[Senate Hearing 107-1129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1129
NANOTECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-633 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
Virginia TED STEVENS, Alaska
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CONRAD BURNS, Montana
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
MAX CLELAND, Georgia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
BILL NELSON, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held September 17, 2002.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 5
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Witnesses
Modzelewski, F. Mark, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance.. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Russell, Hon. Richard M., Associate Director for Technology,
Office of Science and Technology Policy........................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Stupp, Samuel I., Ph.D., Chairman of the Committee for the Review
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Research
Council/The National Academies, and Board of Trustees Professor
of Materials Science, Chemistry and Medicine, Northwestern
University..................................................... 24
Prepared statement and summary............................... 26
Swami, Nathan, Director, Initiative for Nanotechnology,
Commonweawlth of Virginia, and Microelectronics Program
Director, University of Virginia............................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Williams, R. Stanley, HP Fellow and Director, Quantum Science
Research, Hewlett-Packard...................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Appendix
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from Connecticut,
prepared statement............................................. 57
Roman, Dr. Cristina, Executive Director, European NanoBusiness
Association, prepared statement................................ 74
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden to:
F. Mark Modzelewski.......................................... 61
Hon. Richard Russell......................................... 58
Dr. Samuel I. Stupp.......................................... 68
R. Stanley Williams.......................................... 71
NANOTECHNOLOGY
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Today, the Subcommittee on Science,
Technology, and Space convenes the first ever Senate hearing on
nanotechnology. Certainly in coffee shops and senior centers
this afternoon Americans are not exactly buzzing about this
science of building electronic circuits and devices from single
atoms and molecules, but there is no question that this field
will dramatically change the way the American people live.
Today, I have introduced legislation on this issue with my
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Virginia, and others.
He and I have been pursuing all of these important technology
issues on a bipartisan basis throughout the session, and I want
to thank him for his support and also note that Senator
Lieberman, Senator Landrieu and Senator Clinton are original
sponsors of our bipartisan legislation as well.
My own judgment is that the nanotechnology revolution has
the potential to change America on a scale that is equal to if
not greater than, the computer revolution. As chair of this
Subcommittee, I am determined the United States will not miss
the opportunities in this exciting field. At present, efforts
in the nanotechnology area are strewn across a half-dozen
Federal agencies. I believe it is critical that the Government
marshall its various nanotechnology efforts in one driving
force to become the Nation's leader in this burgeoning field,
and I am of the view that Federal support is essential to
achieving the goal.
The legislation that we have introduced today will provide
a smart, accelerated, and organized approach to nanotechnology
research, development, and education. In my view, there are
three major steps that need to be taken. First, a national
nanotechnology research program should be established to
superintend long-term, fundamental nanoscience and engineering
research. The program's goals are to ensure America's
leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and
to make sure that the ethical and social concerns are taken
into account, alongside the development of the discipline.
Second, the Federal Government should support nanoscience
through a program of research grants and also through the
establishment of nanotechnology research centers. These centers
would serve as key components of a national research
infrastructure, bringing together experts from the various
disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale projects to
succeed. As these research efforts take shape, educational
opportunities will be key to their success.
In this hearing room, I have already laid out a challenge
to triple the number of people graduating with math, science,
and technology degrees. Today, I commit to helping students who
would enter the field of nanotechnology. This discipline
requires multiple areas of expertise. Students with the drive
and the talent to pursue physics, chemistry, and materials
science, simultaneously, deserve all the support that we can
offer.
Third, the Government should create connections across
agencies to mesh the various ongoing nanotechnology efforts.
These should include a national steering office, a Presidential
Nanotechnology Advisory Committee modeled on the President's
Information Technology Advisory Committee. I also believe that
as these organizational support structures are put in place,
rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the maximum
efficiency of our efforts. Personally, I would call for an
annual review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the
presidential advisory committee and a periodic review from the
National Academy of Sciences.
In addition to monitoring our own progress, the Government
should keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts
through benchmarking studies. If the Federal Government fails
to get behind nanotechnology today with organized goal-centered
support, the country runs the risk of falling behind other
nations. Nanotechnology is already making pants more stain-
resistant, more windows self-washing, and making car parts
stronger with tiny particles of clay.
America risks missing the next generation of
nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and nanodevices
will be the building blocks of health care, agriculture,
manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national
security. America does risk missing a revolution in electronics
where a device the size of a sugar cube could hold all of the
information in the Library of Congress. Today's silicon-based
technologies can only shrink so small. Eventually,
nanotechnology will grow devices from the molecular level up.
Small though they may be, their capabilities and their impacts
are going to be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere
molecules.
America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my
home State, Oregon State University researchers are working at
the microscale to create lapel pin-sized biosensors that use
the color-changing cells of the Siamese fighting fish to
provide instant visual warnings when a biotoxin is present. An
antimicrobial dressing for battlefield wounds is already
available today, containing silver and nanocrystals that
prevent infection and reduce inflammation.
The health care possibilities are limitless. Eventually,
nanoscale particles will travel through human bodies to detect
internal disease. Chemotherapy could attack individual cancer
cells and leave healthy cells intact. Tiny bulldozers could
unclog blocked arteries. Human disease would be fought cell by
cell, molecule by molecule, and nanotechnologies would provide
victories over disease that cannot be imagined today.
So America does risk missing a host of beneficial
breakthroughs. America's scientists could be the first to
create nanomaterials for manufacturing and design that are
stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and safer. Nanoscale
devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the air as it
is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to make America's
soldiers almost invisible to enemies, and incredibly enough,
tend to their wounds. Nanotechnology could grow steel stronger
than what is made today with little or no waste to pollute the
environment.
And especially, there is an extraordinary opportunity to
promote more jobs and an economic revolution. With much of
nanotechnology now existing in a research surrounding, venture
capitalists are already investing $1 billion in American
nanotech interests this year alone. It is estimated that
nanotechnology will become a trillion dollar industry over the
next 10 years. As the field grows, the ranks of skilled workers
needed to discover and apply its capabilities have to grow as
well. In the nanotechnology revolution, areas of high
unemployment could become magnets for domestic production,
engineering, and research for nanotechnology applications, but
only if the Government does not miss the boat.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is clearly a step in
the right direction. Significant funds have already been
committed to nanotechnology research and development, and what
we need to make clear is that funding is not enough. There has
to be careful planning to make sure that the money is used for
sound science over the long term. That is the reason for the
bipartisan legislation that Senator Allen and I have teamed up
on today.
I am going to put the rest of this statement that I have,
and a lengthy one it is, into the record, and recognize my
colleague. As I say, it has been a pleasure to team up with
Senator Allen on a host of these technology questions. This is
one that I think is going to be particularly exciting in States
like Virginia and Oregon, where there are already pioneering
efforts underway, and I want to again express my appreciation
to my colleague.
[The prepared statement of Senator Wyden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator from Oregon
Today the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space convenes
the first-ever Senate hearing on nanotechnology. In coffee shops and
senior centers this afternoon, Americans aren't exactly buzzing about
this science of building electronic circuits and devices from single
atoms and molecules. But there's no question that this field will
dramatically change the way Americans live.
My own judgment is the nanotechnology revolution has the potential
to change America on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the
computer revolution. As Chair of this Subcomittee, I am determined that
the United States will not miss, but will mine the opportunities of
nanotechnology. At present, efforts in the nanotechnology field are
strewn across a half-dozen Federal agencies. I want America to marshal
its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to remain the
world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe Federal support
is essential to achieving that goal.
Legislation I am introducing today will provide a smart,
accelerated, and organized approach to nanotechnology research,
development, and education. In my view, there are three major steps
America must take to ensure the highest success for its nanotechnology
efforts.
First, a National Nanotechnology Research Program should be
established to superintend long-term fundamental nanoscience and
engineering research. The program's goals will be to ensure America's
leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and to make
sure ethical and social concerns are taken into account alongside the
development of this discipline.
Second, the Federal government should support nanoscience through a
program of research grants, and also through the establishment of
nanotechnology research centers. These centers would serve as key
components of a national research infrastructure, bringing together
experts from the various disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale
projects to succeed. As these research efforts take shape, educational
opportunities will be the key to their long-term success.
In this hearing room, I have already laid out a challenge to triple
the number of people graduating with math, science and technology
degrees. Today, I commit to helping students who would enter the field
of nanotechnology. This discipline requires multiple areas of
expertise. Students with the drive and the talent to tackle physics,
chemistry, and the material sciences simultaneously deserve all the
support we can offer.
Third, the government should create connections across its agencies
to aid in the meshing of various nanotechnology efforts. These could
include a national steering office, and a Presidential Nanotechnology
Advisory Committee, modeled on the President's Information Technology
Advisory Committee.
I also believe that as these organizational support structures are
put into place, rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the
maximum efficiency of our efforts. Personally, I would call for an
annual review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the Presidential
Advisory Committee, and a periodic review from the National Academy of
Sciences. In addition to monitoring our own progress, the U.S. should
keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts through a series of
benchmarking studies.
If the Federal government fails to get behind nanotechnology now
with organized, goal-oriented support, this nation runs the risk of
falling behind others in the world who recognize the potential of this
discipline. Nanotechnology is already making pants more stain-
resistant, making windows self-washing and making car parts stronger
with tiny particles of clay. What America risks missing is the next
generation of nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and
nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care,
agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national
security.
America risks missing a revolution in electronics, where a device
the size of a sugar cube could hold all of the information in the
Library of Congress. Today's silicon-based technologies can only shrink
so small. Eventually, nanotechnologies will grow devices from the
molecular level up. Small though they may be, their capabilities and
their impact will be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere
molecules.
America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my home
state, Oregon State University researchers are working on the
microscale to create lapel-pin-sized biosensors that use the color-
changing cells of the Siamese fighting fish to provide instant visual
warnings when a biotoxin is present. An antimicrobial dressing for
battlefield wounds is already available today, containing silver
nanocrystals that prevent infection and reduce inflammation. The health
care possibilities for nanotechnology are limitless. Eventually,
nanoscale particles will travel through human bodies to detect and cure
disease. Chemotherapy could attack individual cancer cells and leave
healthy cells intact. Tiny bulldozers could unclog blocked arteries.
Human disease will be fought cell by cell, molecule by molecule--and
nanotechnology will provide victories over disease that we can't even
conceive today.
America risks missing a host of beneficial breakthroughs. American
scientists could be the first to create nanomaterials for manufacturing
and design that are stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and
safer. Nanoscale devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the
air as it is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to makes
American soldiers almost invisible to enemies and even tend their
wounds. Nanotechnology could grow steel stronger than what's made
today, with little or no waste to pollute the environment.
Moreover--and this is key--America risks missing an economic
revolution based on nanotechnology. With much of nanotechnology
existing in a research milieu, venture capitalists are already
investing $1 billion in American nanotech interests this year alone.
It's estimated that nanotechnology will become a trillion-dollar
industry over the next ten years. As nanotechnology grows, the ranks of
skilled workers needed to discover and apply its capabilities must grow
too. In the nanotechnology revolution, areas of high unemployment could
become magnets for domestic production, engineering and research for
nanotechnology applications--but only if government doesn't miss the
boat.
Our country's National Nanotechnology Initiative is a step in the
right direction. This nation has already committed substantial funds to
nanotechnology research and development in the coming years. But
funding is not enough. There must be careful planning to make sure that
money is used for sound science over the long-term. That is the reason
for the legislation I am issuing today. The strategic planning it
prescribes will ensure that scientists get the support they need to
realize nanotechnology's greatest potential.
In 1944 the visionary President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested
a leading American scientist's opinion on advancing the United States'
scientific efforts to benefit the world. Dr. Vannevar Bush offered his
reply to President Harry S. Truman the next year, following FDR's
death. In his report to the President, Dr. Bush wrote, ``The Government
should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new
scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our
youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government,
for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national
security. It is in keeping also with basic United States policy that
the Government should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is
the modern way to do it.''
Those principles, so true nearly sixty years ago, are truer still
today. I propose that the government now accept new responsibilities in
promoting and developing nanotechnology. Our witnesses today will make
it clear that nanotechnology will vitally affect our health, our jobs,
and our national security--as well as our economy. I look forward to
hearing from them on how this Congress might take up what I believe is
a proper concern--and an essential one--indeed.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
you for calling today's hearing. I want to share your
enthusiasm about today's prospect as well as many other
matters. We worked as leaders in a bipartisan manner to try to
get our colleagues in the Senate and, indeed, the whole Federal
Government to address many important needs of our country,
especially in the areas of science and space and technology. I
look forward to listening to our panel of experts. I know that
one, Dr. Swami, is from Virginia, and there is a great deal of
promise here. I think it is exciting, because it is not just a
matter of jobs, which is great, but it is truly improving our
lives, our communications, our material sciences, and many
other areas.
We had a hearing in this Committee earlier about the
importance of basic scientific research and whether or not
Congress should consider doubling the budget for the National
Science Foundation, and in the midst of that hearing, one of
the more intriguing conversations was the discussion on
nanotechnology, and those witnesses were saying, pay attention
to that and, of course, you and I were, and in fact in
preparing for this I looked back to a speech I gave in April of
last year, and my view is, nanotechnology is quickly
transforming every corner of our modern world and has already--
as you gave some of the examples, already transforming and
improving the quality of our life.
Whether it is electronic devices in computers to health
care, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, or national
defense, nanoscience is really at the foundation and will be at
the foundation of many of these revolutionary advances and
discoveries in the decades to come. Some will be years to come,
some decades to come, but it is certainly going to occupy a
major portion of our technology economy. It is that promise, it
is that potential that should impel us as Americans, in a land
that has always historically valued and encouraged innovation
and entrepreneurship, that we embrace and support this research
and this work.
Our Nation has been at the forefront of virtually every
important and transformative technology since the Industrial
Revolution, and we must continue to lead the world in the new
frontier of nanoscience, and that is why, Mr. Chairman, I am so
proud and enthusiastically joining with you in supporting and
introducing the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act. I think it is vitally important for the future
of our country, for our competitive edge.
Maybe some people will wonder what in the world is
nanotechnology. We will get a definition of nanotechnology. It
is typically defined by size, and the science of nanotechnology
is really the ability to pick and place and manipulate atoms
one one-hundred thousandth times smaller than the width of a
human hair. So pull one of these out of your head.
Senator Wyden. I do not have any left. I have given them to
this cause.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. What a personal commitment.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. They are one one-hundredth times smaller
than the width of a human hair. Of course, you would have to
look at that under a microscope. You probably could not see it
with the naked eye, but this is going to generate these
materials and the fundamentally new and superior methods of
science for us, and to improve our lives, so I agree with
everything you said, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
working with you and this Committee in making sure that the
United States leads in this, as well as other areas. If we are
going to lead, we have to be well-coordinated. We need a game
plan.
We do not just--obviously there is more funding in our act,
and it is consistent with President Bush's initiatives as well,
but we do want to have measurement, also recognizing in this
that many of these developments and improvements in the
marketing of these advancements may be decades down the road,
but this is what I think the taxpayers of the United States
Government would like us to do. And we look forward to
listening to this esteemed panel as to how we can make sure
that the Federal Government, working with the private sector,
working with colleges and universities and the scientists
therein, to make sure we have the right fertile ground
conditions present for the collaboration that is needed for us
to move forward in this area.
Again, I thank you for this hearing, and thank these fine
gentlemen for sharing their views with us.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague for an excellent
statement, we have got a big job ahead of us in terms of
educating the Senate on these issues, and I look forward to
tackling them with you.
So we will introduce our panelists. We will begin with Hon.
Richard Russell, Associate Director for Technology, Office of
Science and Technology Policy; and then we will have Mr. Mark
Modzelewski, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance;
and then Dr. Samuel Stupp, Board of Trustees Professor in
materials science, chemistry, and engineering at Northwestern;
Dr. Stan Williams, HP fellow and director of quantum science
research at Hewlett-Packard; and Dr. Nathan Swami, Director of
the Initiative for Nanotechnology, Commonwealth of Virginia,
and the microelectronics program director at the University of
Virginia.
Gentlemen, we welcome all of you. We are going to put your
prepared statements into the record in their entirety, and I
know that at these hearings there is almost a physical
compulsion to just read, word for word, everything that is down
in your statement, and I think in the interest of more having a
free-flowing discussion, if I can talk you into summarizing
some of your big concerns so that we can have a discussion
about some of the issues, we will make your prepared statement
a part of the hearing record in its entirety. Why don't you
take, each of you, 5 minutes or so, and we will proceed with
you.
Mr. Russell, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD M. RUSSELL, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR FOR TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Allen, for
this opportunity to testify about the National Nanotechnology
Initiative and the importance of nanotechnology research. I
agree with you wholeheartedly that this is a tremendously
important area and a tremendously exciting area for us to be
looking at. Properties that govern physics of materials and
artifacts at the nanoscale can differ significantly from those
at more conventional scales. As a result, nanotechnology
represents more than simply another step in the progression of
technology miniaturization.
Looking to the future, commercialization of nanotechnology
is expected to lead to new products and in some cases the
creation of new markets and applications as diverse as
materials and manufacturing electronics, biotechnology,
information technology, and national security. New discoveries
in nanotechnology are being made on a regular basis.
Just last week, and I am sure we will hear from the other
panelists, Hewlett-Packard announced a breakthrough in
molecular electronics through a joint Federal/industry-funded
project at UCLA. The team pioneered a method to fabricate
closely spaced nanoscale wires. This novel device represents a
major breakthrough in memory storage density.
Another example of great promise is federally funded BioCOM
chip under development at UC Berkeley. This device allows for
real-time blood screening for prostate cancer. Though still in
the prototype stage, this device and others like it promise to
improve significantly medical diagnostics.
Nanotechnology is still at a very early stage of
development. The role of Federal R&D funding in this area is to
provide the fundamental research underpinnings on which future
commercial nanoscale technologies could be based. Numerous
challenges must be addressed before the envisioned promise of
these technologies can be reached. These challenges include
fundamental research to improve our understanding in several
fields of science and engineering as well as synthesis,
analysis and manufacturing of nanoscale-based products.
Because of its significant potential impacts on the
physical sciences, life sciences, and engineering and more
broadly on the United States' economy and society,
nanotechnology is viewed by the Bush administration as an
important component of the Federal research and development
portfolio. The President requested a 17-percent increase for
nanotechnology research in fiscal year 2003.
The administration's ongoing support for nanotechnology was
also articulated through a joint guidance memorandum issued to
heads of Federal science and technology agencies from OSTP and
OMB, which specifically identified nanotechnology as 1 of 6
interagency R&D priorities for 2004. Federal funding for
nanotechnology is focused through NNI. NNI is an interagency
program that encompasses relevant nanotechnology R&D-
participating Federal agencies.
The research agenda for the 9 agencies currently
participating in NNI is coordinated by the Nanoscale Science
and Engineering Technology Subcommittee, or NSET, which is part
of the National Science and Technology Council. The National
Nanotechnology Coordinating Office assists NSET-participating
agencies in coordinating their nanotechnology funding. It also
serves as the secretariat for NNI. The coordinating office
carries out the objectives established by NSET members,
coordinates and publishes information for workshops sponsored
by NNI, and prepares annual reports on the activities of NNI.
The coordinating office also contracts for program reviews to
provide feedback on NNI.
NNI funding provides support for a range of activities
which include basic research, grant challenges, research
infrastructure and centers, and networks of excellence, which
are centralized facilities intended to provide sites for
cooperative research amongst groups of researchers from
multiple institutions. NNI funding is also used to address
nontechnical research problems in the broader context,
including societal implications and workforce and training
issues that will likely emerge in relation to nanotechnology.
The National Research Council recently completed a report
on NNI. The report highlighted the strong leadership of NNI,
praising the degree of interagency collaboration and the early
successes of the research programs. The report also provided a
number of recommendations to further strengthen NNI.
OSTP is working through the coordinating office and the
NSTC to improve the structure of NNI, and to create a strong
framework for implementing NNI's technical objectives. NNI's
early program success and positive independent review by the
NRC provides a sound justification for continued support in
this important research field. With a history of only 2 years,
the ultimate impact of NNI lies in the future, and will only be
realized through continued Federal R&D funding.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Allen, the administration supports
nanotechnology research, the NNI program, and I look forward to
working with the Committee on this important research.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard M. Russell, Associate Director for
Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).
