, what was particularly exciting to them about what
you're going to do and what's ahead in nanotechnology? And what
else can we do to get students even more involved, particularly
in an earlier age in high school?
And I thought that would be a good question for you, since
you've obviously spent a lot of time with interns and a variety
of ways to get the students involved. So why don't you start us
off?
Dr. Jiao. Okay. If I'm allowed, I'll tell you a little
systematic story how this works.
First of all, my master's thesis in physics is about
florins, which is buckyballs. I worked for a Professor Don
Hoffman, who is the co-discoverer for the solid-state carbon 60
while the Professor Richard Smalley won the Nobel Prize for his
discovery if it is a molecule in the--but the solid state is
Professor Hoffman and his co-workers in the Max Planck
Institute. They found a way how to extract those molecules to
be solid state so that we can see them, touch them, and study
them.
So then my Ph.D. thesis is a systematic study of the carbon
nanotubes made by different method. So I carried this
enthusiasm then to Portland State, and then we went to the
laboratory, which we synthesized those molecules and in the
solid state. So then in order to see them, you have to have the
high-power electron microscope, because you have to magnify
them a million times to see what they look like.
So by--why the students--seeing, how the seeing is
believing. So under these high-power microscope, when they see
the molecules and they see the atoms, they were just thrilled,
they were excited. They said, ``This is the science I want to
go too.'' So this is why it's not, ``I love it. Come to work
for me.'' They just--I have too many students to handle,
because they see it and they really want--they understand,
``Oh, this is how atoms viewed themselves in this way.'' But
then in working in a laboratory, when we change the parameters,
which means we lower the temperature, then we mix something
else, and then we change the fluoride to the gas, and they made
the tube shorter or even longer, so by changing this process,
then they look at it, then they said, ``Okay, I can make a
difference.'' Okay?
So this kind of process made us feel to educate those young
people you have to have--let them to have the chance to have
hands-on, also to let them understand. So the best way is to
not only teach them in theory in the class, but also to show
them what you can do and what it will look like. So this is why
students think, you know, ``If you understand this principle
started from atomic level, definitely I can build these things
one by one. I can be good architect,'' and then just to build
these atoms to be the different way, then test their electronic
properties.
So I think this process is a wonderful educational process
so we can make them excited, and we feel like the future should
be this way because you work it down to the level of atoms. And
I think maybe the next level is to see the nucleus. But they
feel like this is the way to go. This is why they are so
excited.
Senator Wyden. Well, we should put you in charge of the
whole Federal Government.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Jiao. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Thank you for an excellent answer.
A couple of issues for you, Mr. Von Ehr. You're the second
industry leader who's basically talked about how Bayh-Dole is
dysfunctional, and that's something that I essentially hear
everywhere. And, of course, when you bring this up, you know,
most of the world has no idea what Bayh-Dole is, number one;
and, even those who know what Bayh-Dole is, just sort of say,
well, we're glad that it's there. But what I find is that it
really doesn't work very well for any of the stakeholders that
it's designed to serve. It supposed to, of course, be a great
tool for private sector innovation that, in this technology
treasure trove that the government runs with taxpayer dollars,
it's supposed to get technological development out to the
private sector, and it doesn't seem to. And somehow the
universities seem snarled in red tape and frustration, and the
private companies can't get access to it. And, of course,
you're supposed to explain it to taxpayers. I have often though
that if taxpayers knew what really goes on with these research
dollars, they would show up in Virginia and Oregon and say,
``Um, excuse me, you're spending billions and billions of
dollars for research that's supposed to be transferred to the
private sector, and, you know, why isn't it taking place?'' And
I'd be curious if you could give us some specific examples of
some of what has made you frustrated about Bayh-Dole, Mr. Von
Ehr.
Mr. Von Ehr. Well, I mentioned that I have given close to
$4 million--a lot of that has gone to the University of Texas
at Dallas; and, while we love the people there, we love working
with them, we have not succeeded in transferring any technology
or having a blanket agreement to do so. The people at the
university have to work through the people at the system level,
and those people don't have the same sort of drive that we do
to productize what has been developed.
I was in Houston last week talking with a professor who's a
friend of mine and he's written a book on his experience
starting up a company. And he has the wry observation that
professors seem to value their stuff a lot higher than industry
does; that the professor thinks it has an infinite value. And
he's a professor in this role, and he said, ``They have no idea
how much work it takes to actually turn it into a product and
convince someone to sell it, to pay you money for it.''
Senator Wyden. Well, anything you'd like to furnish us for
the record with respect to your frustrations on Bayh-Dole, I
would be especially interested in. We've had Hewlett-Packard
and others, where you are, and really it's a story that needs
to be told. Because this statute governs billions and billions
of dollars of research funds, and I'm convinced it doesn't work
for the stakeholders, companies, universities, taxpayers, and
society at large. So we'd welcome your examples.