Nanotechnology is research and development at the nanoscale--a
scale on the order of 10-\9\ meters, or a thousandth of a
millionth of a meter. To provide some perspective, this is
approximately 1/100,000 the diameter of the average human hair.
Research in nanotechnology is contributing to a fundamentally new
understanding of the unique properties that occur on the nanoscale. The
properties and governing physics of materials and artifacts at the
nanoscale can differ significantly from those at more conventional
scales. As a result, nanotechnology represents more than simply another
step in the progression of technology miniaturization.
Looking to the future, commercialization of nanotechnology is
expected to lead to new products, and in some cases the creation of new
markets, in applications as diverse as materials and manufacturing,
electronics, medicine and healthcare, environment, energy, chemicals,
biotechnology, agriculture, information technology, transportation,
national security, and others. Nanotechnology will likely have a broad
and fundamental impact on many sectors of the economy. Some have even
suggested that this impact will surpass the combined impact of both
biotech and information technology.
New discoveries are being made on a regular basis. Just last week
(9/10/02), researchers at Hewlett Packard announced a nanotechnology
breakthrough in molecular electronics. Through a joint federal/industry
funded project at the University of California at Los Angeles, the team
pioneered a method to fabricate nanoscale wires separated by a thousand
molecules. This novel device represents a major breakthrough in memory
storage density that heralds a new era in microelectronic
miniaturization. It serves as a prime example of the promise--and the
challenge--posed by nanotechnology. This includes the promise of new
materials, new devices, and new processes that will enable continued
growth in our high tech industries. But it also highlights the
challenge of understanding nanoscale phenomena, reliably producing
nanoscale structures and systems, and converting this new knowledge
into new technologies that contribute to our economic prosperity.
Another example of great promise is the federally funded BioCOM
chip under development at the University of California at Berkeley.
This device combines elements of both the nano- and the micro-scale
into a lab-on-a-chip package that provides a new tool for real-time
sampling of blood for Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening. Though
still in the prototype stage, this device, and others like it, promise
to revolutionize medicine. These developments are leading to new
sensors that will be utilized in medicine as well as homeland security,
broadly contributing to healthcare, economic strength, and national
security.
Nanotechnology is still at a very early stage of development. The
role of federal R&D funding in this area is to provide the fundamental
research underpinnings upon which future commercial nanoscale
technologies will be based. Numerous challenges must be addressed
before the envisioned promise of these technologies can be reached.
These challenges include fundamental research to improve our basic
understanding in several fields of science and engineering, as well as
novel approaches toward synthesis, analysis and manufacturing of
nanotechnology-based products. Because of the complexity, cost, and
high risk associated with these issues, the private sector is often
unable to assure itself of short-to-medium term returns on R&D
investments. Consequently, industry is not likely to undertake the
basic research investments necessary to overcome the technical barriers
that currently face the nanotechnology field. The NNI program is
structured to overcome these barriers so that America's industries will
prosper from our investment in nanotechnology.
The President's FY 2003 budget represents a record request for
federally funded R&D ($112 billion), an increase of eight percent over
the previous investment. Because of its significant potential impact on
the physical sciences, life sciences, and engineering--and more broadly
on the U.S. economy and society--nanotechnology is viewed by the Bush
Administration as an important component of the federal research and
development (R&D) portfolio. Funding for nanotechnology was increased
seventeen percent in the FY 2003 request ($679 million). In the
previous fiscal year, President Bush signed into law a thirty seven
percent increase in the NNI budget (from $464 million to $579 million).
The Administration's ongoing support for nanotechnology was
articulated through a joint guidance memorandum issued to heads of
Federal science and technology agencies from John H. Marburger III,
Director of OSTP, and Mitchell Daniels, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, which specifically identified nanotechnology as
one of six interagency R&D priorities for FY 2004.
Federal funding for nanotechnology is focused through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The NNI is an interagency program that
encompasses relevant nanotechnology R&D among the participating Federal
agencies. The research agenda for the nine agencies currently
participating in the NNI is coordinated by the Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC). The NSET is staffed by representatives of
the participating agencies, OSTP, OMB, as well as other Federal
agencies that lack relevant R&D programs but which have an interest in
these technologies. NSET members meet on a monthly basis to measure
progress, set priorities, organize workshops, and plan for the coming
year. The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) assists
NSET-participating agencies in coordinating their nanotechnology
funding. It also serves as the secretariat for the NNI. The NNCO
carries out the objectives established by the NSET members, coordinates
and publishes information from workshops sponsored by the NNI, and
prepares annual reports on the activities of the NNI. The NNCO also
contracts for program reviews to provide feedback on the NNI.
The federal agencies currently performing nanotechnology research
coordinated through the NNI are:
Department of Defense;
Department of Energy;
Department of Justice;
Department of Transportation;
Environmental Protection Agency;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
National Institutes of Health;
National Institute of Standards and Technology; and
National Science Foundation.
This funding provides support for a range of activities, which
include: basic research, focused efforts directed at answering specific
sets of questions of high significance--so-called ``grand challenges,''
research infrastructure (instrumentation, equipment, facilities), and
centers and networks of excellence, which are 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 is
being used to support mission-oriented research within agencies,
research at national laboratories, or to support research at academic
institutions. A small 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 that
will likely emerge in relation to nanotechnology.
The National Research Council (NRC) conducted an evaluation study
of the NNI from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Earlier this summer, the NRC
released the results of this study in a report entitled Small Wonders,
Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
The report highlighted the strong leadership of the NNI, praised the
degree of interagency collaboration, and lauded the early successes of
the research programs. The report also provided a number of
recommendations to further strengthen the NNI. OSTP is working closely
with the NNCO, as well as through its representation on the NSTC's
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Technology Subcommittee, to improve
the structure of the NNI, and to create a stronger framework for
implementing the NNI's technical objectives. One recommendation of the
NRC was to create an independent Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Advisory Board (NNAB) to provide input to the NSET members. OSTP
believes that this function can be met through the President's Council
of Advisors and Science and Technology (PCAST). As you know, PCAST
members represent a distinguished cross section of industry and
academia and have always functioned as an external advisory board on
science and technology issues of relevance to the nation. They are
clearly qualified to carry out such functions for nanotechnology.
The NNI was initiated in FY 2001. The early program successes and
positive independent review by the NRC provide a sound justification
for continued support in this important research field. With a history
of only two years, the ultimate impact of the NNI lies in the future
and will only be realized through continued federal R&D funding.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I hope that this
overview has conveyed this Administration's commitment to
nanotechnology and the NNI program. OSTP is actively working with the
NNCO to implement many of the NRC recommendations. We believe that our
efforts will improve the program substantially and will enhance our
investment in nanotechnology.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Mr. Modzelewski.
STATEMENT OF F. MARK MODZELEWSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NanoBusiness ALLIANCE
Mr. Modzelewski. Mr. Chairman, Senator Allen, I thank you
for allowing me, on behalf of the NanoBusiness Alliance, the
member organizations, the opportunity to testify before you on
the topic of nanotechnology as a transition from a science into
a business.
Nanotechnology is rapidly becoming an industrial revolution
for the 21st Century. However, today's nanotech industry might
best be compared to the computer industry of the 1960s before
the integrated circuit, or the biotech industry of the 1970s.
While many nanotechnology sectors are in the nascent stages,
others are already delivering products to market. A variety of
nanomaterials, for instance, including enhanced polymers,
coatings, and fillers, are already available, producing
revenues and profits, and advanced nanotechnology medical and
electronics applications will be imminently impacting our
lives.
As production of nanoproducts becomes easier, faster, and
cheaper, every market sector will begin to feel the impact. We
at the NanoBusiness Alliance estimate that the global market
for nanotechnology-related products and services could reach
more than $225 billion by 2005. The NSF conservatively predicts
a $1 trillion global market for nanotechnology in a little over
a decade.
Since its inception, the National Nanotechnology Initiative
has proven to be an incredible instance of Government outpacing
the imagination of the private sector. Mike Roco, Jim Murday,
and the other individuals who created and continue to advance
the NNI should be highly commended. That is why the
NanoBusiness Alliance and its members would like to
enthusiastically endorse the 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research & Development Act that is being introduced today by
the Chairman and Senator Allen. This will be a timely and vital
bill that builds on the fine work of the NNI and will assist
America's long-term scientific and economic competitiveness in
this field.
Currently, nanotechnology is becoming nanobusiness faster
than anyone could have ever imagined. Just 5 years ago, only a
few corporate visionaries, IBM, HP, Texas Instruments among
them, were undertaking any research and development in the
nanosciences. Today, you would be hard pressed to find a member
of the Fortune 500 that does manufacturing without some
nanotechnology effort underway. GM, GE, Siemens, Intel,
Hitachi, Dow have all launched significant nanotechnology
initiatives.
Unlike the dot com era, nanotech startups are built on
science, and they are out there. They have real technology and
real assets, and more often than not they are founded by
researchers from universities, Government and corporate
laboratories. More than half of the world's nanotech startups
are in the U.S., and while it is difficult to pin an exact
number on how many there are, it is safe to say at least 1,000
are currently in operation, up from approximately 100 just 3
years ago.
Venture capitalists, institutional investors, and wealthy
angels have also begun to see the potential of nanotechnology.
Chastened by the lessons of the dot com disaster, they are
nevertheless aggressively seeking investment opportunities. As
you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, over $1 billion will be invested
this year in nanotechnology, when you look at corporate
venturing efforts, venture capital firms, and other wealthy
angels.
Ultimately, regional development efforts, the creation of
technology clusters, Nanotech Valleys, if you will, will fuel
the explosive growth of the nanotechnology industry. Localized
development efforts are already underway from Virginia, to
Texas, to California. The alliance ourselves launched a
nanotechnology hubs initiative a few months ago to jump start
regional technology cluster development, and frankly, we have
been overwhelmed.
We launched efforts in 6 regions as well as affiliates in
the EU and Canada, and have been inundated with calls from over
35 States and 11 countries to help develop this capacity. These
States and regions are already looking to nanotechnology to
ignite economic development.
As far as foreign competition goes, nanotechnology is truly
emerging as a global technology, and unlike many past waves of
technology development the United States is not dominating; in
several areas of nanotech the U.S. is being outpaced by foreign
competition. Japan, EU, Russia, Korea, and China are all
significant players in the field of nanotechnology. A recent
report from the Journal of Japanese Trade and Industry notes
the Japanese Government views the successful development of
nanotechnology as the, quote, ``key to restoration of the
Japanese economy,'' and they are not alone. Funding is growing
at unprecedented rates across the globe over the past 3 years.
Not everything is rosy for the future of nanobusiness.
While the NNI and overall Government nanotech efforts have been
a great source of coordination and basic research funding,
these nanotech grants remain among the most competitive in the
Government. In addition, many nanotechnology companies have
emerged from the basic research cycle and are addressing issues
such as scaling and integration. Few Government programs
address this time frame. Add to that a venture capital sector
that is unwilling, too, and you have companies falling into
what investors term, the Valley of Death.
Another great fear is uneasiness over lack of research in
the nanotech health and safety issues, and more than one CEO
has raised this as a concern. Others range from the U.S. Patent
Office and its inability to understand the multidisciplinary
nature of nanotechnology. In addition, the current state of
technology transfer is lacking, by any measure. The technology
transfer process from Government, academic labs, and the
marketplace is impossible at times and arduous at best. And
lastly the education as well as workforce training and
development are beginning to become real issues among the
nanotechnology community.
In summation, we certainly, as the alliance, greatly
support this effort to continue to drill down on nanotechnology
and to develop Government programs for it. While maintaining
the development of basic research as a priority, we must expand
our search to cultivate nanotechnology as an industry, and
truly usher in a new Industrial Revolution.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Modzelewski follows:]
Prepared Statement of F. Mark Modzelewski, Executive Director,
NanoBusiness Alliance
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Senator Allen, Members of the Subcommittee, I thank
you for allowing me--on behalf of the NanoBusiness Alliance and our
member organizations--the opportunity to testify before you on the
topic on nanotechnology and its transition from a science into a
business.
Nanotechnology has really been here since the dawn of creation. The
difference now is that man is beginning to tap into it. Nanotechnology
is the ability to do things--measure, see, predict and manufacture--on
the scale of atoms and molecules. Traditionally, the nanotechnology
realm is defined as being between 0.1 and 100 nanometers, a nanometer
being one thousandth of a micron (micrometer), which is, in turn, one
thousandth of a millimeter. Working at the scale of atoms and molecules
is not merely about miniaturizing items. Working at this scale allows
for the actual opening of nature's toolbox. Working at this scale
allows man to act as nature does in creating things.
Currently, nanotechnology is transitioning from a science into a
business. It is rapidly becoming the Industrial Revolution of the 21st
century. The importance of nanotechnology cannot be overstated. It will
affect almost every aspect of our lives, from the way we do computing,
to the medicines we use, the energy supplies we require, the foods we
eat, the cars we drive, and the clothes we wear. More importantly, for
every area where we can fathom an impact from nanotechnology, there
will be others no one has thought of--new capabilities, new products,
and new markets.
We are at the earliest stage of this ``nano-revolution.'' The
nanotech industry might be compared to the computer industry of the
1960s, before the development of the integrated circuit, or the biotech
industry of the 1970s. But while many nanotechnology sectors are in
their nascent stages, others are already delivering products to the
market. Forward-thinking corporations and entrepreneurs are reaping
revenues and profits from a variety of nanomaterials, including
enhanced polymers, coatings, and fillers. And advanced nanotech medical
applications, such as disease detection and drug delivery, are in human
trials and will be greatly impacting lives within a few years.
As production of nano-products becomes easier, faster and cheaper,
every market sector will begin to feel their impact. We at the
NanoBusiness Alliance estimate that the global market for
nanotechnology-related products and services could reach more than $225
billion in 2005. The U.S. National Science Foundation conservatively
predicts a $1 trillion global market for nanotechnology in little over
a decade.
(It should be noted that the Microtechnology Innovation Team at
Deutsche Bank AG. announced last week the results of a comprehensive
market analysis on nanotechnology (full study available Q3/Q4 2002).
They estimate that the current market size of nanotechnology products
is greater than $116 billion, excluding electronics, and $300 billion
total. According to the report, the nanomaterials market size is
expected to reach $29.4B per year by 2006. While these significant
numbers are appreciated, they do not align with other research in the
field and will need to be explored upon the full release of the
report.)
Nanotechnology Development
Nanotechnology is an enabling technology. It allows us to do new
things. Like other enabling technologies, such as the internal
combustion engine, the transistor or the Internet, its impact on
society will be broad and often unanticipated. And nanotech is indeed
changing many fields of business in truly revolutionary ways.
Life Sciences and Medicine
In life sciences and medicine, nanotechnology means we are
beginning to be able to measure and make things on the level at which
organisms in the living world, from bacteria to plants to ourselves, do
most of their work. Being able to work at this scale doesn't just
empower us in our control of the biological world, but also allows us
to start borrowing from that world, leveraging the extraordinary
inventions that nature has produced through billions of years of
evolution. Nanotechnology will ultimately help to extend the life span,
improve its quality, and enhance human physical capabilities. In the
near future, about half of all production of pharmaceuticals will be
dependent on nanotechnology--affecting over $180 billion in revenues
per year in 10 to15 years.
Disciplines in LifeSciences and Medicine that are seeing
nanotechnology's impact are:
Nanoparticle Tagging: Nanoparticles small enough to behave
as quantum dots can be made to emit light at varying
frequencies. If you can get particles that emit at different
frequencies to attach to different molecules you can literally
put a sign of identification on them. This development will
allow for the tagging of disease, infection and bacteria,
allowing for detection at the earliest moment of a disorder's
onset.
Nanostructured Materials: Nanostructured materials, coupled
with liquid crystals and chemical receptors, offer the
possibility of cheap, portable biodetectors that might, for
instance, be worn as a badge. Such a badge could change color
in the presence of a variety of chemicals and would have
applications in hazardous environments. The U.S. armed forces
are already in advanced research stage for this discovery to be
part of the military uniform of the future.
Drug Delivery: Drug delivery is one of the areas that is
anticipated to have applications hitting the market very soon;
clinical trials have already begun. Almost all current
medications are delivered to the body as a whole, which is fine
as long as they only become active in the areas you want them
to. But this is not usually the case. When the treatment is
designed to kill cells, as in the case of cancer, the side
effects are enormous. Nanotech also promises to allow for
substance ``extraction'' potentially removing poisons or toxins
from the body or allowing for organic coatings of these
substances so they pass harmlessly through the body.
Cellular Manipulation: Cells are extraordinarily complex
systems about which we are still quite ignorant. For this
reason, it will be a long time before we see nanorobots doing
complex work in our bodies. However, as we learn more we are
likely to find ways to manipulate and coerce cellular systems
and will achieve a lot that way--persuading lost nerve tissue
to regrow.
Agriculture
Nanotechnology will ultimately provide the ultimate solutions for
many hurdles presented by biotechnology and agri-sciences. The most
likely area in which nanotechnology will initially enter the
agricultural industry is the world of analysis and detection, such as
bio-sensors to detect the quality of and the health of agricultural
products and livestock. Also, innovative waste treatment options and
composite materials, as part of the manufacturing and processing of
agricultural products, are already entering the market.
Food Safety: Advanced nano-sensors that can detect surface
and airborne pathogens are already leaving the lab, yet work to
develop these products for the agriculture sector remain
limited. Should pricing continue to fall and enhanced
development be undertaken, the extent of nano-sensor usage can
go right to the consumer level with the packaging of
agriculture products such as meat actually examining and
denoting quality and safety.
Animal Health: Work on unique drug delivery, protease
inhibitors, cell tagging and treatment are already hitting the
trail phases. Targeted drug delivery for instance is one of the
areas that are anticipated to have applications hitting the
market very soon. With protease inhibitors, viruses, prions and
diseases such as BSE (Mad Cow Disease) and Brucellosis.
GMO Enhancements: Nanoparticles small enough to behave as
quantum dots can be made to emit light at varying frequencies.
If you can get particles that emit at different frequencies to
attach to different molecules you can literally put a sign of
identification on them. This development will allow for the
tagging of molecules in the GMO development process. This
development can also be used to tag disease, infection and
bacteria, allowing for detection at the earliest moment of a
disorder's onset. Also the tagging can be a part of the
treatment as cells that are tagged can be engineered or
attacked separately from non-tagged cells--allowing for
pinpoint eradication.
Nano-filtration: NF uses partially permeable membranes to
preferentially separate different fluids or ions, and will
remove particles from approximately 0.0005 to 0.005 microns in
size. NF membranes are usually used to reject high percentages
of multivalent ions and divalent cations. while allowing
monovalent ions to pass. Removal includes sugars, dyes,
surfactants, minerals, divalent salts, bacteria, proteins,
particles, dyes, and other constituents that have a molecular
weight greater than 1000 daltons. Waste treatment efforts are
already in development.
BioComposities: Nano-bio composites are in development that
can serve as composite material for manufacturing that is
lighter, stronger, yet completely bio-degradable. Uses include
body panels, parts, organic fibers and many other areas.
Materials Science
In materials, things start to behave differently at the nanoscale.
The bulk materials that we have traditionally dealt with are
uncontrolled and disordered at small scales. The strongest alloys are
still made of crystals the size and shape of which we control only
crudely. By comparison, a tiny, hollow tube of carbon atoms, called a
carbon nanotube, can be perfectly formed, is remarkably strong, and has
some interesting and useful electrical and thermal properties.
When particles get small enough (and qualify as nanoparticles),
their mechanical properties change, and the way light and other
electromagnetic radiation is affected by them changes (visible light
wavelengths are on the order of a few hundred nanometers). Using
nanoparticles in composite materials can enhance their strength and/or
reduce weight, increase chemical and heat resistance and change the
interaction with light and other radiation. While some such composites
have been made for decades, the ability to make nanoparticles out of a
wider variety of materials is opening up a world of new composites. For
example, in 10-15 years, projections indicate that such nanotechnology-
based lighting advances (utilizing nano-phosphorus among other
materials) have the potential to reduce worldwide consumption of energy
by more than 10 percent, reflecting a savings of $100 billion dollars
per year and a corresponding reduction of 200 million tons of carbon
emissions.
It has been estimated that nanostructured materials and processes
can be expected to have a market impact of over $340 billion within a
decade (Hitachi Research Institute, 2001). Like so many aspects of
nanotechnology, this is a difficult thing to estimate because of
potential new applications--if you can make a material ten times as
strong and durable as steel for a lesser mass, what new products will
people dream up?
The nanometer scale is expected to become a highly efficient length
scale for manufacturing. Materials with high performance, unique
properties and functions will be produced that traditional chemistry
could not create.
Disciplines in Material Sciences that are seeing nanotechnology's
impact are:
Nanoparticulate Fillers: Alternatively, composite materials
can use nanoparticulate fillers. Composite materials already
enjoy an enormous market, but making the filling material
nanophase (i.e. consisting of nanoscale particles) changes its
properties. As particles get smaller, the material's properties
change--metals get harder, ceramics get softer, and some
mixtures, such as alloys, may get harder up to a point, then
softer again.
Nanoparticles for Many Applications: Recently, clay
nanoparticles have made their way into composites in cars and
packaging materials. (Widespread use of nanocomposites in cars
could lead to an enormous decrease in fuel consumption: savings
of over 1.5 billion liters of gasoline over the lifespan of one
year's vehicle production, thereby reducing carbon dioxide
emissions by more than 5 billion kilograms). You've probably
heard of sunscreens using nanoparticulate zinc oxide.
Nanoparticles are also being used as abrasives, and in paints,
in new coatings for eyeglasses (making them scratchproof and
unbreakable), for tiles, and in electrochromic coatings for
windscreens, or windows. Anti-graffiti coatings for walls have
been made, as have improved ski waxes and ceramic coatings for
solar cells to add strength. Glues containing nanoparticles
have optical properties that give rise to uses in
optoelectronics. Casings for electronic devices, such as
computers, containing nanoparticles, offer improved shielding
against electromagnetic interference. That famous spin-off of
the space age, Teflon, looks soon to be trumped for
slipperiness thanks to nanoparticle composites.
Textiles: Another huge industry that will be impacted by
nanotechnology is the textiles industry. Companies are working
on ``smart'' fabrics that can change their physical properties
according to surrounding conditions, or even monitor vital
signs. The incorporation of nanoparticles and capsules in
clothing offers some promise and nanotubes would make extremely
light and durable materials. Fabrics infused with nanoparticles
are already being marketed that are highly resistant to water
and stains and wrinkling.
Nanoparticle Catalysts
Many industrial processes will be affected by nanotechnology. One
major early impact will come from our improved capabilities in making
nanoparticles, the reason being that nanoparticles make better
catalysts. A catalyst (a substance that initiates or enhances a
reaction without being consumed itself) does its work at the point
where it contacts the reactants, i.e. its surface. Since volume changes
as the cube of the linear dimension, but surface area changes only as
the square, when you make a particle smaller in diameter (the linear
dimension), the volume, and thus mass, decreases faster than the
surface area. Thus a given mass of catalyst presents more surface area
if it consists of smaller particles.
Equally, a given catalytic surface area can be fitted into a
smaller space. The use of catalysts in industry is widespread so there
should be a large market here for nanoparticle manufacturers. It should
be noted, though, that nanostructured catalysts have already been used
in industry for decades--zeolites, catalytic minerals that occur
naturally or are synthesized, have a porous structure that is often
characterized on the nanoscale.
Catalysts are also of major importance in cleaning up the
environment, allowing us to break down harmful substances into less
harmful ones. Improved catalysts will make such processes more
economical. Petroleum and chemical processing companies are using
nanostructured catalysts to remove pollutants, creating a $30 billion
industry in 1999 with the potential of $100 billion per year by 2015.
Improved catalysts offer a nice example of how taking an existing
technology and making it better can open up whole new markets.
Nanostructured catalysts look likely to be a critical component in
finally making fuel cells a reality, which could transform our power
generation and distribution industry (for example, our laptops and cell
phones would run for days on a single charge).
Disciplines in Catalysts sector that are seeing nanotechnology's impact
are:
Fuel Cells: The development of fuel cells will probably be
impacted by nanotechnology in other ways too, certainly by
structuring components in them on a nanoscale but also in terms
of storing the fuel, where the nanotube, yet again, shows
promise for storing hydrogen for use in fuel cells. A relative
of the nanotube, the nanohorn, has been touted as ready to hit
the market in two to four years in a methane-based fuel cell.
Solar Cells: Nanotechnology has been cited as a way to
improve the efficiency of solar cells. However, typical
commercial cells have efficiencies of about 15 percent, with
over 30 percent having been achieved, which is already much
better than photosynthesis, at about 1 percent. The cost of
solar cells is currently the biggest barrier to
commercialization.
Light Sources: In the world of light transmission, organic
LEDs are looking like a promising way of making cheaper and
longer-lasting light sources, reducing power consumption in the
process. By contrast, at least one group of researchers has
created a bulb driven by nanotubes. Tiny electron emitters,
called field emission devices, including ones based on
nanotubes, hold promise for use in flat panel displays.
Pharmaceutical Processes: The pharmaceuticals industry will
probably experience a benefit not only from advances in
catalysis, but also from the new, cheaper and smaller
bioanalysis tools. One estimate claims that nearly half of all
pharmaceutical production will be dependent on nanotechnology
within 15 years--a market of some $180 billion per year (E.
Cooper, Elan/Nanosystems, 2001).
Waste Treatment: Photocatalysis will play in this field in
the future. There are efforts underway to sensitize TiO2
to visible light; this could open the door for this technology
in large-scale waste treatment, because visible light is free
and plentiful, especially as compared to UV-light.
Electronics and Information Technology
The impact of the Information Technology (IT) Revolution on our
world has far from run its course and will surely outstrip the impact
of the Industrial Revolution. Some might claim it has done so already.
Key to this is decades of increasing computer power in a smaller space
at a lower cost.
In electronics, the benefit of working on the nanoscale stems
largely from being able to make things smaller. The value comes from
the fact that the semiconductor industry, which we have come to expect
to provide ever smaller circuits and ever more powerful computers,
relies on a technology that is fundamentally limited by the wavelength
of light (or other forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays).
The semiconductor industry sees itself plunging towards a fundamental
size barrier using existing technologies. The ability to work at levels
below these wavelengths, with nanotubes or other molecular
configurations, offers us a sledgehammer to break through this barrier.
Ultimately, circuit elements could consist of single molecules. MEMS
are generally constructed using the same photolithographic techniques
as silicon chips and have been made with elements that perform the
functions of most fundamental macroscale device elements--levers,
sensors, pumps, rotors, etc. Nanoscale structures such as quantum dots
also offer a path to making a revolutionary new type of computer, the
quantum computer, with its promise of mind-boggling computing power, if
it can be converted from theory to practice. Lasers constitute an area
that is likely to be commercially affected by nanotechnology in the
near future. Quantum dots and nanoporous silicon both offer the
potential of producing tunable lasers--ones where we can choose the
wavelength of the emitted light.
You may have heard of Moore's law, which dictates that the number
of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles every 12 to 24 months.
This has held true for about 40 years now, but the current lithographic
technology has physical limits when it comes to making things smaller,
and the semiconductor industry, which often refers to the collection of
these as the ``red brick wall'', thinks that the wall will be hit in
around fifteen years. At that point a new technology will have to take
over, and nanotechnology offers a variety of potentially viable
options.
Disciplines in Electronics and Information Technology that are seeing
nanotechnology's impact are:
Carbon Nanotubes in Nanoelectronics: Carbon nanotubes hold
promise as basic components for nanoelectronics--they can be
conductors, semiconductors and insulators. IBM recently made
the most basic logic element, a NOT gate, out of a single
nanotube, and researchers in Holland are boasting a variety of
more complex structures out of collections of tubes, including
memory elements. There are two big hurdles to overcome for
nanotube-based electronics. One is connectibility--it's one
thing making a nanotube transistor, it's another to connect
millions of them together. The other is the ability to ramp up
to mass production. Traditional lithographic techniques are
based on very expensive masks that can then be used to print
vast numbers of circuits, bringing the cost per transistor down
to one five-hundredth of a U.S. cent. Current approaches to
nanotube electronics are typically one-component-at-a-time,
which cannot prove economical. Molecular electronics (which,
strictly speaking, includes nanotubes) faces similar scaling
hurdles. There are some possible solutions, however.
Organic Nanoelectronics: Organic molecules have also been
shown to have the necessary properties to be used in
electronics. However, unlike nanotubes, the speed of reaction,
for instance in switching a memory element, and hardiness in
face of environmental conditions, will likely limit uses.
Devices made of molecular components would be much smaller than
those made by existing silicon technologies. But the issue of
mass production remains.
Soft Lithography: There is an approach to making nanoscale
structures that potentially offers great promise for
nanoelectronics in the near term, owing to its simplicity. This
is soft lithography, which is a collection of techniques based
around soft rubber nanostructured forms or molds. You can use
these to stamp a pattern on a surface, in the form of
indentations, or using some form of ``ink''. No special
technology is required, and nor are the fantastically clean
environments required for existing silicon chip production.
Additionally, a wide variety of materials can be used.
The approach is reminiscent of one of the most famous examples
of mass-production--the printing press. Soft lithography is
already used to make microfluidic systems, such as those in
lab-on-a-chip systems, and it scales readily down to the
nanoscale (depending on the variant of the technology used,
resolution can get below 10 nanometers). The techniques also
promise potential in the creation of optical devices, which may
in turn ultimately be used in optical computing. As a
replacement for traditional lithography for creating electronic
devices, however, there is currently a major obstacle--the
technique is not well suited to making the precisely-aligned,
multi-layered structures currently used in microelectronics,
although researchers are working to overcome this limitation.
Memory and Storage: When it comes to the technology behind
the vast IT market, there is much more than just shrinking
microprocessors to consider. Storing information is vitally
important and can be done in many ways. Magnetic disks in
computers have been increasing their capacity in line with
Moore's law, and have a market at the moment of around $40
billion. The other type of information storage common to all
computers is DRAM (dynamic random access memory). DRAM provides
very quick access but is comparatively expensive per bit.
Magnetic disks can hold much more information but it takes much
longer to access the data. Also, DRAM is volatile--the
information disappears when the power is switched off. The
trade-offs between access speed, cost, and storage density
dictate the architecture of computers with respect to
information storage. New technologies may change this dynamic.
MRAM: Some memory technologies that are currently being
researched are single-electron tunneling devices, rapid single
flux quantum devices, resonant tunneling diodes, and various
types of magnetic RAM (MRAM). MRAM offers the promise of non-
volatile RAM, enabling devices such as a PC or mobile phone to
boot up in little or no time. This puts the technology
somewhere between existing DRAM and magnetic disk technologies.
Nanotubes also hold promise for non-volatile memory and recent
news suggests nanotube-based RAM may hit the market very soon
(commercial prototype in 1 to 2 years).
Quantum Computing: In the much longer term, there's quantum
computing, which offers staggering potential by virtue of the
ability to perform simultaneous calculations on all the numbers
that can be represented by an array of quantum bits (qubits).
The atomic scale, the scale at which quantum effects come into
play, argues for a requirement for nanoscale structures and
quantum dots to come up regularly in discussions of quantum
computing. Primary applications would be in cryptography,
simulation and modeling. The realization of a quantum computer
is generally believed to be a long way off, despite some very
active research. Funding in the area is thus still largely that
provided for pure research, though some defense department
money has been made available.
The total potential for nanotechnology in semiconductors has
been estimated to be about $300 billion per year within 10
years, and another $300 billion per year for global integrated
circuit sales (R. Doering, ``Societal Implications of Scaling
to Nanoelectronics,'' 2001). But it's actually much harder to
predict the commercially successful technologies in the world
of electronics than in the world of materials. The assumption
that continually increasing processing power will automatically
slot into a computer hardware market that continues to grow at
the rate it has done historically, is not necessarily sound.
Most of the growth over the last decade has been driven by
personal computers and some argue that this market is nearing
saturation.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Since its inception, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
has proven to be an incredible instance of government outpacing the
vision of the private sector. And already we are the better for it.
The NanoBusiness Alliance indeed fully endorses the work of the NNI
and offers our deep appreciation to the fine work of Dr. Mike Roco, Dr.
James Murday and the other individuals who created the NNI and continue
to advance its efforts everyday.
The NNI has been an exceedingly successful program. From our
industry vantage point the NNI has made an incredible impact in the
following areas:
1. Funding: The NNI has provided much needed funding for
basic research at America's universities and government labs.
By fueling innovation, this investment is--and will continue
to--find its way to the public marketplace promoting industry
development.
2. Awareness: Before the NNI. the overwhelming majority of
Americans thought that nanotechnology was science fiction--or
they never even heard of it. A survey just a couple years back
showed that less than 5 percent of CEOs knew what
nanotechnology was, never mind what it meant to their
businesses. This is changing rapidly. In fact, we now hear
claims that people talk about nanotechnology too much.
3. Collaboration: The NNI has been extraordinarily
successful at fueling collaborations between corporations,
universities, start-ups and government labs--in the U.S. and
abroad. Also, the NNI has helped to break down internal
research silos. Nanotechnology is an incredibly cross-
disciplinary field. To succeed in developing applications you
need chemists to work with engineers; and engineers to work
with physics and so on. Due to the educational efforts of the
NNI, and the structure of their grants programs, this
collaborative movement is beginning to ferment. Universities,
such as University of Washington, are already giving out PhDs
in NanoScience which trains students across many needed
disciplines, and other schools are following at the undergrad
and graduate level.
4. Competition: For better and for worst, the announcement
of NNI set forth a global contest for dominance in the
nanoscience and nanotech industry. Ultimately this will make
the consumer the winner. This global competition will push even
more rapid developments.
That is why the NanoBusiness Alliance and its members would like to
enthusiastically endorse the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act that is being introduced by this Senator Wyden.
By all accounts it will be a vital and timely bill that will assist
America's scientific and economic competitiveness as well as play a key
role in developing nanotechnology efforts for Homeland Defense.
State of NanoBusiness
Few realize that the age of nanotechnology as a business--
NanoBusiness--is already here. Though we are admittedly at the earliest
stages, substantial change is already taking place. Some of the most
recent predictions for the development of nanotechnology and time to
market are being rapidly eradicated. For instance, in January 2000 at
the NNI kick-off announcement at Cal Tech, President Clinton noted:
``Just imagine, materials with 10 times the strength of steel
and only a fraction of the weight; shrinking all the
information at the Library of Congress into a device the size
of a sugar cube; detecting cancerous tumors that are only a few
cells in size. Some of these research goals will take 20 or
more years to achieve.''
When President Clinton said those words it seemed like a highly
reasonable timeframe. Yet here we are a couple of years later and just
last week Hewlett-Packard said they had created a 64 bit computer
memory chip using new molecular technology that takes miniaturization
further than ever before. Some thousands of these memory units could
fit on the end of a single strand of hair.
In addition, incredibly strong nanocomposites are already available
and being used by aircraft manufacturers and automakers among others.
Researchers at Rice University are in early trials using quantum dots
to detect cancer in the lab. Have we completely erased the 20 year
prediction? No, but we are getting close. Very close.
Corporations
Just five years ago only a few corporate visionaries--IBM, HP,
Texas Instruments among them--were undertaking any research and
development in the nanosciences. Today you'd be hard pressed to find a
single member of the Fortune 500 that is involved in manufacturing that
does not have some nanotechnology effort underway--GM, GE, Ford,
Siemens, Intel, Motorola, Lucent, Toyota, Hitachi, Corning, Dow
Chemical, NEC, Dupont, 3M, etc. have launched significant nanotech
initiatives. Some of the biggest spenders on R&D are allocating up to a
third of their research budgets to nanotech.
As an example of current market applications in corporate America
for one small area of nanotech--carbon nanotubes--already some 60
percent of the cars on our highways utilize nanotubes or other
nanoparticulate fillers in their fuel lines, airbags, and body panels.
And 50 percent of lithium batteries on the market utilize nanotubes to
enhance their energy storage capabilities. These are compelling cases
of American corporations already tapping into the potential of
nanobusiness.
Some examples:
General Electric: At a time when many corporations are
scaling back research and development operations, General
Electric, the world's largest company, reaffirmed its
commitment to R&D this year with a $100 million+ pledge to
modernize its global research center. The Center will focus its
greatest emphasis on nanotechnology. GE views nanotechnology as
a key component to its future.
IBM: Few would question that IBM is the world's leading
nanotechnology company with bleeding edge efforts in nano-
electronics, life sciences and nano-materials. IBM has major
nanotechnology operations underway in New York, Zurich and in
Silicon Valley. They are patenting literally hundreds of new
nanotechnology discoveries a year.
Mitsubishi Corp: Mitsubishi Corp. created a joint venture
with two Arizona-based start-ups, MER and Research Corporation
Technologies, to form Fullerene International Corp. (FIC). FIC
has established a fullerene manufacturing facility in Osaka,
Japan, with MER providing the reactor.
Start-Ups
Unlike the Dot-com era, nanotech start-ups are built on science.
They have real technology. Real assets. And more often than not, they
are founded by researchers from universities, government and corporate
laboratories. These young companies are already pushing the growth of
the field through their innovation. And these start-ups will most
assuredly be part of the next NASDAQ boom.
More than half the world nanotech start-ups are in the U.S.. And
while it is difficult to pin an exact number on how many there are, it
is safe to say that around a 1,000 are currently in operation up from
maybe 100 three years ago.
Some examples:
C Sixty Inc., A pioneering biotech company that is modifying
fullerenes for medical applications,--drug delivery, protease
inhibitors, and disease prevention. C-Sixty has begun clinical
trials on an AIDS drug already. The Houston-based company also
reported progress on another fullerene-based approach--this one
for Lou Gehrig's disease, a degenerative disorder that affects
nerve cells.
Luna Innovations: A diverse research company based in
Blacksburg, Va., recently received a $2 million federal grant
to develop buckyballs that can be used in magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) systems and for possible diagnosis and treatment
of cancer. They also have a cutting edge sensor in final
development for the oil and gas industry.
NanoBio: A start-up company spun off from the University of
Michigan has created an emulsion that protects civilians and
troops from biological terror attacks. It actually kills
anthrax and was approved several years ago, far in advance of
the horrible events of last fall. This antimicrobial substance
called NanoProtect, can be applied either before or after an
attack to all kinds of surfaces, including skin, clothing and
vehicles. NanoProtect is the result of a five-year, $11.8
million grant by the U.S. Defense Advanced Projects Research
Agency (DARPA) to researcher Dr. James Baker Jr.
Evident Technologies: Evident is a nanotechnology
manufacturing and application company that draws upon
semiconductor nanocrystal expertise to develop sophisticated,
cost effective, innovative devices and products. Their products
have applicability in biotechnology, optical switching, and
computing, telecommunications, energy and other fields.
Evident's quantum dot technology can be used to ``tag''
cancerous cells, create new lighting source, or serve as part
of developing electronics. This self funded company has been
creating profits by supplying testing materials to the
semiconductor and biotech industries.
Funding
Venture capitalists, institutional investors and wealthy angels
have also begun to see the potential in nanotech, and, though chastened
by the lessons of the ``dot-com disaster,'' are nevertheless
aggressively seeking investment opportunities. Over 60 U.S. venture
capital firms invested in nanotech-related companies in 2000.
Investment in nanotechnology start-ups will rise from $100 million in
1999 to nearly a $1billion by 2003. Recent investments include
NanoPhontonic, a semiconductor company that received over $25mm this
spring in venture investment. Surface Logic, a nanoelectronics firm
obtained almost $22 mm in new funding as well.