The only thing that I would differ on. You can probably
tell I feel strongly about it, so I don't take a back seat to
anybody involving industry in these projects. The Advisory
Committee, on page 17--I'm looking at it--says, ``The panel
shall contain a reasonable cross-section of views and
expertise.'' And we wrote that specifically so as to involve
industry. It comes from the High-Performance Computing Statute,
which set up the Information Technology Council, which is just
filled with industry people. And then on page 18, we talk about
getting recommendations from industry, as well, with respect to
this position. And I'd like to note, just for the record, that
industry has a listing that comes before academia, with respect
to the advisory council. So I know of your good work and do not
want to jump you too much here this afternoon, but----
Mr. Von Ehr. Okay, well, I thank you.
Senator Wyden. I feel very strongly that we do what it is
you seek to have done, which is to make sure that industry has
a very, very important place at the table. And as we thrash
through this final effort, I want to assure you that we're
going to keep in mind what it is you desire, because you're
right, and we'll make sure it gets done.
Mr. Von Ehr. Well, that's excellent. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
The only other question I had, Mr. Chairman, was for Mr.
Baird. On the ethics question, what Chairman Allen and I have
done in an effort to try to get out this ethics debate is to
establish a center to begin the discussion, and we think that
makes some sense, and we heard about that from a host of
experts. But my sense is--I note Chairman Allen shares this
view, as well--people are talking about this without waiting
for the divine wisdom of the United States Senate. In other
words, people are talking about ethics and social questions
even before some characters in the United States Senate come
along to tell them, ``Well, you're supposed to have a big
debate.''
Tell us a little bit about the discussion that is going on
today, absent any federal legislation, with respect to ethics
and nanotechnology and some of which you and your colleagues
are doing already to start looking at these issues.
Dr. Baird. Well, there's a lot of discussion about ethics,
in general. But, in fact, I would say there is very little
discussion by either trained ethicists or a fairly broad
definition of ``trained ethicists'' about nanotechnology. I
think, outside of the scientific and technical fields, people
haven't heard of this, by and large. There are a few places
where that's not true. South Carolina's one. Virginia's one.
Illinois Institute of Technology is one. These are places I
know of. They're doing some of this at Rice, although that's
recent, I think.
And so, I mean, nanotechnology is recent, so I would say
the debate is early and raw at this point. We're trying to
begin to sort out what are serious issues for the near-term,
what are serious issues for the longer-term.
I guess, in my view, in the near-term, you have clear
issues about toxicity and regulation that need to be thought
through carefully. I also think in the near-term, and this
bears on the longer-term, it's really important to think about
what are the--how are people constructing the goals and aims of
nanotechnology as we build a National Nanotechnology
Initiative? How, when we think about those goals, you know--
what's the adage, you've got to be careful what you hope for--
if we actually achieve them, what will really be the impact of
achieving them? So we want to think about what are, as it
were--the goals, if we actually achieve them, what will be the
impact of them? That can be done now.
And then there's a fairly extensive, but, I think, at this
point, difficult-to-assess debate about issues about the very
important, but, as of yet, unrealized potential for
nanotechnology in the form of assembler/assembly, as it were,
nanotechnology assembler/assembly. I think it's probably early
to really engage that, because we don't know really what's
going to come of that.
That's a case where I think it's crucial that the people
who are doing this debate are talking to the scientists. I
think, to leave you with one thought, the most important thing
that we need to have happen in this debate is to have
engagement between the scientists and the ethicists. They have
to talk to each other, they have to learn each other's
language, they have to start, as it were, exchanging each
other's views. And only in that way are we going to have some
kind of positive move ahead.
Senator Wyden. I agree with everything you said. I just
want to add a lot more people to the debate, beyond the
scientists and the ethicists.
Dr. Baird. Oh, I----
Senator Wyden. Because if we don't, Michael Crichton will
drive the debate. That's what people will remember, in a sense.
You all have been a terrific panel, between the two panels.
Under Chairman Allen's leadership we've had a good cross-
section of views. I also regret that we have now made it
impossible for Dr. Jiao to get the one non-stop flight to
Portland----
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden.--which all of us just pray for in terms of
Oregon logistics.
But we welcome your counsel as we try to move forward on
this legislation. Nanotechnology is so exciting, and, at the
same time, all of you, as witnesses, and Senator Allen and
myself, as legislators, have known about things that have come
along in the past that sounded exciting, and a variety of
things happened along the way, and it never really reached its
potential.
I think nanotechnology's going to be different. I think
that this is a field where we have not overstated the
potential. And by listening to people like yourselves and the
cross-section of people that we've sought to have involved in
the legislation, we can do this job right. So our doors are
open to you for input.
Mr. Chairman, excellent hearing, always good to be working
with you, and I look forward to moving ahead.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
And I thank all our witnesses in both panels. This last
panel, thank you for coming long distances. We'll get you a
room in Northern Virginia if you----
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. Our sales taxes aren't as good as those in
Oregon, which are zero in Oregon.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. But, nevertheless, we'll welcome you there.