All signs demonstrate that this growth curve will continue to
increase rapidly over the next 3-5 years for nanotechnology regardless
of the current economic slow down. So-called angel investors and
corporate venturing operations are expected to outpace traditional
venture capital firm's investments for the foreseeable future due to
the business models and return times.
Regional Development
Ultimately, regional development efforts --the creation of
technology clusters (Nanotech Valleys if you will)--will fuel the
explosive growth of the nanotechnology industry. The bringing together
of universities, government officials, corporations, investors, non-
profits, start-ups and service firms to coordinate, plan, and develop
an environment condusive for collaboration and attracting talent is the
key to developing the industry. Region specific approaches. Region
specific planning. National--even international--collaboration and
impact.
Localized development efforts are already underway from Virginia to
Texas to California. The NanoBusiness Alliance launched a ``Nanotech
Hubs Initiative'' a few months back with the hope of jump starting
regional technology cluster development. We have been overwhelmed.
Though we have launched efforts in Colorado, New York, San Francisco,
San Diego, Michigan and Washington DC metro--as well as affiliate
organizations in the EU and Canada--we have been inundated with calls
from 35 states and 11 countries to help develop this capacity. They are
looking for best practices, partners and funding. They are looking for
roadmaps and shared databases.
These states and regions are already looking to nanotechnology to
develop local economies and fuel overall state economic development.
Some examples:
New York State: Albany NanoTech is a fully-integrated
research, development, prototyping, pilot manufacturing and
education resource managing a strategic portfolio of state-of-
the-art laboratories, supercomputer and shared-user facilities
and an array of research centers located at the University at
Albany--SUNY. Its first research center, the NYS Center for
Advanced Thin Film Technology, was established to provide its
company partners with a unique environment to pioneer, develop,
and test new ideas within a technically aggressive, yet
economically competitive, research environment. Governor Pataki
has been instrumental in expanding this center, as has IBM. It
has served to be a magnet for corporate development and start
ups. It was recently announced that the SEMATECH--the largest
semiconductor industry developers--would locate its next
generation R&D facility at the Center. When the last SEMATECH
located in Austin it turned the city from a quiet college town
into one of Americas 5 great technology centers.
Chicago: Chicago is looking to seize leadership in the
emerging field of nanotechnology by providing tax subsidies to
foster a high-tech corridor. The area has also created a
Chicagoland nanotech initiative of sorts, with large corporate
players like Boeing and Motorola; nanotech companies like
NanoPhase and NanoInk; investors; consultants like McKinsey:
Northwestern's Nanotechnology Center; U Chicago; and Argonne
National Laboratory all collaborating.
Foreign Competition
Nanotechnology is emerging as a truly global technology. Unlike the
many waves of technological development over the past seventy-five
years, nanotechnology is not dominated by the United States. The U.S.
is being outpaced by foreign competition in several areas of
nanotechnology. Japan, Italy, Israel, Ireland, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, UK, Germany, Russia, South Korea, China, France, Canada,
and Australia are all significant players in the field of
nanotechnology.
A recent report from the Journal of Japanese Trade & Industry notes
that the Japanese government views the successful development of
nanotechnology as the key to ``restoration of the Japanese economy.''
They are not alone. Funding has grown at unprecedented rates in the
last three years fueled by the awareness of the U.S. National
Nanotechnology efforts.
Problems in the NanoBusiness World
Not everything is rosy for the future of nanobusiness. Though much
development has occurred, many obstacles remain. While the NNI and
overall government nanotech efforts have been a great source of
.coordination and basic research funding for many, these nanotech
grants remain among the most competitive in the government.
In addition, many nanotech companies have emerged from the basic
research cycle and are addressing issues such as scaling and
integration. Few government programs address this timeframe. Add to
that a venture capital sector that is battered, not knowledgeable on
nanotech and now working in a shortened cycle of investment return and
you have many nanotech companies falling into what investors term
``Death Valley.''
Another area of concern for nanotech start ups is the current state
of U.S. intellectual property and the USPTO. The Patent Office is in
desperate need of training programs to ensure its examiners understand
nanotechnology. At USPTO, nanotech patent applications--understandably
due to the wide breadth of application areas the technology covers--go
down many different review silos at USPTO. Also, several early nanotech
patents are given such broad coverage, the industry is potentially in
real danger of experiencing unnecessary legal slowdowns.
Another grave fear that is often expressed by CEOs, particularly at
large corporations that are undertaking nanotech R&D, is uneasiness
over the lack of research on nanotech health and safety issues. More
than one CEO has raised the specter of ``are we sitting on the next
asbestos working with all these tiny things.''
In addition, the current state of technology transfer is lacking by
any measure. The technology transfer process from government and
academic labs to the marketplace is impossible at worst--arduous at
best.
And lastly, education, as well workforce training and development
are beginning to become issues among the nanotech community.
Close
In closing, nanotechnology the science is indeed now rapidly
becoming nanotechnology the business. As a nation we have been very
fortunate to have the visionary support--from both sides of the aisle--
in developing and maintaining the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
However, we are now at a cross roads where we must expand the reach of
this national initiative from the laboratory to the board room. While
maintaining the development of basic research as a priority, we must
expand our sights to cultivate the nanotechnology industry and usher in
a new Industrial Revolution. Again, that is why the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act is so important.
1. We see the Act's ability to strengthen the structure of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative as being of vital
importance--increasing the long term stability and growth of
our Nation's nanotechnology efforts.
2. The Act makes the development of the nanotechnology sector
a major government focus. Increasing understanding and
awareness of nanotechnology throughout the government's
political and civil service ranks by providing mechanisms for
program management and coordination across government agencies
and White House. We especially support Act's call for the
development of a government advisory board made up of
nanotechnology leaders to regularly discuss the state of the
industry and recommend solutions to the President and Congress.
3. Due to real challenges to our Nation's efforts to obtain a
secure leadership position in nanotechnology and nanobusiness,
we also strongly support the Act's call for further examination
and tracking of international funding, development and
competition in nanoscience and nanobusiness.
4. And, we strongly support the Act's efforts to encourage
nanoscience through additional grants, and the establishment of
interdisciplinary nanotechnology research centers, as this will
lead to more innovation and further development of the nanotech
economy.
Long term, the Alliance would like to see Congress continue its
focus on nanotechnology as it becomes nanobusiness and develop
programs--and expand existing programs--for commercializing
nanotechnology development.
a. Create programs that offer opportunities to entrepreneurial
start-ups and innovative corporations alike. Programs that
offer incentives, loans, and funding to take nanotechnology
innovations into the marketplace.
b. Ensure that the USPTO is properly educated and equipped to
evaluate and approve nanotechnology patents
c. Organize an extensive global effort with industry, academia
and government to study the health and environmental effects--
good and bad--on nanotechnology now before potential problems
or even negative intimations arise. The effort should include
social and scientific studies building on much of the fine work
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative staff. Ensure that
publicly accessible materials, events and websites are
developed to disseminate such information to a broad audience.
d. Develop programs, possibly though the Office of Technology
Policy in the Department of Commerce, economic development
organizations, universities and industry groups to promote and
nurture regional nanotechnology cluster development. Create
best practices reports, guides, and extensive national
nanobusiness database.
e. Develop programs to improve the state of tech transfer at
government labs and academic institutions which will improve
the commoditization of emerging technologies
Again, I would like to thank the Chairman, Senator Allen and the
Committee for this opportunity to address them.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Modzelewski, we also understand you
could provide a couple of demonstrations today, and since you
are under your 5 minutes, please have at it.
Mr. Modzelewski. One that we can start off with, if we
could dim the lights, I am going to demonstrate a technology by
a company called Evident Technology, which is based in New
York, and this is a testing kit which basically uses quantum
dot technology. This technology could be used for everything
from potentially detecting individual cancer cells in the human
body to being used actually for lighting sources, everything
from light bulbs that use less energy to flat screens. It is
even being used in the electronics industry in semiconductor
work.
The thing that you will find most interesting about them is
your ability to give off a large and intense color spectrum. I
am going to use a black light to demonstrate that for you. As
you can see, they are very hard to see initially, but when
given the color spectrum they can give off an incredible glow,
and these glows can literally be assigned to pick up individual
pathogens, even can be used as biosensors for the military and
be used for individual forms of cancer.
The thought is, is that this could be advanced in, say,
cancer research to where you are not only identifying them, but
are able to link up the light spectrum to things like lasers or
other ultraviolet sources that could eradicate just the
individual cells, as opposed to treating the whole area of the
body.
Another thing we have is here from a company called
Infomat, which is a Connecticut-based company, and what they
are able to do is actually use a flexible ceramic coating, and
you have instead an incredibly heat-resistant product here, and
we have the flexible ceramic. We can start looking at things
like ceramic engines and other things that have long been
difficult for us to even imagine being able to successfully do
this. This actual little piece of metal is actually a band that
the U.S. Navy is beginning to use on some of the development of
their ships and things along those lines.
I am not sure if we also want to demonstrate the
nanochinos. Is anyone interested in that?
Senator Wyden. We have a huge demand for nanochinos.
Mr. Modzelewski. You have to understand, this is already in
the marketplace. There is the availability of nanofibers, and
these coated fibers create such a level of surface area that
anything that is spilled on them does not just bead up like
Scotchgard, but literally is repelled away, and we can actually
be looking, potentially, within the next decade, for clothing
that does not need to be cleaned, and you are seeing how grape
juice, I believe, beads up and works off of the nanochinos.
Voice: I wipe it and it is all completely dry.
Senator Wyden. That is unbelievable.
Voice: If it is submersed, it will release and allow
washing.
Mr. Modzelewski. That product is already available. He is
not wearing something experimental. Big name brands n the
American fabric industry, Levi's, Lee, Eddie Bauer sell
nanochinos, nanojeans, and also shirts with such a capacity,
and in fact Dockers is running a commercial right now where a
gentleman is in a bar and his buddy keeps pouring a drink on
him, and he is begging him to stop pouring the drink on him to
watch how cool the nanotechnology works. And so I think we are
starting to enter an age right now where, true, we do need the
basic research, and we should continue to advance that, but we
are already really seeing this technology start to enter our
lives in very simple ways, and soon to be more advanced ways.
I thank you.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Stupp.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL I. STUPP, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE
FOR THE REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE,
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL/THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES, AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES PROFESSOR OF MATERIALS SCIENCE,
CHEMISTRY AND MEDICINE, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
Dr. Stupp. Mr. Wyden, Mr. Allen, thank you for the
opportunity to present this statement. I chaired the review
committee for the NNI of the National Research Council. I am
here representing a committee which was composed of a mix of
individuals from academe and industry, and drawn from a variety
of scientific and engineering disciplines relevant to the topic
of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The committee spent 9 months
reviewing the NNI and writing the report that is the basis of
my testimony to you today. During those 9 months, we heard from
all of the agencies currently being funded under the NNI, and
most of the agencies that are planning on joining the NNI in
the near future.
In addition to the information gathered from these
agencies, we also relied on the knowledge committee members
have about activities ongoing in our universities, in the
private sector, in State and local regions, and
internationally. The committee was asked to review the NNI with
particular attention to (1) whether the balance of the overall
research portfolio is appropriate, (2) whether the correct seed
investments were being made now to assure U.S. leadership in
nanoscale work in the future, (3) whether partnerships were
being used effectively to leverage the Federal investment in
this area, and (4) whether the coordination and management of
the program is effective, such that the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts.
Our committee detailed many of the important outcomes that
could come from nanotechnology, including applications in
medical diagnostics, new therapies for disease and injury, the
very exciting frontier of regenerative medicine, which is not
discussed all that frequently, and homeland security as well.
The committee found that the agencies participating in the
NNI have made a good start in organizing and managing such a
large interagency program. The committee was impressed with the
leadership and level of multiagency involvement in the NNI,
particularly the leadership role played by the National Science
Foundation. Programs funded to date that were presented to the
committee were all of an appropriately high technical merit,
and the participating agencies have sponsored a number of
influential symposia in nanotechnology.
The committee formulated 10 major recommendations to help
the NNI agencies build on their efforts to date to further
strengthen the implementation of the initiative. So concerning
the research portfolio, the committee recommended that (1) more
emphasis be given to long-term funding of new concepts in
nanoscale science and technology. Truly revolutionary ideas
will need sustained funding to achieve results and produce
important breakthroughs. There are not currently enough funding
mechanisms to give longer term support to higher risk but
potentially groundbreaking ideas. There are more of those in
Europe than here in the U.S.
(2) The committee recommends increasing the multiagency
investments in research at the intersection of nanoscale
technology and biology. We can already see applications of
nanoscale science and technology that will have significant
impacts in biotechnology and medicine. Bionano is not currently
as well-represented in the NNI portfolio as it should be. Since
many of the advances foreseen in this area involve the marriage
of physical sciences and engineering with biology, these
investments should focus on collaborations between the NIH and
the other NNI agencies.
(3) The committee recommends investment also in the
development of new instruments for measurement and
characterization of nanoscale systems. Historically, many
important advances in science happened only after the
appropriate instruments became available.
(4) The committee recommends that NSET develop a new
funding strategy to ensure that the societal implications
become an integral and vital component of the NNI.
On whether the ``correct'' seed investments are being made
now for the future of U.S. leadership in nanotechnology, the
committee recommends, (1) that NNI agencies provide strong
support for the development of an interdisciplinary culture for
nanotechnology. Nanoscale research is leading us into areas
involving the convergence of many disciplines, biology,
chemistry, physics, material science, all areas of engineering.
However, the overall value system used by the scientific
community to judge its members continues to discourage
interdisciplinary research.
Looking at the question of whether partnerships are being
used effectively in the NNI, the committee found that
industrial partnerships need further stimulation and nurturing
to accelerate the commercialization of NNI development. The
U.S. is most likely to realize economic benefits from
nanotechnology when its underlying intellectual property comes
from U.S.-based laboratories, institutions, and corporations.
(2) Interagency partnerships also require further
attention. While the NNI implementation plan lists major
interagency collaborations, the committee has no sense that
there is any common strategic planning occurring in those
areas, any significant interagency communication between
researchers in those areas, or any significant sharing of
results before publication in the open literature.
To stimulate meaningful interagency collaborations, we
proposed a special fund within NNI, perhaps under the oversight
of OSTP, for grants to exclusively support interagency research
programs.
On the topic of program management and evaluation, the
committee recommends that NSET develop a crisp, compelling,
overarching strategic plan for the NNI which includes both
short, medium, and long-term goals.
The committee recommends that NSET develop performance
metrics to assess the effectiveness of the NNI in meeting its
objectives and goals. Currently, the programs have only been
evaluated as a part of the procedures of individual agencies.
(3) The committee recommends that OSTP establish an
independent standing nanoscience and nanotechnology advisory
board now. The existence of such a board would help the NSET
agencies vision beyond their own individual missions. It could
identify and champion research opportunities that do not fit
conveniently into any one agency's mission. To ensure that
nanoscale research continues its progress towards its ultimate
potential, such a board should be composed of leaders from
industry and academia with scientific, technical, social
science or research management credentials.
I think this is the end of my statement.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stupp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Samuel I. Stupp, Ph.D., Chairman of the Committee
for the Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National
Research Council/The National Academies, and Board of Trustees
Professor of Materials Science, Chemistry and Medicine,
Northwestern University
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Samuel Stupp. I am Board of Trustees Professor of Materials Science,
Chemistry and Medicine at Northwestern University, and chaired the
Committee for the Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative of
the National Research Council. The Research Council is the operating
arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, chartered by Congress in
1863 to advise the government on matters of science and technology.
I am here representing a committee that was composed of a mix of
individuals from academe and industry, and drawn from a variety of
scientific and engineering disciplines relevant to the topic of
nanoscience and nanotechnology. The committee spent nine months
reviewing the National Nanotechnology Initiative or NNI, and writing
the report that is the basis of my testimony to you today. During those
nine months, we heard from all of the agencies currently being funded
under the NNI, and most of the agencies that are planning on joining in
the NNI in the near future. In addition to the information gathered
from these agencies, we also relied on the knowledge committee members
have about activities on-going in our universities, in the private
sector, in state and local regions, and internationally.
The committee was asked to review the NNI with particular attention
to:
Whether the balance of the overall research portfolio is
appropriate,
Whether the correct ``seed'' investments were being made now
to assure U.S. leadership in nanoscale work in the future,
Whether partnerships were being used effectively to leverage the
federal investment in this area, and
Whether the coordination and management of the program is
effective, such that ``the whole is greater than the sum of its
parts.''
In writing its report, the committee was very concerned with
communicating to the reader the importance of nanotechnology and its
future potential. There have been a lot of promises made for the
wonders which nanotechnology will provide for society, and while there
has been hype, the committee can say definitively that nanoscience and
nanotechnology are not dreams but are here today in products and
technologies we currently use. You already use nanotechnology everyday
in applications as mundane as the sunscreen and lipstick you may be
wearing, to those as sophisticated as the high-density hard disk that
runs your pc or laptop. Current research results point to even more
applications in the near future, such as improved medical diagnostics
and new therapies for disease and injury.
The committee found that the agencies participating in the NNI have
made a good start in organizing and managing such a large interagency
program. The committee was impressed with the leadership and level of
multi-agency involvement in the NNI, particularly the leadership role
played by the National Science Foundation. Programs funded to date that
were presented to the committee were all of an appropriately high
technical merit, and the participating agencies have sponsored a number
of influential symposia in nanoscale science and technology, including
one on the potential ethical, legal, and social issues involved in
these technical advances.
The committee formulated ten major recommendations to help the NNI-
participating agencies build on the foundation of their efforts to date
to further strengthen the implementation of the initiative.
Concerning the balance of the research portfolio, the committee
recommended that:
More emphasis be given to long-term funding of new concepts
in nanoscale science and technology. Truly revolutionary ideas
will need sustained funding to achieve results and produce
important breakthroughs. There are not currently enough funding
mechanism to give longer-term support to higher risk but
potentially groundbreaking ideas.
The committee recommends increasing the multiagency
investments in research at the intersection of nanoscale
technology and biology. We can already see applications of
nanoscale science and technology that will have significant
impacts in biotechnology and medicine. ``Bio-nano'' is not
currently as well represented in the NNI portfolio as it should
be. Since many of the advances foreseen in this area involve
the marriage of physical sciences and engineering with biology,
these investments should focus on collaborations between NIH
and the other NNI agencies.
The committee recommends investment in the development of
new instruments for measurement and characterization of
nanoscale systems. Historically, many important advances in
science happened only after the appropriate investigative
instruments became available. Since one must be able to measure
and quantify a phenomenon in order to understand and use it, it
is critical that we develop tools that allow for more
quantitative investigations of nanoscale phenomena.
The committee recommends that NSET develop a new funding
strategy to ensure that the societal implications become an
integral and vital component of the NNI. The current level and
diversity of efforts concerning societal implications of
nanotechnology is disappointing. Federal agencies have not
given sufficient consideration to societal implications of
nanoscale science and technology. To ensure that work in this
area is funded, the participating agencies should develop a
funding strategy that treats societal implications as a
supplement or set-aside to agency core budget requests, which
is then awarded to agencies willing and capable to engage in
this type of work.
On whether the correct ``seed'' investments are being made now for
the future of U.S. leadership in nanoscale science and technology, the
committee recommends:
That NNI agencies provide strong support for the development
of an interdisciplinary culture for nanoscale science and
technology. Nanoscale research is leading us into areas
involving the convergence of many disciplines--biology,
chemistry, physics, materials science, mechanical engineering,
and others. However, the overall value system used by the
scientific community to judge its members continues to
discourage interdisciplinary research. Although the number of
interdisciplinary research groups will grow as it becomes
evident that this approach is necessary to make the most
exciting advances in nanoscale research, federal agencies
should accelerate this process by developing creative programs
that encourage interdisciplinary research groups in academia.
Looking at the question of whether partnerships are being used
effectively in the NNI, the committee found that:
Industrial partnerships need further stimulation and
nurturing to accelerate the commercialization of NNI
developments. The U.S. is most likely to realize economic
benefits from nanoscale science and technology when this
technology and its underlying intellectual property come from
U.S.-based laboratories, institutions, and corporations.