And, again, thank you all for your insight, for taking
valuable time here to be a part of this nascent effort here in
the Senate. The government is looking at this area. You all are
our experts in your variety of fields. We thank you very much,
look forward to working with you. And if you all ever do have
any comments, insights, ideas, tweaking, maybe some parts of
this measure have not been properly explained, please let us
know. You don't have to go through the formalities of a
hearing.
With that, this hearing is concluded. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator from Washington
The United States of America has led the world in scientific
research and in technological innovations in the 20th Century, and the
21st century will undoubtedly provide new challenges and opportunities.
The true engine of the American economy has been to turn our scientific
discoveries into practical applications and advancements in technology
have allowed us to improve our economy, our national security, and to
live richer lives. Today's science and technology innovations are
uniquely characterized by the speed and information processing
capabilities of our new machines. Traditional biology, traditional
chemistry, and traditional physics have been literally transformed by
technology. We are presently on the verge of new sciences, which will
undoubtedly produce exciting new technologies.
The new fields of nanotechnology, genomics, bioinformatics, and
microengineering, among others, grow out of a synergy of physics,
biology, chemistry, engineering, and advanced computational modeling.
Recent advances in proteomics and genomics promise to allow us to
understand the complex interactions of proteins within living cells and
provide important clues to the mystery of living organisms. This basic
research in biotechnology will certainly have unique applications and
the integrative and predictive understanding of biological systems will
improve our ability to respond to the energy and environmental
challenges of the 21st century. Nanotechnology is the other half of
this complementary pair of new sciences. Like genomics, nanotechnology
combines traditional sciences into a new 21st century science.
Nanotechnology offers immense possibilities for scientific
advancements, achievements, and applications, with immense potential to
transform our lives. It has equally wide applications--from energy, to
medicine, to electronics. Like genomics, nanotechnology is what
scientists and technologists label as an ``enabling'' technology--a
tool that opens the door to new possibilities constrained only by basic
science principles and our imaginations.
I have introduced legislation in the Energy Committee to spur
development and research in the field of genomics and bioinformatics,
and look forward to considering the complimentary roles nanotechnology
legislation can play. Along with Senator Wyden, I convened a Commerce
Committee field hearing earlier this April on the Northwest economy
that focused on the innovative science and industries that will drive
that region's economy in the future. The hearing highlighted the
exciting and unique opportunities that advanced manufacturing,
including nano-scale fabrication, can have in spurring technological
and economic development. At that hearing we heard about challenges
facing these developing industries, and the role federal research and
investment could play in growing those industries. In response to these
findings, I have proposed legislation in partnership with the
University of Washington to establish a Federal Aviation Administration
Center for Excellence in Materials Science. Such a center would produce
research that would develop techniques in maintaining and ensuring the
durability of advanced material structures in transport aircraft,
including at the molecular level.
Another part of that same productive hearing on the Northwest
economy revealed that biotechnology, including the nano-scale research
into biological systems, can play a role in diversifying and driving
economic development. I learned about many exciting advances fueled by
biotechnology, and spoke with many bright innovators about challenges
their research and their industries have faced. I am excited to say
that many of these roadblocks will be removed, and a good deal of basic
research provided, through the Genomes to Life bill, S. 682, I have
introduced in this session. That bill capitalizes on the enormous
success of the Human Genome Project, and promises to take this
important research to the next level. While the mapping of the human
genome was an unparalleled accomplishment on its own, this new
initiative would allow researchers to go beyond the science of
description, and begin to explore the complex interactions of the
elements within cells--truly exciting and micro, if not nano-scale,
research that promises great rewards in response to grand challenges.
Other nations have already recognized the need to be at the
forefront in these fields, and many have already provided support for
genomic and nanotechnology research. In the U.S., both genomics and
nanotechnology have been recognized by the Department of Energy, The
National Research Council, and the National Science Foundation as high
priorities for new research. American research institutions, companies,
and universities have recently joined in these investigations. The
State of Washington is already a national center for genomic research
and the University of Washington is the first in the United States to
offer Ph.D.'s in nanotechnology. Washington is home to many world-class
research facilities. We have over 190 biotechnology companies employing
more than 11,000 people. In 2001, the annual revenue of these companies
exceeded $1.2 billion. Nearly one half of these companies were based on
technologies developed at research and development institutions and
over 40 percent of the companies have been established in the past six
years. I believe that federally funded research in genomics and
technology will provide more economic benefits, not only for
Washington, but also for the nation.
While our past leadership in science and technology may provide us
a head start, it must not lull us into a false sense of accomplishment.