Interagency partnerships also require further attention.
While the NNI Implementation Plan lists major interagency
collaborations, the committee had no sense that there is any
common strategic planning occurring in those areas, any
significant interagency communication between researchers
working in those areas, or any significant sharing of results
before publication in the open literature. All NNI funds are
currently directed by each agency to the projects and programs
of that agency's choice. To stimulate meaningful interagency
collaborations, the committee recommends the creation of a
special fund within NNI, perhaps under the oversight of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), for grants to
exclusively support interagency research programs.
On the topic of program management and evaluation, the committee
recommends:
That NSET, the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology
subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council,
develop a crisp, compelling, overarching strategic plan for the
NNI. This plan should articulate short, medium, and long-term
goals, and emphasize those long-range goals that move results
out of the laboratory and into society. In particular, the
strategic plan should include a consistent set of anticipated
outcomes for each funding theme and each Grand Challenge in the
NNI implementation plan.
The committee recommends that NSET develop performance
metrics to assess the effectiveness of the NNI in meeting its
objectives and goals. Currently the programs have only been
evaluated as part of the GPRA procedures of individual
agencies.
Finally, the committee recommends that OSTP establish an
independent standing Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Advisory
Board (NNAB). The existence of such a board would help give the
NSET agencies vision beyond their own individual missions. It
could identify and champion research opportunities that don't
fit conveniently into any one agency's mission to ensure that
nanoscale science and engineering continue to progress toward
their ultimate potential. Such a board should be composed of
leaders from industry and academia with scientific, technical,
social science, or research management credentials.
With this, I will be happy to take your questions on the report and
its findings.
______
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES, DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES
Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative--Summary
Background. Nanoscale science and technology, often referred to as
``nanoscience'' or ``nanotechnology,'' is science and engineering at
the scale of 10-\9\ meters, or 1/100,000 the width of a
human hair. In the last two decades, researchers have begun developing
the capability to manipulate matter at the level of single atoms and
small groups of atoms, and to characterize the properties of materials
and systems at that scale. This capability has led to the astonishing
discovery that clusters of small numbers of atoms or molecules--
nanoscale clusters--often have properties (such as strength, electrical
resistivity and conductivity, and optical absorption) that are
significantly different from the properties of the same matter in
either the single molecule or bulk scales.
Using these discoveries, scientists and engineers have begun
controlling the structure and properties of materials and systems.
Current applications of nanoscale materials includes titanium dioxide
and zinc oxide powders which are used by cosmetics manufacturers for
facial base creams and sunscreen lotions. Nano-structured materials
have been integrated into complex products such as the hard disk drives
that store information and the silicon integrated circuit chips that
process information in every Internet server and personal computer. In
the future, these researchers anticipate that nanoscale work will
enable the development of materials and systems with dramatic new
properties relevant to virtually every sector of the economy, such as
medicine, telecommunications, and computers, and to areas of national
interest such as homeland security. With potential applications in
virtually every existing industry, and new applications yet to be
discovered, there is no doubt that nanoscale science and technology
will emerge as one of the major drivers of economic growth in the
decades to come.
Recognizing the tremendous scientific and economic potential of
nanoscale science and technology, in 1996 a federal inter-agency
working group formed to consider the creation of a National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). As a result of this effort, around one
billion dollars have been directed towards NNI research since 2001. At
the request of officials in the White House Economic Council and NNI-
participating agencies, the National Research Council (NRC) agreed to
review the NNI. A review committee was formed by the NRC and asked to
consider topics such as the current research portfolio of the NNI, the
suitability of federal investments and inter-agency coordination
efforts in this area.
Findings and Recommendations. The committee was impressed with the
leadership and level of multi-agency involvement in the NNI.
Specifically, the committee commends the leadership of the National
Science Foundation in the establishment of the multi-agency Nanoscale
Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) committee as the primary
coordinating mechanism for the NNI. NSET has played a key role in
establishing research priorities, identifying Grand Challenges, and
involving the U.S. scientific community in the NNI.
Nevertheless, the committee has formulated a limited number of
recommendations to further strengthen the implementation of NNI. Using
information provided by all federal agencies involved in the NNI, the
review panel considered the structure of this initiative over the past
several months and makes the following ten recommendations:
The committee recommends that the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) establish an independent standing
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Advisory Board (NNAB) to provide
advice to NSET member agencies on research investment policy,
strategy, program goals, and management processes. This board
could identify and champion research opportunities that do not
conveniently fit within any single agency's mission. It should
be composed of leaders from industry, and academia with
scientific, technical, social science, or research management
credentials.
NSET should develop a crisp, compelling, overarching
strategic plan that emphasizes long-range goals that move
results out of the laboratory and into the service of society.
The Strategic Plan should include a consistent set of
anticipated outcomes for each theme and grand challenge and
estimated time frames and metrics for achieving those outcomes.
The committee recommends that the NNI support more long-term
funding and investment in nanoscale science and technology.
Establishing a proper balance between the short-term and long-
term funding of nanoscale science and technology will be
critical to realizing its potential.
The committee recommends increased multi-agency investments in
research at the intersection between nanoscale technology and biology.
The relevance of the NNI to biology, biotechnology, and the life
sciences cannot be overstated. Cellular processes are inherently
nanoscale phenomena. Barriers to inter-agency and inter-disciplinary
work must be over come to enable such developments.
Historically, many important advances in science have come
only after appropriate investigative instruments have become
available. The committee recommends the NSET create programs to
facilitate the invention and development of instruments for
nanoscale science and technology. This should include
analytical instruments capable of modeling, manipulating,
tailoring, characterizing, and probing at the nanoscale.
To help foster interagency collaboration the committee
recommends the creation of a special fund for Presidential
Grants, under OSTP management, to support interagency research
programs relevant to nanoscale science and technology. These
grants should be used exclusively to fund meaningful
interagency collaborations that cross mission boundaries,
particularly among the National Institutes of Health, the
Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation.
Noting the need for greater interdisciplinary research, the
Committee recommends that NNI provide strong support for the
development of an interdisciplinary culture within science. To
date, NSET agencies have encouraged multidisciplinary
collaborations, but creative programs are needed that encourage
the development of self-contained interdisciplinary groups as
well.
To enhance the transition from basic to applied research,
the committee recommends that industrial partnerships be
stimulated and nurtured, both domestically and internationally,
to help accelerate the commercialization of NNI developments.
NSET should create support mechanisms for coordinating and
leveraging state initiatives, which focus on fostering local
industry, to organize regional competitive clusters for
nanoscale science and technology development.
The committee recommends that the NSET develop a new funding
strategy to ensure that consideration and assessment of
societal implications becomes an integral and vital part of the
NNI. This effort will help ensure that the ``next industrial
revolution'' produces social and economic as well as technical
benefits.
NSET should develop metrics to assess the effectiveness of
the NNI in meeting its objectives and goals. The committee sees
a need to measure the progress of the NNI as a whole, with
measurable factors including quality, relevance, productivity,
resources, and movement of research concepts toward
applications.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Dr. Williams.
STATEMENT OF R. STANLEY WILLIAMS, HP FELLOW AND
DIRECTOR, QUANTUM SCIENCE RESEARCH,
HEWLETT-PACKARD
Dr. Williams. Chairman Wyden, Senator Allen, and Members of
the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you on the topic of nanotechnology. My name is Stanley
Williams, and I work for Hewlett-Packard Company in Palo Alto,
California.
To appreciate the smallness of a nanometer, first consider
shrinking yourself down in three-dimensional factors of 1,000.
You are now the size of an ant. Now shrink the ant down by
another factor of 1,000. You would be the size of a red blood
cell, the smallest cell in your body. Now take that cell and
shrink it down by another factor of 1,000. That is the size of
a nanometer, the size of a few atoms.
Nanoscience is the study of structures that are just a few
atoms in size, and it is the scientific field where hundreds of
years of advances in physics, chemistry, and biology have just
recently converged. The unifying theme is that the intrinsic
properties of matter such as color, chemical reactivity, and
electrical resistivity depend upon the size and shape of matter
only at the nanoscale.
Nanoengineered systems have the broadest possible
arrangement of properties that human beings can design, which
in turn means that building anything with control at the
nanometer scale will enable us to produce them in the most
efficient possible manner. Thus, nanotechnology is a collection
of tools available to a broad range of scientists and
engineers. However, it is not a complete solution to any
problem. We will increasingly find that the crucial or enabling
component of a system is engineered at the nanometer scale.
Indeed, Deutsche Bank in Berlin has estimated that the
total value of nanotechnology-enabled products and services
will be $116 billion this year. Thus, as we consider creating a
national nanotechnology program, we must not neglect other
scientific and engineering areas that provide the other
components to complete solutions. I am going to give three
examples that illustrate the breadth and scope of what is
possible in the present, in the near future, and the longer
term of nanotechnology.
By mixing hard and tough materials at the nanoscale, new
composites have been made with levels of both properties never
seen before in a single material. In the past year, General
Motors has introduced a polymer clay nanocomposite already
mentioned by Chairman Wyden that is used for running boards on
their pickup trucks, and they plan to utilize this new
composite in an increasing number of components in their
vehicles in the future. In this one example, we see that a
nanotechnology can help the fuel economy, the safety, the
repair costs, and the ecological impact of our transportation
system.
I believe one of the most significant nanoscience
discoveries of the past couple of years is that carbon
nanotubes and semiconductor nanowires are extremely sensitive
sensors of chemical compounds. They should actually be ideal in
home defense applications for the detection of explosives,
poisons, and biological agents. Given an appropriate level of
support, it should be possible to begin deploying such sensors
in susceptible areas within 2 to 3 years.
On the 5 to 10 year time frame, it should be possible to
cheaply manufacture such sensors in the hundreds of millions to
billions of units per year to provide continuous monitoring of
our public buildings, post offices, transportation networks,
and other institutions vulnerable to terrorist attack.
On a longer time frame, recent discoveries and
announcements in the areas of nanoelectronic memory and logic
circuits promise to extend the dramatic improvements in
performance of computers that we have seen well into the
future. These advances also promise to extend the economic
benefits of the electronics industry that the U.S. has enjoyed
for many more decades.
From these examples, we see that nanotechnology has the
potential to greatly improve the properties of nearly
everything that humans currently make, and will lead to the
creation of new medicines, materials, and devices that will
substantially improve the health, wealth, and security of
American and global citizens.
However, current experience in the United States shows that
the number of excellent research proposals submitted for
nanotechnology-related research far outstrips the available
funds. The ramp-up in funding must be steep. I estimate
approximately 30 percent a year, and sustained for at least the
next 5 years. A national nanotechnology program will allow for
continuous monitoring and feedback to make sure the best ideas
are funded.
Also, increases in nanotechnology support must be
consistent with an overall increase in the total physical
science and engineering base in agencies such as the National
Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the
Department of Defense.
My primary concern for U.S. nanotechnology is that we will
not train or retain enough of the best researchers to be the
leaders in this crucial area. Currently, the United States is
supplying only 25 percent of the global funding for
nanotechnology research by national Governments. Other
countries are determined to keep pace and even surpass our
efforts by investing heavily and by recruiting the best and the
brightest researchers away from the United States.
We will need to leverage our academic, Government, and
corporate research capabilities to compete globally. However,
relations between large corporations and American universities
have never been worse. Severe disagreements have arisen over
conflicting interpretations of the Bayh-Dole act. Many large
U.S.-based corporations now work with the leading institutions
in France, Russia, and China, which are willing to offer
extremely favorable intellectual property terms for their
support.
The U.S. Government has several roles to play to ensure
that America leads the world in nanotechnology. The first is to
invest sufficiently in the basic research enterprise which
produces the scientists and engineers who will invent the
future. The second is to act as an early adopter of new
technologies, especially in the areas where technological
advances enhance our security.
Finally, the Government should consider a new role, that of
mediator to bring together academic, corporate, and national
labs so that they can work together, and the Nation can share
in the benefits of their discoveries.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. Stanley Williams, HP Fellow and Director,
Quantum Science Research, Hewlett-Packard
Chairman Wyden, Senator Allen, Members of the Subcommittee, I thank
you for allowing me--on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company--the
opportunity to testify before you on the topic of nanotechnology.
Few words have generated as much hype and controversy over the past
few years as `nanotechnology'. On the one hand, some enthusiasts have
established a quasi-religion based on the belief that nanotechnology
will generate infinite wealth and life-spans for all humans. On the
other, alarmists fear that nanotechnology will somehow end life as we
know it, either by poisoning the environment or releasing some type of
self-replicating nanobot that conquers the earth. Neither scenario is
realistic, and both have been propagated by people who are good
communicators but actually have no relevant scientific experience in
the nanosciences.
This knowledge gap exists primarily because most scientists
actually working in the field are either unable to communicate what
they are doing to lay audiences or think they are too busy to try. I am
afraid that many scientists are guilty of believing that the public in
general and policy makers in particular are incapable of understanding
science, and that their work should be supported simply because it is
important and beautiful. This patronizing attitude has not served the
citizens of the U.S. or American scientists. It is certainly true that
policy makers do not have the time to understand the full details of
the research in any field of scientific endeavor, just as most
scientist have no clue about the intricacies of the legislative
process. However, we owe it to each other and to the American public to
engage in meaningful dialog. Our two communities may not understand the
details of what the other does, but we should each appreciate what the
other has to contribute to the overall benefit of society.
I will attempt to provide you with some of that appreciation today
by providing a high-level description and a series of analogies, each
of which is certainly flawed but taken together I hope they provide you
with a picture that you can utilize in your deliberations.
Nanotechnology is particularly frustrating to describe. It is not one
thing, and it is certainly not all things. I have been told by public
relations experts that I need to simplify the field and provide a
single rallying point upon which policy makers can focus. However, this
would do a grave injustice to the field and I think in the long run it
is an insult to your intelligence. Therefore, let me attempt to
describe what nanotechnology has to offer by delving into some of the
complexity.
First, one needs to appreciate the smallness of a nanometer.
Consider shrinking yourself down in all three dimensions by a factor of
1000--you would become the size of a fairly small ant. Now take that
ant and shrink it down by a factor of 1000--it would be about the size
of a single red blood cell, which are the smallest cells in your body.
Finally, shrink that red blood cell by a factor of 1000--that is the
size of a nanometer, essentially the width of a few atoms. When
thinking explicitly about this as a fundamental building block, Richard
Feynman was truly prescient when he said there is `plenty of room at
the bottom'.
Nanoscience, the study of structures that are a few nanometers in
size, is the field where hundreds of years of advances in the fields of
physics, chemistry and biology have come together in just the past
decade. Each discipline naturally and separately evolved toward this
common goal through a series of intellectual advances, instrument
developments and experimental discoveries. A significant fraction of
the Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry and medicine in the past 10
years have been awarded for research discoveries at the nanoscale. Now
that all three disciplines have arrived at this same goal, each has
realized that it can learn much from the others, so that the field of
nanoscience has transcended traditional academic boundaries. Engineers
have been very quick to adapt the insights gained at the nanoscale, and
in many cases have actually been the leaders in recognizing the trans-
disciplinary synergies available. Material science, bio-engineering and
electrical engineering are all rapidly becoming components of a nano-
engineering super-discipline. The unifying issue for engineering is
that the intrinsic properties of matter, such as color, chemical
reactivity, and electrical resistivity, depend on size and shape only
at the nanoscale. Thus, nano-engineered systems have the broadest
possible range of properties that can be designed, which in turn means
that building anything with control down to the nanometer scale will
enable them to be produced in the most efficient possible manner. Thus,
nanotechnology can and will be applied to everything made by human
beings--it will allow us to dramatically improve nearly everything that
we currently make, and it will enable us to create an entire range of
new materials, medicines and devices that we cannot even conceive of
today. Human cleverness is at a premium--which means high value added
products and high wages for companies and countries that dominate
nanotechnology.
With that said, we must realize that nanotechnology is a collection
of new tools available to a broad range of scientists and engineers--it
is not a complete solution to any problem. For the next several
decades, there will be very few cases in which an entire product is the
result of nanotechnology, but more and more we will find that the
crucial or enabling component of a system is engineered at the
nanometer scale. A current example of this is the giant magneto-
resistance, or GMR, read head currently found in hard disk drives for
computers--the recent dramatic increase in storage capacity of disk
drives is directly attributable to the fact that GMR heads have
components that are nano-engineered. The value of the read heads alone
is fairly small, but they enable a multi-billion dollar per year
industry. Indeed, Matthias Werner of Deutsche Bank has estimated that
the total value of nanotechnology-enabled products will be $116 billion
in 2002, and will increase dramatically in the near future. Thus, as we
think about increasing support for the U.S. Nanotechnology Initiative,
we must not neglect other disciplines that will also be contributing
necessary components to complete solutions. As in all things, a
balanced approach is essential.
What are the recent advances in nano science and engineering?
There have been so many recent advances in the nano sciences and
engineering in recent past I could take up all my time just listing
them. Let me give just three examples that illustrate the breadth and
scope of what is possible in the present, the near future, and the
longer term.
During the past couple of years, a significant number of new
nanocomposite materials have come into the market place. These
materials are engineered to combine properties that natural materials
have never displayed, such as hardness and toughness. Naturally hard
materials such as diamond shatter easily, whereas naturally tough
materials like wood are easy to scratch or dent. However, by mixing
hard and tough materials at the nanoscale, new composite materials can
be made with levels of the two properties never seen before. In the
past year, General Motors has introduced a polymer-clay nanocomposite
material that is used for a dealer installed optional running board on
their SUVs and pickup trucks. This material is not only harder and
tougher, but it is also lighter and more easily recycled than other
reinforced plastics, and GM plans to utilize it in more and more
components of their vehicles as economies of scale make it cheaper. In
this one example, we see that a nanotechnology can help the fuel
economy, the safety, the maintenance cost, and the ecological impact of
our transportation system. In the future, nanocomposites will become
increasingly sophisticated and truly smart, with the ability to adapt
to new environments and even to self-repair.
One of the most significant nanoscience discovories of the past
couple of years that came out of Stanford, Harvard and UCLA is that
nanowires, especially carbon nanotubes and semiconductor wires, can be
used as extraordinarily sensitive detectors of light and of chemical
and biological agents. In this case, the nanowires have such a small
diameter that any change on the surface of the nanowire has a dramatic
effect on its electrical conductivity. There is already a significant
activity in the U.S. and abroad to build sensors based on this
discovery. These sensors can be used for medical diagnostics to detect
and report extremely small amounts of pathogens for the early detection
of disease such as a known cancer or even a new bacterial or viral
infection not previously known. Prof. James Heath of UCLA has proposed
a vision in which a laboratory on a chip with nanosensors could help
investigators go from a new `bug to drug' in 24 hours. However,
probably their most pressing near term application will be for security
applications for the detection of explosives, chemical warfare agents
and biological threats. Given an appropriate level of support, it
should be possible to begin deploying such sensors in sensitive areas
within two to three years. Given economies of scale, it should be
possible on the five to ten year time frame to cheaply manufacture such
sensors in the hundreds of millions to billions of units to provide
continuous monitoring our public buildings, post offices,
transportation networks and other institutions vulnerable to terrorist
attack.
I will also mention that on a longer time frame, recent discoveries
and announcements in the area of nanoelectronic memory and logic
circuits promise to extend the dramatic improvements in performance for
cost that we have seen over the past 40 years. These advances promise
to extend the economic benefits of the electronics industry that the
U.S. has enjoyed for several decades, and also continue the efficiency
with which we conduct our business and government affairs. We will see
a wide variety of new products emerging, but most important of all we
will see our electronic tools become much easier and intuitive to use.
What is the significance of and potential for the development and
deployment of nanotechnology?
From these examples, we can see that nanotechnology has the
potential to greatly improve the properties of nearly everything that
humans currently make, and will lead to the creation of new medicines,
materials and devices that will substantially improve the health,
wealth and security of American and global citizens.
Is the Federal Government adequately investing in nanotechnology (i.e.
perspective on the National Nanotechnology Initiative)?
Given the starting point of the NNI in the year 2000 and budgetary
realities, I think the current funding for nanotechnology is
appropriate. It would be a mistake to put too much money earmarked for
nanotechnology too quickly into the research community, since it could
not adjust and efficiently absorb that funding . However, current
experiences show that the number of excellent proposals for research
funding in nanoscience and engineering far outstrips the available
funds, and thus the ramp-up must be steep, approximately 30 percent per
year, and sustained for at least the next five years. A National
Nanotechnology Program will allow for continuous monitoring and
feedback to make sure that the best ideas are funded. Also, increases
in nanotechnology support must be consistent with an overall increase
in the total physical science and engineering base in agencies such as
the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the
Department of Defense.
As a nation, we have neglected our investments in physical sciences
and engineering over the past decade. We have forgotten that these have
been the drivers for our current level of material well being. The
analogy is that physical science and engineering have been orchards,
and we have been busily harvesting the fruits of those orchards for the
past 20 years. However, we as a nation have forgotten that if we want
to continue to harvest from such orchards, we must continually be
planting new trees. As a fraction of GNP, our investments in basic
research in the physical sciences and engineering have declined nearly
30 percent over the past decdade. This state of affairs has convinced
American young people that there is no future for them in these
disciplines, even though the potential in these areas is great.
As an expert and a leader in this field what are your concerns in the
nanotechnology area?
My primary concern is that we in the United States will not have
enough of the best researchers to be the leaders in this crucial area.
Currently, the U.S. is supplying approximately 25 percent of the global
federal funding for nanotechnology. Other countries are determined to
keep pace and even surpass our efforts. Even though Japan has
experienced significant economic problems, they make certain that their
NNI meets or exceeds the funding levels approved in the U.S.. The
European community is doing the same. Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and
China are pouring a much higher percentage of their economy into
research in this area, and when considering the local purchasing power
of currencies, the PRC has the largest NNI in the world in terms of the
number of researchers they intend to support. Another significant part
of the NNIs of all other nations is that they have set aside
significant funds to recruit senior and talented researchers from other
countries, and for the most part they are targeting the U.S. The
primary requirement for federal support of basic research, from a large
corporation point of view, is the training of the people needed in our
corporate research and development labs to invent the new products that
secure our futures. We are going to have to be smarter and more
efficient going forward--we need cooperation among government at all
levels, national labs, and corporate R&D facilities.
I also have some secondary concerns for the future health of the
U.S. R&D enterprise.
Largely as a result of the lack of federal funding for research,
American Universities have become extremely aggressive in their
attempts to raise funding from large corporations.
Severe disagreements have arisen because of conflicting
interpretations of the Bayh-Dole act. Large U.S. based corporations
have become so disheartened and disgusted with the situation they are
now working with foreign universities, especially the elite
institutions in France, Russia and China, which are more than willing
to offer extremely favorable intellectual property terms.
The situation with respect to corporate partnering with U.S.
National Labs is not much better. In this case, inconsistent policies,
the long time lines to negotiate relationships, and constantly shifting
government priorities often make it too difficult for companies to
partner with National Labs. Again, there is an international market
place. National Labs in other countries are aggressively courting
American companies. Perhaps the major example of this is Center for
Innovation in Micro and Nano Technologies, or Minatec, in Grenoble,
France, which provides access to facilities and a source of students
for companies that locate research labs on their campus.
The most important problem of all is that we have lost sight of the
fact that government and corporate funds spent on research are not
expenditures or luxuries that can be cut at a whim, they are essential
investments to the long term viability of an enterprise. We have
neglected those investments for a long time now. The prosperity of the
1990's was prepared by the investements of the 1960's, when the U.S.
Federal Goverment was investing 2 percent of GNP on R&D. That
investment has paid off many fold over the decades, but because we
became wealthy, we forgot that we needed to keep investing to stay
wealthy. The impatience of corporate boards and institutional investors
have placed too strong a focus on short term results with too little
long-term investment. A significant factor in the current economic
situation, especially in the high tech sector, is that we do not have
enough new and compelling products and services to generate customer
demand. The internet bubble was a failed experiment to substitute
clever business plans for new goods.
How should and could government-industry collaboration enhance research
and development in the nanotechnology area?
The U.S. government has several roles to play to insure that
America leads the world in nanotechnology. The first is to invest
sufficiently in the basic research enterprise, which produces the
scientists and engineers who will invent the future. The second is to
act as an early adopter of new technologies, especially in the areas
where technological advantage enhances our security. Finally,
government should consider a new role, that of mediator to bring
together academic, corporate and national research labs so they can
work together and the nation can share in the benefits of their
discoveries.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, very helpful. Dr. Swami, welcome.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN SWAMI, DIRECTOR, INITIATIVE FOR
NANOTECHNOLOGY, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AND MICROELECTRONICS
PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Dr. Swami. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Allen. My
name is Nathan Swami, and I am here representing the Initiative
for Nanotechnology in Virginia, INanoVO for short. We are a
coalition of State Government, leading research universities,
and a growing family of nanobusinesses all across the
Commonwealth. A list of our members and stakeholders is
attached in the written version of this testimony.
Our organization has the goal to position Virginia among
the national leaders in nanotechnology research and business
development, as we are keenly aware that leadership in this key
technology is a key to our economic future. In our short
history in this field, we have seen great enthusiasm amongst
different institutions in Virginia, different labs and
different universities, including businesses, and we urge the
passage of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act, as in the draft bill.
In my remarks this afternoon, I wish to sketch some general
arguments in favor of this bill, and touch briefly on
Virginia's perspective, which we believe will be shared by
numerous regions across the Nation, and conclude with two
recommendations that we believe will strengthen the impact of
this legislation.
First, some comments. The rest of the panel have talked
about scientific and business aspects of nanotechnology. I will
extend it to its social implications and also its regional
implications. First, we must recognize that our entire economy
has become heavily dependent on technological innovation. Some
economists estimate that nearly half of the American economy is
now driven by new scientific discoveries in the technology-
heavy sectors, ranging from agriculture and medicine, to man-
made materials, electronics, information technology, and
telecommunications.
We now know that further development in these and other
industries will be driven in large part by a broad general
movement that we have come to know as nanotechnology. So it is
inevitable that we view nanotechnology, which in its simplest
definition is a natural outgrowth of our ability to work with
ever-greater precision in ever-smaller dimensions, as the
foundation upon which we will enter this new age of innovation.
Some may ask, why do we need this bill? If nanotechnology
is so promising, why cannot private enterprise foot the bill?
The answer, quite simply, is this. We owe our leadership in
high technology to the Government's timely investments in
critical early stages, time and again, when emerging
technologies were most in need of a boost in order to move
toward eventual commercial success. From the dawn of modern
agriculture, to aerospace, to the launching of the information
age, Government support has been a powerful catalyst to drive
basic research and accelerate technology transfer from the
laboratory to the marketplace.
To those who ask, why pass this bill, we can respond to
another question. What will happen if we do not? The answer is
disconcerting. As we see other Governments of the European
Union and East Asian nations investing heavily in long-term
major nanotechnology research and development centers, the hard
reality is the worldwide race for preeminence in nanotechnology
is on, and America must push to stay ahead.
From Virginia's perspective, we see great promise for
nanotechnology to boost business and industries that are
crucial to our own overall economy, which include information
technology, biotechnology, advanced materials, health care, et
cetera. We have an impressive infrastructure in the State, with
leading research universities, a lively venture capital
community, and a business-friendly State government. For all
our strengths, however, we are not yet at the point of critical
mass. We have not yet created the synergies necessary to form
leading nanotechnology research and development centers such as
those currently under development in several other States.
I believe this will be the case with numerous regional
areas where nanotechnology is carried out, and so we believe
that this bill will be a catalyzing force to encourage
nanotechnology research and education in Virginia, as in
industrial regions of the Nation, to foster development of
major public-private partnerships and to actively engage larger
segments of our business communities and academic communities
in nanotechnology movement.
Regarding the bill itself, we have two major
recommendations that we believe will enhance its effectiveness.
First, we judge that the pace of nanotechnology research will
be accelerated considerably if the bill were to encourage the
development of regional centers for excellence in research
instrumentation which encompass both multidisciplinary
facilities and state of the art infrastructure.
All scientific disciplines are engaged in nanoscale
research, and much of this work requires sophisticated and
expensive equipment. If this bill were to encourage the
formation of regional networks of such research equipment, then
access would be enhanced. We would anticipate more efficient
utilization of equipment, a much broader participation of
researchers from colleges and universities of all sizes, and a
faster spread of the scientific, technological, and educational
benefits of nanotechnology.
Second, we believe the bill should specifically require
coordination between the National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office and existing State nanotechnology initiatives, as well
as university research offices. This decentralized approach is
particularly necessary for nanoscale sciences, where much of
the fundamental innovations will occur, or have been occurring
in a bottom-up fashion.
One method to accomplish this is for the national office to
directly fund State initiatives and charge them with the task
of identifying and encouraging specific lines of research and
business development based on identified strengths in their
particular regions.
In conclusion, the Initiative for Nanotechnology in
Virginia strongly supports the proposed bill and envisions it
as a much-needed catalyst to help the Nation and regional
centers realize their ultimate potential for scientific,
technological, educational innovations through the enabling
science of nanotechnology.
Finally, I would like to thank the committee Chairman and
Senator Allen for inviting us to speak at this forum, and I
gladly offer the services of our organization to help the swift
passage of this bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Swami follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nathan Swami, Director, Initiative for
Nanotechnology, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Microelectronics
Program Director, University of Virginia
Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Swami, and I am Executive
Director of the Initiative for Nanotechnology in Virginia, or INanoVA
for short. We are a coalition of state government, leading research
universities, and a growing family of nanobusinesses that are emerging
throughout the Commonwealth of VA. A list of our members and
stakeholders is appended to the written version of my testimony.
INanoVA's overall goal is to position Virginia among the national
leaders in nanotechnology research and business development, as we are
keenly aware that leadership in this exciting field is the key to
Virginia's economic future. In our short history, we have found a
rising tide of interest in nanotechnology, and it is with great
enthusiasm that we urge passage of the ``21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act.''
In my remarks this morning (afternoon), I wish to sketch out some
general arguments in favor of this bill, touch briefly on Virginia's
perspective, and conclude with two recommendations that we believe will
strengthen the impact of this important legislation.
First, we must recognize that our entire economy has become heavily
dependent on technological innovation. Some economists estimate that
nearly half of the American economy is now driven by new discoveries in
technology-heavy sectors ranging from agriculture and medicine to man-
made materials, electronics, information technology, and
telecommunications. We now know that further developments in these and
other industries will be driven in large part by the broad general
movement known as nanotechnology. So it is inevitable that we view
nanotechnology, which in its simplest definition is the natural
outgrowth of our ability to work with greater and greater precision in
ever smaller dimensions, as the foundation upon which we will enter a
new age of innovation. This new age, the Age of Nanotechnology, is one
where we will imitate nature itself, thus endowing us with the
capability to make materials, devices, machines and medicines with an
efficiency and effectiveness that is undreamt of today. We are on the
cusp of that new age now, and government support can assure that we
will get there first.
Some may ask, ``But why do we need this bill? If nanotechnology is
so promising, why can't private enterprise foot the bill?'' The answer
quite simply is this: We owe our world leadership in high technology to
the government's timely investments at critical early stages, time and
again, when emerging technologies were most in need of a boost in order
to move toward eventual commercial success. From the dawn of modern
agriculture to aerospace to the launching of the Information Age,
government support has been a powerful catalyst to drive basic research
and accelerate technology transfer from the laboratory to the
marketplace. In industry after industry, one sees the same pattern:
federal dollars encourage early discoveries in a new technology, which
then attracts private investment, which then grows into a successful
industry, with large employers and many jobs for working Americans.
Trace the history of agribusiness and the green revolution and you find
federal dollars funneled through Agricultural Extension services in our
land grant universities, an ongoing investment that has revolutionized
American farming. Silicon Valley and Boston's Route 128 high tech
corridor would not exist if the Federal Government had not invested in
early stage research in computer science. The Internet itself is an
outgrowth of federally supported research. We are now at another
critical juncture in our technological evolution, and timely passage of
this bill will go far to assure continuing American leadership in the
global economy.
To those who ask, ``Why pass this bill?,'' we can respond with
another question: ``What will happen if we don't?'' The answer is
discomforting, as we see other governments of the European Union and
East Asian nations investing heavily in major nanotechnology research
and development centers. The hard reality is that the worldwide race
for preeminence in nanotechnology is on, and America must push to stay
in the lead.
From Virginia's perspective, we see great promise for
nanotechnology to boost business development in industries that are
crucial to our overall economy: information technology, biotechnology,
advanced materials, health-care, aerospace, shipbuilding, and
telecommunications, to name just a few. We have an impressive
infrastructure in this state, with leading research universities, a
lively venture capital community, and a business-friendly state
government. Indeed, INanoVA owes its very existence to timely funding
from Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology, an economic
development agency focused on innovative technologies with an
impressive track record in facilitating the start up and growth of
leading edge businesses. For all our strengths, however, we are not yet
at the point of critical mass, and we have not created the synergies
necessary to form leading nanotechnology R&D centers, such as those
currently under development in several other states. This bill, we
believe, will be a catalyzing force to encourage nanotechnology
research and education in Virginia, to foster the development of major
public/private partnerships, and to actively engage larger segments of
our academic and business communities in the nanotechnology movement.
Regarding the bill itself, we have two recommendations that we
believe will enhance its effectiveness.
First, we judge that the pace of nanotechnology research will be
accelerated considerably if the bill were to encourage the development
of regional centers for excellence in research instrumentation,
encompassing both multi-disciplinary facilities and state-of-the-art
infrastructure. All scientific disciplines are engaged in nanoscale
research, and much of this work requires sophisticated and expensive
equipment. If this bill were to encourage the formation of regional
networks of such research equipment, then access would be enhanced. We
would anticipate more efficient utilization of the equipment, a much
broader participation of researchers from colleges and universities of
all sizes, and a faster spread of scientific, technological, and
educational benefits.
Second, we believe the bill should specifically require
coordination between the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office
and existing state nanotechnology initiatives, as well as university
research offices. This decentralized approach is particularly necessary
for nanoscale sciences where much of the fundamental innovations occur
in a ``bottom-up'' fashion. One method to accomplish this is for the
national office to directly fund state nanotechnology initiatives and
charge them with identifying and encouraging specific lines of research
and business development based on identified strengths in their
particular regions.
In conclusion, the Initiative for Nanotechnology in Virginia
strongly supports the proposed bill and envisions it as a much-needed
catalyst to help the nation and regional centers realize their ultimate
potential for scientific, technological, business and educational
innovations, through the enabling science of nanotechnology.
Finally I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to
speak, and I gladly offer the services of our organization (INanoVA) to
help in the swift passage of this bill. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Swami, thank you. that is very helpful.
All of you have been very good. Just a few questions from me on
this round, and Senator Allen and I always go back and forth,
and as I said, what I would really like to do is just see if we
could engage in a discussion.
I think it is fair to say, gentlemen, that the premise of
this bill is that the National Nanotechnology Initiative is a
sensible step for Government. I think it is a good step, a
constructive step, and we are for it.
We think we can do better. We think we can build on it. I
think what would be helpful is if you would highlight for us
what you think the strengths and limitations of the NNI are.
We'll start with you Dr. Stupp because of your work with the
Academy. That way we can get your sense of where we are without
getting you into endorsing every part of our bill as it is
written.
Feel free, if you would choose to, to endorse every part of
this legislation. But seriously, what I think we are more
interested in is getting your sense of what the Government is
doing well in this area, what areas the Government could do
better in, and starting off our discussion in that kind of way.
Dr. Stupp. Certainly, what the Government did well was
create NNI. That was a great concept. I think the only way to
ensure that nanotechnology proceeds to its ultimate potential
here in the U.S. is to have some kind of national program in
nanotechnology. I think what is being done very well is
certainly the great interest that all Federal agencies have
shown in this initiative. I think across the board all agencies
recognize the importance of nanotechnology, and that it has
been very reassuring for members of the scientific community.
The limitations, of course, are along the lines of
interagency partnerships, which we view as being key to the
future of nanotechnology. A very important partnership, for
example, is that of the NIH and the other agencies, because the
only example of nanotechnology at work in its best expression
is biology itself.
Senator Wyden. What should be done in the biology area? I
noted that in your testimony earlier. What would you like to
see done in the biology area that isn't being done now?
Dr. Stupp. I think I would like to see programs that are
specifically targeted to this interface of biology, medicine,
and the physical sciences in the nanocontext, programs that are
started by or initiated by agencies such as NSF, working
alongside the NIH.
I think the NIH, for example, needs to invest a lot more
money in nanotechnology than they are investing today, and the
NSF on the other hand needs the funds to leverage those
interactions with agencies such as the NIH.
I think my community, you know, the scientific community is
really screaming for initiatives that are at this interface.
The NIH has been an organization that has had a very strong
mission, and you cannot criticize that. Their mission is to
look over the health of our Nation, but at this point we all
recognize in the scientific community that many of the most
exciting opportunities lie at this interface with biology, and
the NIH does not have the background, perhaps, to deal with it,
and the NSF does not have the funds, so we have I think a
problem of resources. We have, on the other hand----
Senator Wyden. But that is a serious problem, we have a mix
of insufficient talent and insufficient funds in an area that
has extraordinary potential.
Dr. Stupp. We have great talent, and insufficient funds.
Senator Wyden. Maybe I missed it. Did you not say at NIH
there are people with the requisite expertise in the biology
field, and at NSF there are the funds?
Dr. Stupp. But, of course, I am referring to the NIH as an
agency that funds research. I am not speaking about the
community of scientists, but there is, if you talk to any young
person, our brightest young people in American universities
today that are interested in science, you will find a large
majority of them are interested in biology, but not necessarily
traditional biology. They would like to innovate in medicine,
and they see the technology as an enabling tool to get there.
Senator Wyden. Let us see if we can get from Mr.
Modzelewski and Dr. Williams and Dr. Swami the pluses and
minuses of the NNI.
Mr. Modzelewski. The biggest plus was the actual awareness.
It told so many people in the corporate world and other Nations
that nanotechnology was real and was serious. Unfortunately,
the negative side of that awareness was sort of the
nanotechnology race that might be best compared to a space race
that was set off among Governments, who are increasingly
funding and are increasingly aware of what this means to their
economies in the future.
Other positive areas were the much-needed funds, the level
of coordination, and a lot of groundbreaking research that I
think was actually very visionary for a new program that looked
into social aspects and implications, and economic aspects and
implications of what was greatly a basic research program, so
it was quite innovative.
We see some negative, not so much negative comments, but
where there is a jumping off point to go a little further is
probably look at research and development for
commercialization. Again, things like scaling issues, it is one
thing to make a very small amount of something on basically a
small piece of glass in a laboratory, it is another thing to
scale it up to production levels that industry could use. That
is something in particular that many of the Asian competitive
Nations such as Japan and Korea are very good at.
Another area to look at is the integration of private
sector, all the more so into the NNI, and ensure that on things
such an advisory panel, that industry is strongly represented,
so that much of the research direction does go to the future of
the economy, not that we would like to take out a lot of wild-
haired ideas that are some of the foundations of great
scientific discovery. But to know that there is a level of
looking towards the commercialization of these technologies I
think would be very important to any further direction.
And then I think there are a couple of issues that you
could look at that are problematic across emerging
technologies, and I think that would be things like the
technology transfer system in the United States. It has
certainly been improving at the Government level, but it still
by most standards would be considered lacking at the
universities, and still at a corporate level, when compared to
other commercial operations, so to speak, and also the fear of
a lot of patent issues, with the Patent Office being properly
trained to understand this multidisciplinary structure, in
granting patents that are too wide or too small, and also very
timely and accurately approving patents.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Williams.
Dr. Williams. I will have to second most of that. I think
the primary issue that NNI did was give the field legitimacy.
At that point in time it was viewed primarily as fiction, and
it was often very difficult for people who were working in the
area to be taken seriously, or to get grants funded when they
submitted proposals.