We cannot afford to become complacent, but must take proactive steps to
ensure our economic and scientific future is a real possibility, and
that barriers to these new technologies are removed through targeted
federal involvement. While these new fields involve experiments at the
microscopic level, they often require sizable instrumentation and
investments of federal support. This support is an example of the
targeted role the government can play, not in competing with
businesses, but in training America's workforce and providing
fundamental theoretical research into new fields of knowledge.
We must provide the federal support for a coordinated national
program of research and development in emerging sciences. Federal
investment in these new sciences will produce important scientific
breakthroughs and result in long term benefits to our health, our
economy, and our national security. I look forward to hearing today how
we can do just that.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, this is an important hearing. Clearly, there is a
limitless future with regard to the applications of nanotechnology
across a wide variety of disciplines, including engineering, physics,
chemistry, material sciences, and life sciences--to name just a few.
The estimates of the economic impact of nanotechnology on existing
and new manufacturing reach into the trillions of dollars.
In time, nanotechnology will have an enormous impact on virtually
every aspect of our lives.
Not surprisingly, my home State of New Jersey is on the cutting
edge of nanotechnology research and development. Lucent Technologies,
the State of New Jersey, and the New Jersey Institute of Technology
established the New Jersey Nanotechnology Consortium (NJNC) in early
2003.
The nucleus of the NJNC is the world-renowned Bell Labs
nanofabrication laboratory in Murray Hill, along with the Bell Labs
scientists and researchers who will become NJNC employees.
By combining the leading-edge fabrication capabilities of this
laboratory with New Jersey's academic research institutions and
universities, NJNC is able to carry out basic and applied
nanotechnology research and it has a unique capability to bring
nanotechnology ideas from concept to commercialization.
We must nurture the same type of capability at the federal level.
Nanotechnology is being touted as ``the next industrial
revolution'' and we must maintain our lead in the field to build on and
sustain our commercial advantage over competing nations. That means we
need to invest in the academic community and support the work of the
National Science Foundation (NSF), which leads the way in
interdisciplinary efforts.
All nanotechnological advances, even the most beneficent, have what
are called ``externalities.'' The automobile, for instance, represented
an enormous improvement over horse-drawn carriages. But each year,
thousands of people are killed in auto accidents and hundreds of
thousands more are hurt. Moreover, cars are a leading cause of
greenhouse gas emissions.
I'm not suggesting that we would be better off without cars--far
from it. My point is that there will be adverse consequences stemming
from the development of nanotechnology.
It may not be possible to anticipate all of the unintended
consequences of developing nanotechnology, but we should try. I applaud
Senator Wyden for recognizing this and adding to S. 189 provisions for
establishing a Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, Legal and
Workforce Issues Related to Nanotechnology. Clearly, the earlier we
grapple with the ethical issues and harmful consequences related to
nanotechnology, the better off we will be at mitigating them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Today, we are talking about the world's tiniest particles-and the
huge, sweeping changes they could bring about for American science,
technology, and business.
Nanotechnology, as you all know, is an emerging field that seeks to
understand and control events at the molecular scale and develop new
materials with unique properties currently beyond the realm of
conventional technology. The applications-from medicine and defense to
electronics, environmental protection, and energy-are endless and
endlessly impressive. To give just one example, in the life sciences,
building innovative tools to study biology at the nanometer scale will
shed light on a vast number of now mysterious biological processes.
Those fantastic voyages and others like it can lead to novel
therapeutic treatments and a better fundamental understanding of
diseases like cancer.
The economic impact will be equally profound. It has been estimated
by the National Science Foundation that the impact of nanotechnology on
existing and new manufacturing will be measured in the trillions of
dollars. That could produce millions of new American jobs.
One would think the world's most innovative and ingenious economy
would be the uncontested pioneer in nanotech-but unfortunately, one
would be wrong. As we speak, the United States is in danger of falling
behind its Asian and European counterparts in supporting the pace of
nano-technological advancement. While we have the resources and talent
we need, unless this talent is well organized-with big-picture vision
and new collaborations between government, academia, and industry-we
may find ourselves left in the wake of the next great wave of
innovation.
To support ongoing nanotechnology efforts and to spur new ones, I
was pleased last September to join Senators Ron Wyden and George Allen
in cosponsoring the ``21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act,'' and its reintroduction in the 108th Congress this
January (S. 189). This Act will build on the efforts of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which was started under President
Clinton and has received continued support under President Bush, to
establish a comprehensive, national program for addressing the full
spectrum of challenges confronting a successful national nanotechnology
agenda.
Why is an executive initiative no longer enough? Funding for
nanotechnology will soon reach $1 billion a year, with the NNI
responsible for orchestrating programs across a wide range of federal
agencies and departments. This level of funding and the coordination
challenges that arise with so many diverse participants strongly
recommend having a program based in statute, provided with greater
support and coordination mechanisms, afforded a higher profile, and
subjected to constructive Congressional oversight and support.