Also, I think one thing that NNI did wonderfully was accept
responsibility for ethical issues. Very early on, we were
looking at the societal impacts and issues, trying to make sure
that we did not have any nasty surprises that would come along
and blindside the people working in this area. There was good
communication about both the good, the benefits, and the
potential downsides of nanotechnology and how they could be
dealt with.
It is also true that the creation of the United States NNI
has seeded tremendous competition worldwide. As soon as we had
an NNI, the world had an NNI. In fact, Japan makes absolutely
sure that whatever we do in this country, they do at least as
much, because their fiscal year follows ours by about 5 months.
Whatever the United States enacts, they do the same or more,
and that can also be said of the European Union.
So as I mentioned in my remarks, I think the only way we
can deal with global competition is to leverage all of the
assets we have available in this country: the academic research
community, our national labs and our corporate labs. I think
the problem we have right now is that what few interactions
existed are dramatically falling apart.
I see these communities essentially turning their backs on
each other and just walking away. I myself have just given up
hope of negotiating with universities anymore to get engaged in
joint research ventures. It is just too painful. I think we
really need to have, as a part of a national nanotechnology
program, means for bringing these communities back together and
conflict resolution among these communities. Perhaps even an
explanation of what the heck Bayh-Dole actually means, and what
it was intended to do, rather than the very, shall we say,
aggressive types of actions that we see taking place whenever
we try to negotiate with the university now.
Senator Wyden. We'll talk a little bit more about Bayh-Dole
in a minute or two. Dr. Swami.
Dr. Swami. Yes, briefly, I think a major strength, as has
been stated in the past, has been increasing the visibility and
the legitimacy of nanotechnology, no doubt about that.
Another strength, although it has been also pointed out as
a drawback, by Dr. Stupp, is getting organizations to work
together. Yes, there is no doubt that there is a limitation in
that, but to me it is also a major strength that agencies as
diverse as the EPA were brought into, with the NSF, all to work
together on nanotechnology. Five years, seven years ago I would
never have thought this would have happened.
Major limitations from the point of view of at least a
regional center is, there are just too few large center
opportunities, and since these are too few they end up being
extremely competitive, fighting for a certain small amount of
funds for a small amount of time, with a large number of
competitors, and so I think the programs of the NSET and the
interdisciplinary research programs that NSF has should be
expanded to basically allow longer term research.
Second is research infrastructure has not been directly
addressed. There is a lot of good infrastructure available to
some centers which are near national labs, or which work with
those national labs, but otherwise universities have to build
this infrastructure, and then have the industry come and work
with the universities at these, the infrastructure, and I think
the infrastructure should be addressed in some form, for
nanotechnology especially.
And finally, coordination of agencies, which many people
have pointed out as a limitation, I would take that a step
further. It is not just coordination of agencies for actual
research done, but coordination of what happens with that
research, who is doing what, coordination at the State and at
the regional levels. That would be a limitation I think that
could be acted upon.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Okay. Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
your insightful testimony here, and answering questions. Let me
ask Hon. Richard Russell a question. Listening to all of these
concerns, I am going to follow up on some of them with him, but
does the Administration have any target plans to aid in
technology transfer and the commercialization of
nanotechnologies?
It has been said through a variety of ways, and I do want
to follow up on why it is so hard to work with universities for
the private sector and so forth, but do you have any target
areas to get through some of these problems? Much of which is
saying, get it into commercialization like some of the examples
we have, and that will obviously pay for some of the research
in the future.
Mr. Russell. Let me break that into two pieces. I think
part of what NNI has been trying to do is push the envelope,
and push technologies out, and if you look at the grand
challenges under the NNI programs that currently exist, and
look at things like nanoscale manufacturing, this is clearly an
effort to push nanotechnology into, not just manufacturing, but
into the economy. The second issue revolves around generically
the concept of how we push tech transfer, and I think that with
nanotechnology, as with all research we do with the Federal
Government that we try to get commercialized, I think the very
same issues that are revolving around nanotechnology are also
relevant across the board, and so we wanted to promote things
like CRADAs, we want to promote--
Senator Allen. Like what?
Mr. Russell. CRADAs, corporate research and development
agreements. We want to promote the use of the existing legal
framework. Bayh-Dole was mentioned, and obviously there are
issues between universities and industry, because really it is
a win-win when you look at the universities and you look at
industry. It is in both their interests to get this technology
out. Industry obviously gains, the economy obviously gains, as
does the university, and so where there are breakdowns in terms
of nanotechnology I think there are probably the exact same
issues we see across the board for all technology issues.
Senator Allen. Let me follow up, then, with the rest of the
panel here. Thanks for your comments.
Some have alluded to the space race, and so forth, of the
1960s, and we have heard about how the Japanese and obviously
Taiwan, Korea, and the European countries are all wanting to
emulate or do more than we are. We hear the same things in
aeronautics research. There are a lot of similarities in here.
The one thing that has been a thread through here, though,
and especially from Dr. Williams and Hewlett-Packard's
comments, as well as Mr. Modzelewski's comments, is the
scientific research here, as far as the collaboration which is
necessary with the private sector and universities and the
Government, everyone collaborating, rather than having the
Federal Government kind of as a mediator, and maybe it has to
be.
Why are intellectual property laws--in some cases, I have
heard you say that is harming us, and how is that different
from the intellectual property laws in other countries, whether
it is Japan or whether it is Europe? And if anyone of you all--
and maybe, Dr. Williams, I would ask you to do this, since you
say you do not want to bother working with universities and
colleges, that Hewlett-Packard, it is just too much of a
nightmare, it is too difficult.
These sorts of things, such as our patent laws, our
intellectual property laws, and whatever other laws there may
be at the Federal level that are harming cooperation with the
private sector and universities, all are just fundamental
problems that need to be addressed. And to the extent we can we
ought to fix it so that people will have that collaboration,
and make those investments, and obviously help the universities
as far as their education, but ultimately, of course, benefit
the competitive leadership role of our country.
So Dr. Williams, if you could start off, and any of you all
who want to lend some commentary to that, I would appreciate
hearing it.
Dr. Williams. I think the problem is not that the
legislation is not good. I have now read the Bayh-Dole Act so
many times I think I have actually memorized significant
portions of it, and as I read it, it is a very fine act.
However that is as I interpret it, and what we find is that
people at universities interpret the same act, the same words
in an entirely different fashion.
Senator Allen. For purposes of the record, would you share
with us what your view is of the purpose of the Bayh-Dole Act?
And how is it being misinterpreted?
Dr. Williams. My view of the Bayh-Dole Act is that it is a
vehicle by which universities should be able to license
intellectual property that they create in order to generate an
economic benefit to the universities, and reward them for
having created intellectual property. And in a sense to repay
the investment that the public has made into performing
research in generating an income stream for the universities.
From that standpoint I believe that that is a very excellent
idea. What it does is, it made universities more aware that
intellectual property was important, and that it was an asset
that they should take seriously.
I would say that from a large corporation point of view the
problem comes down to the interpretation of just a few very
simple sentences in the Bayh-Dole Act, which state that in the
case of commercialization opportunities, small companies should
be preferred over large companies. And there's also another
sweet little sentence in there that says, if a company provides
some funding to a research program, the university ``may'' give
a license for that work to the company that provides the
funding.
A large company reads that and says, okay, I give money to
Professor X, whatever Professor X does, I own that. The
university says, no, we actually have to prefer small
companies, so you give money to Professor X, we, the university
owns it. And by the way, when it comes time to license it, we
are going to license it to a small company, and it is going to
be very likely that that small company actually was created by
Professor X.
So large companies have been burned many times by giving
money for research to universities, only to find that they had
absolutely no rights to the intellectual property that was
created at all, and the intellectual property winds up being
put in the hands of a small startup company which actually has
the principals of the startup company being the professors who
got the research funding. There's a fairness issue there, and
enough large companies have been burned enough times by this
type of thing happening that most of the people I have talked
with at large companies say, forget it, we are just not going
to go there anymore. This is the end.
But in fact there is a reasonable decent and fair middle
ground. The thing that the University interpretation of the
Bayh-Dole Act does not really recognize is that there is a
difference between an exclusive and a nonexclusive license,
that if a company gives money to a professor to do research, of
course it is totally unfair for the company to claim ownership
to all of that research because they are not paying for the
infrastructure that has been paid for by State and Federal
funds and everything else that goes on. But on the other hand,
it is possible to grant a nonexclusive license, in other words
a license that recognizes a sharing of that intellectual
property, the fact that the company provided money, and also
often provides intellectual input to help to create those ideas
as well.
So I think there is a meaningful middle ground. What has
happened is that the discussion between most large companies
and universities has become so strident that they become
polarized and refuse to even acknowledge that there is a middle
ground available to them, and what is happening is that they
are growing further and further apart. And for my own part, I
find it is far easier to me to start up a research
collaboration with a university in Russia, or China, or France,
than it is with a university, shall we say, just a few miles
from where I am located.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Dr. Williams. Dr. Stupp.
Dr. Stupp. As Professor X, I guess I have to say something.
right?
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. This is a great concern, that it is easier
for a company to deal with it especially in another country.
Dr. Stupp. I just wanted to say for the record that even
though I agree with many of the things that my colleague Mr.
Williams said, I think for the most part universities are
careful, usually, to grant exclusive or nonexclusive licenses
to those companies that funded the research. I think, I am sure
there are exceptions. There may be different trends on the West
Coast versus the East Coast or the Midwest, but I think if you
look at the problem specifically, usually the universities are
careful to do that.
The issue of a nonexclusive license, I agree with what Stan
said, and yet the problem is that sometimes we receive, you
know, $50,000 for 1 year of research from a company, often
times a large company, and we are always very eager to please
the company and show good results, so that you end up spending
a lot more than $50,000 to achieve the goals. And so in that
case, of course, a nonexclusive license is perfectly
reasonable, and that is the way it should be done.
But just for the record, I think that if one wants to
assess if this is a real problem, you really have to look at
the statistics. There are too many universities in this
country, and many of them are extremely careful, I would say,
about matching one-to-one, and funds versus licensing.
Senator Allen. Well, Mr. Modzelewski, from your
association, which obviously has a multitude of folks, you are
looking for capital in your alliance, as far as your
nanobusinesses, what do they say about this? We have two
slightly different points here.
Mr. Modzelewski. I think actually, picking off of something
you just said, it is that careful nature. They are so careful
that nothing gets transferred out. There tends to be, there are
very few operations. I have heard less than a dozen among all
the thousands of universities in America that are actually
profitable on a tech transfer standpoint. Something like 6, I
think, were last year, and one of the reasons for this is that
nothing gets transferred out. The negotiations tend to be quite
aggressive and quite onerous. The amount, the percentage that
the university asks for tends to be very high.
This is--looking at the psychology, I mean, not being a
psychologist myself, but looking into some of it, you tend to
see from conversations with tech transfer people that they are
all trying to hit a home run. They are all looking for the next
Gatorade, or the next giant biotech revolutionary discovery
that will bring in millions if not billions to the university,
so in light of that they tend to negotiate so tough that
nothing gets out.
They tend to look for such a big percentage just in case
something hits, and that they are not held responsible for only
getting 10 percent of a multibillion dollar drug discovery,
that instead they just put the brakes on everything. And it
does include, certainly, the corporations, but also the
startups. There are many entrepreneurial professors at
universities that try to take their discoveries off, and just
cannot, or the fight is so long they say, I am really
considering leaving my university.
I have had professors say, I would rather go to one of the
ones that is working, or get out of here and give up my past
portfolio, just cede it to the university, rather than sit here
and just not be able to get anything done. They want to be
entrepreneurs, they want to get things out, but the negotiation
process generally just ties them up so badly.
Continuing along the same lines, there is also just issues
with taking intellectual property and making it something that
is global. The cost of registering patents in the U.S. is
actually very cost-effective, and our processes really should
be the envy of the world, but when you try to take a simple
discovery that is here in the United States and get global
protection, you are talking about more than a $100,000 process
with legal fees and registration fees, and that is an
incredible burden that most universities, unless award after
award is being given to the research that was discovered, are
willing to extend to the professor. And so that is another
point that once you get to that global level, you start having
some real difficulties and hit the wall.
Senator Allen. Well, some of those are similar to business
decisions, regardless of whether it is a university and having
to register it.
Mr. Modzelewski. They cannot be blamed for that. If every
professor who discovered something wanted a global patent, I
think the university certainly does need to make that business
decision. Nevertheless, you are entering an area of where might
there be some easement of that sort of pain on a researcher,
and where might there be programs, whether they be loan
programs, or something along those lines, that might be able to
help this bottleneck, the ability to get global protections.
Senator Allen. If I may, Mr. Chairman, can I follow up on
this line of concern?
Senator Wyden. Of course.
Senator Allen. In listening to the three of you all on
this, there is maybe three different perspectives. Let us
assume that some universities are more easy to deal with than
others, some are very picky and very restrictive. Apparently,
Hewlett-Packard has not found those that are better.
In listening to you, obviously the Nanobusiness Alliance,
their view is that some are better than others. Could it be the
case, or could it occur that those universities that are, let
us say, more willing to strike a reasonable deal and a
partnership with the private sector working with their
professors, students and so forth, would those not then be one
of the more attractive universities, or are they commonly
known?
And I do not ask you to start listing names here, but if
they were more commonly known, say the top 10 percent that have
good business sense and are willing to take some of these risks
and partner, would not more research go to those universities
in the event that they have that reputation, so that it does
not matter? Any company, Intel or Micron, would want to do
that?
Mr. Modzelewski. Yes. It almost becomes self-fulfilling.
The ones who are very good at it are able to cut much easier
terms, because they have so much flow that they know there will
be something to receive on the other end. We have a lot of
other universities, a few that they only have one shot. They
swing for the fence on the ones they do get out. So you do see
the schools that are well known in technology development, some
of which are actually represented right here, being able to be
much more fair in their negotiations than others, who are again
just looking for that big hit that will change the university's
dynamic.
Senator Allen. Dr. Swami, have you found this in Virginia,
since you have worked with a dozen universities?
Dr. Swami. Yes. In Virginia we have the same paradigm with
the big company and the small company, but clearly even small
companies have had trouble getting these technologies on board
because of negotiations with universities. Nevertheless, we
still have had some success with at least about a handful of
such technologies. Usually that has occurred when the
professor, the entrepreneur, is entrepreneurial enough to take
it to the next stage. If the professor has not been of that
nature, then usually there is an even bigger stumbling block
than anything else.
Senator Allen. Dr. Stupp, do you have any closing comments
on behalf of the universities?
Dr. Stupp. I think one other thing one should add is that
our experience with this process is still pretty young, and I
would argue that maybe 5 years from now you will be able to
make a better assessment, and this is a self-selecting process,
I think. The universities who are really smart about dealing
with technology transfer, eventually they will become
attractive places, as you said, and people will gravitate to
those, and those will be successful, I think.
We do not have many decades of experience in tech transfer
at universities, and so I think you just need to let things
sort out.
Senator Allen. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
letting me go a little longer.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague, and I thank Dr.
Williams. I have been trying to get everybody in this town to
get interested in Bayh-Dole, because I think if people really
understood what was at stake, we would do more than talk about
this from time to time for a few minutes.
The fact of the matter is, and we have considerable
statistics on this, Dr. Stupp, we spend billions and billions
of taxpayer dollars every year on the National Institutes of
Health, energy laboratories, and environmental laboratories.
Under the Bayh-Dole law, which is more than 20 years old, we
are supposed to have a process for commercially transferring
these fruits of the taxpayers' research treasure trove to the
private sector, yet virtually nothing gets out.
I have done a number of analyses of Bayh-Dole, and in my
view, not only does the system not work for companies, it does
not work for universities, and it does not work for taxpayers.
We are at the point now where major agencies cannot even
document where the tax dollars go with respect to key areas of
investments with the universities and companies. Specifically
at my instigation, the National Institutes of Health has sought
to document Government investments in medicines, and they have
not been able to do it. They literally do not know where all
the investments are in promising medicines that the taxpayers
have put up money for.
We do have a sense that perhaps half of the breakthrough
drugs can get to market with taxpayer money, but we do not know
where all of those investments go, and NIH is just now trying
to assemble such a database.
And so I am going to leave this question of Bayh-Dole,
other than asking Mr. Russell one question. We discussed this
when you came to my office, when you were going to be
confirmed. In light of the testimony today, our discussion, and
other discussions I know you have had on Bayh-Dole, are you now
convinced that it is time for an administration task force
composed of university officials, of companies, and taxpayer
advocates, to work together in a cooperative way to get more
value out of taxpayer investments?
What Dr. Williams has done is blow the whistle here. Thank
goodness somebody did from the real world, because when people
talk to me about it, they say it does not work for
universities, it does not work for companies, and it sure does
not work for taxpayers. The statistics are pitiful, beyond the
paltry return and the fact that we do not know where the money
goes.
I have talked about this several times, and every time I
do--Dr. Williams, I am going to be able to invoke your name--
everybody heads for the ramparts. The universities worry that
Ron Wyden is about to upset the apple cart. Western
civilization is going to end, universities will not be able to
do any more of the research, and all I have talked about is
creating a winner for universities, companies and taxpayers.
I want to leave Bayh-Dole after we get Mr. Russell's
comments, but what I would like to hear from Mr. Russell is
that you get the message. You understand how serious this is. I
would like to know within 30 days, whether the administration
is willing to work with universities, companies and taxpayer
groups to take a look at this 22 year old law. I believe it was
enacted in 1980, and it does not seem to work for anyone now. I
think we ought to examine this on a cooperative basis, because
after all this is not a question of somebody being corrupt or
evil.
[For example] a big part of Bayh-Dole did not even envisage
the kind of health care applications that Senator Allen and I
are so excited about. It did not even envisage what would
happen with the tax law, where Bristol Myers Squibb made $1.6
billion last year and virtually nothing was given back to the
taxpayers. So I would like to see you all within the
administration review this on a cooperative basis.
Mr. Russell. As you indicated, you have raised this with me
previously. We took it seriously at that time, as we continue
to take it seriously. We did ask PCAST, the President's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology, which is made up of both
university presidents and industry CEO's, to look at this
issue.
The initial reports that we have gotten back is that Bayh-
Dole as a framework makes sense. I think some of the specific
issues that have been raised here today, though, are
interesting, and I think that we should look at those, I am
more than happy to work with you and your staff on fleshing out
some of these very specific issues, because clearly, we are
talking about nanotechnology, the Federal Government is
investing a lot of money in nanotechnology. It will be
investing a lot of money in the future in nanotechnology.
The universities are going to get a lot of that research
money, and we do want to see that research passed through to
the U.S. economy, so I am more than happy to work with you and
your staff on the issue. I hate to commit to a task force. I
will tell you that right up front.
Senator Wyden. If you all want to try and reinvent the
Bayh-Dole law through the prism of nanotechnology, that is fine
with me, but what Dr. Williams just told us is that he is
having so much trouble with this that he and his colleagues
will traipse to Russia and around the world, rather than work
with universities here. That is not a trifling kind of concern.
That goes right to the heart of what I have been interested in
trying to change.
Mr. Russell. And I would say, as I think I started my
comments off to Senator Allen, that I use nanotechnology as an
example. I do not think this is a nanotechnology-exclusive
issue. I think we have to be careful that when we talk about
tech transfer we look at it broadly, and not based on any
single emerging technology, because I think whatever lessons we
learn from nanotechnology are going to be the same for other
technologies as well.
Senator Wyden. I am willing to look at it broadly. I have
looked at it broadly, and I have looked at it in depth; I have
even looked at the exclusivity matter, Dr. Williams. A few
years ago, there was an exclusive deal between Scripps and
Sandoz, and I basically busted that up, because it was totally
contrary to the interests of the public, to the business
community, and to this country.
The Scripps-Sandoz deal would essentially have put an
exclusive agreement together with respect to general scientific
knowledge, and it would all have been lubricated with taxpayer
money. We broke that up, and since then I have followed the
issue. At a minimum, Mr. Russell, I would hope that the
administration would use nanotechnology in a cooperative way
with universities, companies, and with taxpayer groups to get
some changes. I think we can do so much better, and I have
tried to promote such a discussion for some time.