Our bill will require a carefully integrated national effort and
create an independent advisory panel to help shape that effort. The
National Research Council (NRC), which completed a thorough review of
the NNI in 2002, specifically recommended establishing such a panel. As
the field of nanotechnology covers a wide variety of disciplines
including engineering, physics, chemistry and life sciences-and experts
from both inside and outside academia-guidance should come from a broad
and representative panel. Although members of the President's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology are highly accomplished and
esteemed, they are not necessarily steeped in the fast-changing field
of nanotechnology. The task of providing an advisory roll for the
overall direction of the program should not be a top-down process, but
rather should fall to a group of members from both academia and
industry that represents the range of nanotechnology disciplines and
who are well-versed in the difficult challenges facing this emerging
field.
To ensure that the United States takes the lead in this new and
promising field of science and technology, we must provide for the
organization and guidance necessary to foster interaction between
government, academia and industry. This legislation provides a strong
framework to elicit contributions from all three sectors and thereby
move nanotechnology research and development to the next level. I look
forward to working with Senators Wyden and Allen to get this important
bill through the Congress, and hope that we may all work together in a
bipartisan fashion to set the stage for U.S. economic growth over the
next century.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank Lautenberg to
James R. Von Ehr II
Question 1. How can new technologies best be turned into useful
products? What role should the Federal Government play in this process?
Answer. Market competition is the best, most cost-competitive way
of turning technology into products. The private sector excels at this,
but has a short-term time horizon, and will not invest in long-term
programs with a return on investment that might be captured by a
competitor. Hence, there is some justification for federal involvement
in long-term technology development. In order for the American people
to truly benefit from nanotechnology products and applications in the
next decade, the Federal Government needs to ask the question: ``How
can we foster real competition?'' when deciding to fund programs. Are
the programs we are deciding to fund focused on both fundamental and
applied research?
Government funding of universities and government labs mostly funds
basic fundamental scientific research, not technology development. The
difference is important. Science is about understanding why something
works, and doing it once to test the theory. Technology is about doing
it reliably and repeatably, at an affordable cost, meeting
environmental and safety standards, for a customer willing to pay for
it.
Universities embrace Bayh-Dole (regarding technology ownership by
universities under federal grants). This allows universities to receive
federal dollars to fund research programs in which they own the IP and
can license and sell this science to companies. In order to take this
science and turn it into meaningful technology, companies must, in
addition to paying the steep university IP license and legal fees, also
invest significant funds for engineering, manufacturing, and testing.
Many companies are very frustrated and more importantly, the high-
risk, high-benefit technology that could benefit the American people
the most is many times not transferred because the financial risk is
too great. The American taxpayers are losing out on jobs and technology
benefits because of the current technology-transfer process.
We should strive to more effectively transfer university and
government science to private sector technology firms. If I choose to
fund a program at a university as an outsider, I am also expected to
pay again to license any technology developed (the university lays
claim to all intellectual property). That means I've paid once as a
taxpayer, once as a funder, and once as a licensor. Three times seems
excessive. If we just hire a consultant, with the same or greater
expertise as a professor, our company contractually lays claim to the
IP developed before hiring the consultant, and only has to pay once. We
should strive to more effectively transfer university and government
science to private sector technology firms.
The role of the Federal Government should be to foster our national
competitiveness in the following ways:
(1) Ensure an educated populace, with a basic understanding of
science and technology
(2) Continue funding basic science, but start giving ``extra
credit'' in future funding for successful tech transfer of past
research.
(3) We should NOT fund a new governmental agency or program to hire
scientists and engineers and tell them to commercialize things--that
won't work, because there's no competition and no personal gain for
winning or personal pain for losing. Many of our foreign competitors in
Europe and Asia fund governmental or quasi-governmental agencies tasked
with developing technology and transferring it from labs (ironically,
often labs in American universities) to local industry. Entrepreneurial
business people, like we frequently see in Taiwan or China, will be
first in line to catch this technology as it spins out of these
entities, exploiting their advantage of cheap, educated labor and
governmental assistance, instead of hindrance. We should be sure the
mission of our government laboratories is clearly focused on ``big
science'' projects that the private sector shouldn't do (like nuclear
fusion), and not on things that could be done more cheaply in
universities or the private sector.
(4) Our government should not ``pick winners,'' nor engage in
``corporate welfare,'' but we should consider helping industry in that
development gap between a scientific result and a saleable product.
U.S. private-sector investment time horizons are short, and investors
are risk-averse. Today, we have two governmental programs, the SBIR,
and the NIST-ATP, that award money competitively. Both could be
improved with some minor changes:
(a) SBIR Phase 1 awards are less than $100K, which is quite
small in 2003 dollars, and Phase 2 awards, while larger, are
still not large enough to support collaborations required for
complex projects. A well-managed company can easily decide the
SBIR economics aren't worth applying for this money, and focus
on more near-term, less risky opportunities with less potential
reward. Significantly, the NIH funds larger SBIR Phase 1 and 2
awards to life science companies than other agencies. It would
be advantageous to increase competitive SBIR awards in other
agencies.
(b) On the other hand, many companies become SBIR mills, living
from grant to grant without ever productizing anything. The
government has started penalizing such companies in their
future competitions, and should start evaluating the business
case as well as the technical merits in proposals (like the
NIST-ATP currently does).
(c) The NIST-ATP is nearly a model program, but has been
savaged as ``corporate welfare'' by some detractors. However,
using expert peer review for the technology component and
business plan review for the business component, is how the
venture capitalists invest and succeed. This program should be
elevated in the Commerce Department, and professional venture
capitalists recruited to help with the business plan
evaluation. The role of the ATP should be as a competitive
``seed fund'' to incubate technologies with too long a
development time to be privately funded. Again, for future
applications, points could be awarded for successful
commercialization of past awards, or deducted for failure to
make a commercial product. The program should be funded in a
more stable fashion, and funding increased in an even more
competitive manner.
(d) We should, through the Homeland Security Agency, increase
competitive funding through both the NIST-ATP and SBIR programs
to solve our most pressing Homeland Security scientific and
technical needs. The country that is dominant in Nanotechnology
holds a competitive edge in this war against terrorism.
What if we do nothing?
We'll still have short-term nanotechnology technology development
in the U.S., funded by private equity and private sector corporations.
And the government will save money in the short run. But long-term
research will migrate offshore, following the educated workforce,
adequate long-term government funding, and friendly government
regulation, and in 10-15 years, we'll be buying our highest technology
from Asia. We won't be exporting just manual labor jobs--we will have
exported our top-tier technology jobs as well. In today's dynamic
world, this technology migration MIGHT happen even with such a program,
but it certainly WILL happen without it.
Question 2. What role do you see for the federal government in
encouraging and developing of public private partnerships and business-
to-business partnerships?
Answer. It is hard to formulate a model public-private partnership,
due to the immense power difference between the two parties. Even a
partnership between a large company and a small one is very difficult
to make work, where both parties are signed up for the same goals. The
small company, as is the case with Zyvex, has to spend 10-percent of
its total resources on proposals, compliances, and reporting. Our
foreign competitors in Asia are able to spend more of their time
competing and figuring out how to sell to more customers.
It is distressingly rare to find government and industry signed up
for the same goals, so it is not surprising that we have few examples
of success. Sematech is the only one that comes to mind. And Sematech
participants were, if I recall, given limited exemption from antitrust
laws, allowing them to work together in a way that would send non-
exempted companies to antitrust court.
However, the voice of industry can be helpful to helping government
spend its money more wisely, and get more return. A simple way is to
assure that panels, such as the review panels for the nanotechnology
program in S. 189, include representatives from large and small
businesses, and not just academia and government. The voice of business
would consider issues like deployment of technology, return on
investment, competition, strategic partnering, and reporting burdens in
a way the other representatives would not. The President's PCAST group
has an incredibly strong representation by well-known big business
executives and academics, but there is not much small business
representation on that panel, and few members in emerging fields like
biotech or nanotech.
Business-to-business partnerships are going to be increasingly
important to our national competitiveness. Problems today are too big,
and technology is becoming too specialized, for any but the biggest
companies to stand alone. Japanese companies frequently get together
independently, and with governmental ministries, to solve problems, and
even plan their competitive strategy. American companies must do this
very carefully, or run the risk of violating antitrust laws.
Our NIST-ATP award, with Zyvex as lead and Honeywell as our
manufacturing joint venture (JV) partner, is an example of how the
government can help a business-to-business relationship. Honeywell
replaced our first JV partner, a small firm that fell victim to bad
management and the technology recession. Before winning the ATP award,
Zyvex was too small to get Honeywell's attention, but when we
approached them about replacing our first JV partner, they were very
receptive, even though the program required a 50-percent cost-share by
both JV partners. Zyvex got a world-class MEMS (MicroElectroMechanical
System--or silicon micromachines) foundry and MEMS processing
engineers, and Honeywell got to work with a world-class MEMS design
team at Zyvex to develop a new MEMS process enabling whole new
applications. This new process may become an additional publicly-
available technology to augment a particular MEMS technology (MUMPs)
developed at great government expense by an American university, spun
into an American company, sold to a Canadian company, and recently sold
to and now controlled by a French company. This French MEMS company now
runs most of the standard MEMS components American small companies and
universities use to train our next generation of MEMS engineers. The
Zyvex-Honeywell process could bring some of that business back to the
U.S., providing superior design flexibility to MEMS designers in the
process.
This development would not have happened without our NIST-ATP
award. Zyvex would be working in less risky areas, and Honeywell would
be developing processes only for their own internal needs. The three
university subcontractors (RPI, University of North Texas, and
University of Texas at Dallas) would not be working on this leading-
edge technology commercialization. Other American small companies and
universities would have no choice but to build their own MEMS foundry,
if they were big enough, or buy the French components if they couldn't
afford the required $20-50M investment.
Our NIST-ATP is one of the rare examples of government, small and
big business, and universities working together toward a shared vision
of developing parallel micro and nano assembly of heterogeneous
systems. Although our NIST-ATP is still in the early stages, we expect
significant economic benefits to come later in the program, as we
demonstrate new manufacturing techniques that will lay a foundation for
the U.S. to regain the lead in manufacturing.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank Lautenberg to
Dr. E. Clayton Teague
Question. Do you think the National Science Foundation's (NSF)
current balance between funding long term research and more short-term
commercial enterprises is appropriate? How would you suggest the
distribution be altered?
Answer. The Federal Government has a clear role to play in funding
the type of long-term, basic research that industry simply cannot
support given its bottom line-directed emphasis on research and
development (R&D) with nearer term benefits. While many agencies
support fundamental research as part of a portfolio that includes
applied research and development and is focused on the agency's
mission, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is charged with
supporting research across the entire range of scientific and
engineering disciplines--a unique role. NSF Director Rita Colwell has
described the agency's mission as ``to keep science and engineering
visionaries focused on the furthest frontier, to recognize and nurture
emerging fields, to prepare the next generation of scientific talent,
and to ensure that all Americans gain an understanding of what science
and technology have to offer.'' The agency's focus on fundamental
research has resulted not only in breakthroughs of importance to
researchers, but has also contributed to discoveries with tremendous
societal and commercial significance--such as the Internet and Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (MRI).
In keeping with its mission, NSF has directed the lion's share of
its nanotechnology-focused resources toward the support of long term,
fundamental research, much of which goes to academic institutions.
NSF's nanotechnology research funding is distributed among seven
research and education themes including nanobiosystems, novel processes
and materials, novel device and systems architecture, modeling and
simulation, manufacturing science, nanoscale processes in the
environment, and societal implications, and is awarded based on a
competitive, merit review-driven process.
Considering NSF's charge, the current ratio of long-term vs. short-
term funding is appropriate. It is also consistent with a
recommendation of the National Research Council (NRC) in their report
Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. Specifically, the NRC recommended that the
National Nanotechnology Initiative should support long-term funding in
nanoscale science and technology, saying ``if an idea is truly
revolutionary and promises higher impact successes, a longer period--
and longer term funding--is needed to demonstrate results.''
At the same time, NSF makes awards to small businesses as part of
the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, in order to help support
technology transfer and development. In FY 2002, NSF funded
approximately $10 million worth of SBIR and STTR grants related to
nanotechnology. NSF also funds, using a competitive, merit review-based
process, centers and networks of excellence that bring together
researchers from different organizations--including industry--to
address nanotechnology research questions and to enhance the transition
of basic research into applications and commercialization. These
centers arid networks provide access to advanced instrumentation and
computation capabilities, and are focused on topics such as
nanobiology, environmental engineering, molecular electronics, and
others. The President requested $46 million for these NSF centers in
the FY 2004 Budget. Other agencies, notably the Department of Energy
and the Department of Defense, sponsor additional multi-user
facilities.
In addition, as part of the multi-agency Nanoscale Science,
Engineering and Technology Subcommittee of the National Science and
Technology Council, NSF arid the other member agencies sponsor
workshops aimed at facilitating interactions amongst government and
university researchers and representatives from industry in order to
promote the commercialization of federally-funded research results.
Finally, it is worth noting that commercialization of federally-
funded, long-term research at academic institutions and other
enterprises occurs regularly. Universities and other non-profit
organizations are increasingly engaged in efforts to commercialize the
results of Federally-funded research, Many, if not most, research
universities now have active technology licensing offices that seek to
license and commercialize university-owned intellectual property.
______
Response to the following questions submitted by Hon. John McCain was
not available at the time this hearing went to press.
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to Dr. James Murday
Question 1. Based on your experience as the first director of the
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), what kind of
response does NNCO usually get from participating agencies?
Question 2. S. 189 would codify the NNCO. What functions should
NNCO be directed in statute to specifically carry out?
Question 3. Your testimony states that the Department of Defense
has nanoscience programs that are 20 years old. Do the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and NNCO run adequately designed
programs that facilitate the transmission of lessons learned and ``best
practices'' from more established government nanoscience research
programs, such as the DOD one, to agencies that have not been studying
the area for such a long time?
Question 4. Based on your experience in the Office of Naval
Research and NNCO, what are best practices that agencies should pursue
to successfully transfer nanoscience research to practical technology
applications?
Question 5. When you were director of the NNCO, what were the
greatest challenges to the transfer of nanotechnology to the commercial
sector?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to Dr. James Roberto
Question 1. Given your position at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, do you feel that the federal research infrastructure is
adequate at this point to support the level of funding that is being
proposed for nanotechnology research?
Question 2. You mentioned in your statement that the boundaries
between disciplines are disappearing at the nanoscale.
a) Is this the beginning of a new discipline area for the
colleges and universities?
b) If so, are you aware of any schools which have already
started degree programs in this area?
Question 3. The Department of Energy has Nanoscale Research Centers
that are designed to be ``user facilities'' for use by U.S. industry
researchers. How has industry utilized these research centers?
Question 4. How does the Department of Energy's nanoscale research
tie into the President's FreedomCAR Initiative?
Question 5. What are the greatest barriers today to the application
of greater nanoscale research to the commercial sector?
Question 6. Based on the research that you have conducted, what are
some of the short-term, mid-range, and long-term results that the
average American consumer should see from energy-related nanotechnology
research?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to Dr. E. Clayton
Teague
Question 1. The Administration proposes reconstituting the
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee with
higher level agency management. What benefits do you believe will be
achieved by this plan?
Question 2. One objective of the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office (NNCO) is to assure the broadest possible
geographical distribution of the benefits of nanotechnology
development, and work with state nanotechnology initiatives.
Considering that many states are facing budgetary challenges this year,
how much support has there been in the states for nanotechnology
initiatives?
Question 3. Your testimony states that the National Science
Foundation (NSF) has added a new research and education theme on
``manufacturing at the nanoscale,'' and that the program element
``Nanomanufacturing'' has been established in the Directorate of
Engineering. What are some of the topics that are being researched in
the field on ``nanomanufacturing''?
Question 4. You have outlined some of the challenges that still
face basic nanoscale processes, such as the need to develop the
understanding and tools for the full control of assembling reasonably
large numbers of atoms into desired structures. What are some of the
other basic research areas that require greater research in order to
develop commercial applications of nanotechnology?
Question 5. S. 189 would establish a Center for Societal, Ethical,
Educational, Legal, and Workforce Issues. Are there specific issues
that you believe this center should be directed to study?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to Dr. Davis Baird
Question 1. What changes to S. 189 would you recommend to ensure
that social and ethical concerns are properly addressed?
Question 2. Your testimony brings up the sensational warnings of
Michael Crichton and Bill Joy about the dangers of nanotechnology
research. How should government officials, academic researchers, and
private sector companies engaged in nanotechnology research
constructively address these warnings?
Question 3. What new discoveries in the social and ethical areas of
nanotechnology are you learning from your work at the University of
South Carolina that may warrant a change in the future course of the
nanoresearch programs?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to Dr. Jun Jiao
Question 1. Can you discuss the extent of your partnerships with
industry concerning your research? Are they for funding support or
commercialization agreements?
Question 2. You spoke about the excitement of students in this area
at both the college and the high school level. Here in the Senate, we
often hear stories about how U.S. students are not interested in math
and science. Your experience seems to contradict that. Can you comment
on this?
Question 3. Your testimony emphasizes the importance of education
for the future nanotechnology workforce. What type of educational
background and skills will be required?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to Dr. Kent A. Murphy
Question 1. You have mentioned Bayh-Dole as a great start. What
changes would you recommended to Bayh-Dole to facilitate even greater
technology transfer? Does the transfer of nanotechnologies have unique
requirements?
Question 2. Your statement indicates that Luna has generated $6 of
private sector funding for $1 of government funding. Can you elaborate
on the importance of this 6.1 ratio and how you have been able to
accomplish that?
Question 3. Luna has been able to spin-off five companies since
1999 in various high tech areas. Luna was presented the prestigious
Tibbets award by the U.S. Small Business Association for its work in
research and development. It appears that Luna has positioned itself to
commercialize new technologies as they become viable for commercial
use. Can you comment on your business model and what lessons others,
including the government, may be able to learn from your success?
Question 4. As a company that's engaged in the nanotechnology
business, can you identify a federal source that you can contact for
information on the latest concerning federally funded activities in
this area?
Question 5. Can you discuss an application of nanomaterials in
which your company has generated revenues?
Question 6. You mentioned that Virginia was the first state to
establish the position of Secretary of Technology. What has that meant
for the technology companies of the state?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to James R. Von Ehr II
Question 1. Questions have been raised about the industrialization
of nanotechnolgy research, such as factory design, issues regarding the
health of workers, and worker skill level. Could you please comment on
these issues, and how Zyvex is addressing them?
Question 2. Many nanotechnology companies are still in the start-up
phase. Based on your experience, what strategies should start-up
companies use to attract investors and generate a profit?
Question 3. What impact did the failures of Internet companies have
on other technology start-up companies?
Question 4. What changes would you recommend to Bayh-Dole and other
statutes to facilitate greater technology transfer?
Question 5. You mentioned that Craig Venter framed the sequencing
of the human genome as a business problem, and not a scientific
problem. He then proceeded to solve it. Can you discuss what it means
to approach the problem as a business problem and not a scientific one?
Question 6. Can you discuss why 5 years will be too long for the
availablity of new government labs to support nanotechnology research?