Dr. Williams, I did not know you were going to discuss
Bayh-Dole today, but I think you performed a great service by
blowing the whistle on this.
Dr. Stupp. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would allow me
just one extra thing.
Senator Wyden. Sure.
Dr. Stupp. That when you speak about the enormous
investment of taxpayers' money, and the billions of dollars,
you should also recognize that this always needs to be a part
of the equation if we are going to revisit the law and so
forth, that we have, of course, we provide--I mean, the main
function that we have is education, and we have invested--a lot
of that taxpayer money actually goes into training a very
technically competent workforce, perhaps the best in the world,
possibly, and we use the investment from taxpayers' money to
educate our people, and this is a very costly procedure.
At the same time, large companies in the last 20 years have
downsized their basic research efforts, and so there is now
suddenly a much greater--you know, there is a spotlight on
universities to take the burden of basic research and
development, which is very difficult to do inside universities,
because it is not compatible with education.
Senator Wyden. I think that is a very fair comment, and
there is no question that there are many beneficial
ramifications of the work between companies and universities.
Bayh-Dole's central premise is that when taxpayers support
research, we are supposed to get breakthroughs out of the
laboratory and turn it into innovations in the marketplace.
Clearly this is an area where we must do better. If companies
like Hewlett-Packard tell us that not only are we not doing it,
but they are so frustrated at this point that they are going to
go to the former Soviet Union, we have got a challenge on our
hands.
Dr. Stupp. Maybe you should come to the Midwest.
Senator Wyden. Let us have those discussions. I thank my
colleagues. I have additional questions. Would you like to ask
any?
Senator Allen. No, but I do want to thank you all for your
very insightful testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I have other meetings I have to
get to.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Let us go specifically back to
nanotechnology. Now that we have had this discussion on Bayh-
Dole, I would like to hear about the health care applications
of nanotechnology, and particularly what kind of nano-inspired
health care applications look promising in the short term. What
does the landscape look like further down the road? Would any
of you like to start with that? Dr. Stupp.
Dr. Stupp. Well, there are two technologies, I think, that
are likely to be nano-inspired, that will have broad impact.
One of them is targeted drug delivery. If you think about
cancer, for example, we basically kill our patients with toxic
drugs, and in the end the battle is lost, and a lot of these
problems have to do with our ability to target medicines to the
right locations of the body.
I think the nanodesigns of drug couriers will definitely
address this problem. Whether you see this as a short or a long
term is not really clear, but nonetheless I think, I would
prefer to think that it is not really long range, it is
actually middle range.
The other one is regenerative medicine, because that is an
alternative to medicines. Why not use nanotechnology to
regenerate parts of the heart, or to regenerate cartilage, or
bone, or regenerate spinal cords so you can reverse paralysis,
reverse blindness?
What is needed there is, you have to design materials,
which are typically referred to as scaffolds, that will give
cells the right signals to regenerate normal tissue, and the
only way we are going to be able to get that is to design
materials at the nanoscale that can in some rational way
interact with cells, so I would say regenerative medicine is
one of those areas where nanotechnology has enormous potential,
and it happens to be a wonderful example of something that
biologists alone will not do, engineers alone will not do. This
is going to have to be a team effort, and highly
interdisciplinary effort, and a very important fruit of
nanotechnology, basically repairing human beings, and this will
eliminate the need for a lot of the medicines that we now take
which are not very successful, probably shorten our life span.
Senator Wyden. Others on the health care applications of
nanoscience? Dr. Williams?
Dr. Williams. I think an area that actually has potential
for happening relatively soon is an entirely new means for
diagnosis. Right now, of course, when you go to the doctor you
give a little blood sample and it goes off to a lab, and it
takes several days to come back, and then, of course, it is
fairly nonspecific set of information that the doctor gets.
With new technologies for being able to build entire
laboratories on a chip, and within those laboratories, being
able to build extremely sensitive nanoscale detectors which can
be targeted at a wide range of vectors, if you will, for either
external attack or some type of internal disease like cancer, a
medical exam can essentially be performed immediately. You get
results back in real time.
I think that with the marriage of advanced information
technology we also have the possibilities of creating in real
time with the diagnosis a directly specific treatment for the
particular patient who is coming to see the doctor, so I think
that this whole area of diagnosis is going to change the way
people interact with their doctors, and the way you have your
physical exams, and that I think is the type of thing that
literally can happen within a relatively short number of years,
2, 3 years, some of these things can be up and ready to go if
there is the will to actually do it.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Swami, did you want to comment on
health?
Dr. Swami. My comments would probably follow on what Dr.
Williams said. Basically, I would just extend it. Diagnostics
is probably one specific application in the general field of
sensors, because nanotechnology has the ability to sense
extremely sensitive signals. Due to that, and due to the fact
that it can be embedded very easily into products, sensors
would be a field where you can see an immediate application, a
platform where they could immediately or very soon work
directly on the product development in that field.
Mr. Modzelewski. One other area that is already happening
right now and is already in trials from a company called C-60
is actually using a Bucky ball as a protease inhibitor for the
AIDS virus. As the AIDS virus tries to attach itself to a cell,
you might almost consider it like an octopus trying to latch
on, and what they basically are working on right now is
actually using a Bucky ball to actually block it from attaching
itself to the cell.
It is not treating the HIV, so the HIV is not developing
any mutations towards it, or going about it different ways. It
is just thwarting it from doing its job, which is to attach
itself and to replicate.
Senator Wyden. Gentlemen, some are raising concerns about
the ethics of nanotechnology and saying in effect the
scientific developments are outpacing the focus on ethical
concerns. I am curious whether you share that view and, if so,
whether you have any recommendations for how it ought to be
dealt with.
Dr. Williams. Frankly, I think, and largely because of Mike
Roco's leadership, the NNI has been almost unique in its focus
on societal issues, and trying to elevate the awareness very
early in the entire cycle, so yes, it is very, very true that
right now our tools that we have are evolving much faster than
we ourselves are.
For millennia we have all very slowly worked with our
tools, but now the tools are changing by orders of magnitude,
well within the life span of any individual, so that is very
difficult for us to deal with and adjust to, but in my own
opinion the NNI provides the model that exists so far for being
able to take into account these ethical and social issues in
watching a science evolve into a technology and beyond.
I think this is a first. I think it is the first time this
has been done, so I am sure that the process can be improved.
But I applaud Mike Roco and the others who have been involved
in Examining ethical issues doing this, because it is
imperative for people to be well educated in the tools that are
going to be used in the society around them.
Senator Wyden. Doctor.
Dr. Stupp. I just would add, briefly, that our committee,
our report very specifically talks about this in recommendation
9, because we felt that even though there was the intention of
the NNI to look into issues of societal implications, the
reality is, it really has not happened to a great extent, and
so we are recommending that the NNI implements a new strategy
to make sure that those programs do take place.
Senator Wyden. Gentlemen, in your view, what needs to be
done to make sure that this country has a properly educated
nanotechnology workforce? It is very clear that the educational
aspects of this are going to be key, and we are going to have
to look at this systematically, particularly at the
universities. Why don't we take a minute or two to get your
thoughts on what it is going to take for this country to have a
properly educated workforce to really tap the potential in
nanotechnology.
Dr. Stupp, do you want to start with that, with the
academy's views?
Dr. Stupp. Definitely, the development of an
interdisciplinary culture is key for nanotechnology
development. I think that it would be fair to say that most
universities have recognized that multidisciplinary research is
important. However, it is not yet clear to a lot of
investigators what interdisciplinary research really is.
I mean, there is a difference between multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary. What we need most is interdisciplinary
culture, meaning that individuals themselves are
interdisciplinary, and this is a very challenging educational
task, but in fact the NNI, and hopefully with the advice of
some external board that includes members of the scientific
community, as well as individuals with expertise in research
management, will be able to impact directly on this goal by
creating the right programs that will encourage this kind of
interdisciplinary development among individuals. So
interdisciplinary culture is key.
I think we need to catalyze it through the NNI programs,
and so somebody has to think hard about how to do that. The
solutions are not there yet.
Senator Wyden. Others? Mr. Modzelewski, particularly the
private sector. I can think of an awful lot of public schools
in Oregon where we are very excited about the prospects of
nanotechnology, where we would like to see your companies make
investments.
Mr. Modzelewski. I think it starts there. I think it starts
very early. I mean, I think we have to make a real effort not
to just consider this as a college program, but to get kids
interested in the physical sciences at a much younger age, and
not just getting them interested. I think too much emphasis is
put on, perhaps, an idealistic view that this excitement in
science will just naturally be drawn within them.
I think there needs to be other buttons pushed, and I think
certainly financial incentives, and that the entrepreneurs of
tomorrow might be--are the researchers of today is certainly
something that should be underlined far more, that the
companies of tomorrow in nanotechnology are the startups that
are being started by researchers at university and corporate
labs, and that they are going out to start these, and I think
that level of incentive also being worked in is something that
we need to accept as probably being part of the incentive
package for young people to think of this as a career move.
Right now, you are talking about a field that is greatly
dominated at American universities by foreign students. You
will find Chinese nationals in some cases being the entire
program at a university, and at some of the startups the entire
research team being Chinese nationals, who they know at one
time or another are going to be recalled to their home country
to do their work. So we really do need to think of this as an
imperative how we incentivize, and I think mainly just getting
the information out there as science is cool and exciting is
one thing, and that is sort of a path we have taken, but I
think also to point out that it is a great career move, and a
very lucrative career, is something that will certainly attract
young people.
Senator Wyden. Any idea, of today's nanotechnology
workforce in this country, how many are from other countries?
Mr. Modzelewski. I would be giving a blind guess, but it is
definitely more than half.
Dr. Williams. I can give an observation. 17 out of the last
18 people I have hired were born outside the United States, and
half of those were educated outside the United States.
Senator Wyden. Well, that sort of sums it up.
Dr. Williams. Actually, if I may just make a comment along
this line, to be real crude about it, money talks. If you look
at what has happened over the course of the past decade, and
track as I have the enrollments of American undergraduate
students in various disciplines as a function of time, what has
happened is that the enrollment of American undergraduates
tracks almost exactly the investments in basic research.
So over the past decade, NIH has actually been doing very
well. Their budgets have been going up. The enrollments of
American under graduate students in biology departments in the
United States is skyrocketing. It is up over 55 percent in just
the past few years.
On the other hand, in mathematics, in physical sciences, in
engineering, overall funding is down, and down significantly.
Enrollment of American undergraduates in those programs is down
20 to 30 percent over the past decade.
I have asked young people what they want to do, and they
always tell me, oh, I am going to go into biology. I ask then
why. Well, that is where the action is. You know, from the
standpoint of a young person looking at a career, you go to a
college and you see where all the money is being spent on a
college campus, it is being spent primarily in the biology
departments because of the strength of the NIH, so of course,
that is what draws them into it.
I believe that by taking the steps that we have taken, by
legitimizing nanotechnology and as long as we have the
commitment to increase the funding and keep it going, we will
see significant increases in students going into this area,
because it is very exciting intellectually. There are
tremendous careers associated with nanotechnology, but the
interface, the only place where young people learn that is when
they first show up on a college campus; especially
disadvantaged young people, who are the ones who are most
likely going into sciences, you might say they do not know any
better, but it turns out to be a great opportunity for them.
And so I think that the NNI, just in being what it is, and in
focusing attention and putting money into it, is going to have
a tremendous impact on them.
Senator Wyden. Well, gentlemen, there are a couple of
questions I am going to ask of you all in writing. One of them
deals with some technical issues with respect to the employment
picture. It is clear that this is a significant opportunity for
new jobs. It is very important in my State. We have the highest
unemployment rate in the country, and what I would like to do
is get into some of the specific areas where you think the
biggest sources of jobs are likely to be. We will submit that
and a couple of other questions in writing.
Let me leave you with this. The irony is that we did get
into a significant area that I did not expect to talk about at
all today, which is the Bayh-Dole law, because it is clear that
cutting edge science and nanotechnology is something we are all
particularly excited about. It means we have got to get it
right with respect to the role for Government, the role for
private sector, and the role for universities. As I think Mr.
Modzelewski said, with respect to education, we need to start
even earlier than the universities, and I think we have got
that opportunity with nanotechnology. I think we have got an
opportunity to get it right.
The administration clearly is moving in the right
direction. Mr. Russell is a good man, and we have worked with
him in the past. The NNI is a very positive step, and that was
clearly the consensus of all today. The purpose of the
legislation Senator Allen and I have with Senator Lieberman,
Senator Landrieu, and Senator Clinton introduced is to build on
it.
We can do a bit better, and you can be very sure we are
going to work closely with the administration and all in this
country who care so much about it. We hope as we adjourn
today's hearing and leave with a great deal of excitement about
the possibility of regenerative medicine, never having to buy a
pair of khakis again, and all kinds of other excitement that we
have heard about today, that we leave with the idea that if we
work together and get it right, nanotechnology can serve as a
model that we will be able to duplicate again and again when
there are other exciting fields. There is certainly enough
goodwill and commitment over on that side of the dais to do it,
and we will match it with bipartisan support over here, and we
thank all of you for your patience. You have been here a long
time, and with that, the Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Our nation has long prided itself on being the world's premier
innovator of new ideas. Over the last two and a half centuries, the
uniquely American willingness to experiment with novel concepts and to
chart bold directions has placed us at the forefront of scientific and
technological progress. Our ability to engage in scientific exploration
and to marry research findings with the development of practical
applications has, in turn, enabled us to set the benchmark on virtually
every indicator of human progress, from longer lifespans, to higher
standards of living, to unparalleled economic productivity.
However, while past accomplishments may confer a present
competitive advantage, it does not guarantee future success. We cannot
afford to rest on our laurels in a world that is becoming increasingly
characterized by the speed with which scientific paradigms shift and
technological revolutions occur. In a global economy in which ideas and
technology are the new currency, every new breakthrough represents an
opportunity to claim--or, in our case, lose--global leadership.
The emerging field of nanotechnology constitutes such an
opportunity. It is not just any opportunity, however, but one whose
magnitude and significance locates it on the scale of harnessing
electricity, creating antibiotics, building computers, or wiring up the
Internet. It is, in short, a new frontier in science and technology
that has the potential to transform every aspect of our lives.
Nanotechnology, in fact, may have even greater potential to affect the
way we live since it has such broad prospective applications in so many
different areas, from medicine, to electronics, to energy.
Nanotechnology is what scientists and technologists often call an
``enabling'' technology--a tool that opens the door to new
possibilities constrained only by physics and the limits of our
imaginations.
Yet, despite the enormous potential that nanotechnology offers, it
is not an area in which we have assumed uncontested leadership. From an
international perspective, the United States faces the danger of
falling behind its Asian and European counterparts in supporting the
pace of nanotechnological advancement. Other nations have grasped the
fact that the first players to fully capitalize on the promise of
nanotechnology have the potential to leapfrog in productivity and
precipitate a reshuffling in the economic, and perhaps aspects of the
military, pecking order. Accordingly, they have undertaken substantial
efforts to invest in nanotechnology research, and to accelerate
technology transfer and commercialization. While our nation certainly
possesses the raw resources and talent to lead the world in developing
this technology, it is also clear that a long-term focus and sustained
commitment, as well as new collaborations between government, academia,
and industry, will be needed to ensure our place at the head of the
next wave of innovation.
In recognition of the need to support ongoing nanotechnology
efforts and to spur new ones, I am pleased to join Senator Ron Wyden in
cosponsoring today the ``21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act.'' 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, intelligently coordinated program for
addressing the full spectrum of challenges confronting a successful
national science and technology effort, including those related to
funding, coordination, infrastructure development, technology
transition, and social issues.
I feel it is appropriate at this point to give credit to President
Clinton for having the prescience and initiative of creating the NNI,
and to applaud President Bush for expanding support for nanotechnology
R&D from $270 million in FY 2000 to the $710 million targeted in his
budget request for FY 2003. The NNI has been a key driver of
nanotechnology in this country by bringing coherence and organization
to what had previously been a scattered set of research programs within
the Federal Government. It has, in no small part through the efforts of
its spokespersons, Dr. Mike Roco and Dr. Jim Murday, achieved a higher
profile for nanotechnology both within and outside the government, and
brought the importance of this field into the national consciousness.
The time is now ripe to elevate the U.S. nanotechnology effort
beyond the level of an Executive initiative. Funding for nanotechnology
will soon reach $1 billion a year, and the NNI currently attempts to
coordinate 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 closely tracks the recommendations of the National
Research Council (NRC), which completed a thorough review of the NNI
this past June. The NRC report stated how impressed the reviewers were
with the leadership and multi-agency involvement of the NNI.
Specifically, it commended the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology (NSET) subcommittee, which is the primary coordinating
mechanism of the NNI, as playing a key role in establishing research
priorities, identifying Grand Challenges, and involving the U.S.
scientific community in the NNI. To catalyze the NNI into becoming even
more effective, the NRC made a number of recommendations. These
recommendations have largely been incorporated into our bill, including
establishing an independent advisory panel; emphasizing long-term
goals; striking a balance between long-term and short-term research;
supporting the development of research facilities, equipment, and
instrumentation; creating special funding to support research that
falls in the breach between agency missions and programs; promoting
interdisciplinary research and research groups; facilitating technology
transition and outreach to industry; conducting studies on the societal
implications of nanotechnology, including those related to ethical,
educational, legal, and workforce issues; and the development of
metrics for measuring progress toward program goals. This legislation
will also complement the provision that I authored in this year's
Senate defense authorization bill, S. 2514, establishing a
nanotechnology research and development program in the Department of
Defense. If this provision is supported in conference, we will have
matching pieces of legislation that will encompass and coordinate both
civilian and defense nanotechnology programs, establishing a truly
nationwide effort that leverages the expertise residing in every corner
of our government.
If history teaches us anything, it is that once the wheels of
innovation have stopped and stagnation has set in, mediocrity will soon
follow. Nowhere in the world are those wheels of innovation spinning
more rapidly than in the realm of nanotechnology. This legislation
provides a strong foundation and comprehensive framework that elicits
contributions from all three sectors of our society in pushing
nanotechnology research and development to the next level. I look
forward to supporting Senator Wyden in getting 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. Ron Wyden to
Hon. Richard Russell
Bayh-Dole Act
We heard from Dr. Stan Williams of HP and others at the September
17 hearing that the Bayh-Dole Act and the way that universities deal
with intellectual property is a major barrier to university-industry
collaboration. In fact, Dr. Williams noted that it is easier to work
out a partnership with foreign universities than with U.S. academic
institutions. While the promise of Bayh-Dole is to get research off the
shelf and commercialized, the reality of Bayh-Dole is that industry and
academia often view the process differently and we get few useful
results.
Question 1. As you know, I am of the opinion that the Bayh-Dole law
isn't working for any of its constituents--universities, industry,
government, or taxpayers. How can we fix Bayh-Dole? Would OSTP or
another appropriate agency be willing to lead an Administration task
force made up of university people, companies, taxpayer advocates, and
other interested parties that would work in a cooperative way to reform
Bayh-Dole?
Answer. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) has created a Panel on Federal Investment in
Research and Development and its National Benefit. The panel has been
charged with two goals:
1. To review the R&D portfolio to determine areas where
programs should be expanded, curtailed and maintained; and
2. To give advice on technology transfer mechanisms that will
encourage commercial development to ensure maximum benefit for
research funding.
With respect to the second goal, one of the Panel's primary
interests is the Bayh-Dole Act. The PCAST Panel is seeking perspectives
on the Act from all parts of the science and technology community,
including representatives from industry, academia, government labs, the
venture capital community, and other interested parties.
The Panel is working with these representatives to understand their
viewpoints regarding whether the Bayh-Dole Act has been effective in
promoting or catalyzing the transfer of technology from federally
funded research to the private sector through licensing of patented
intellectual property. Likewise, these representatives may also suggest
to the PCAST Panel whether improvements to Bayh-Dole would involve the
Act itself, or the manner in which the Act is interpreted or
implemented. The Panel is hoping to include these perspectives on the
Bayh-Dole Act in their larger analysis of technology transfer
mechanisms that should be developed at the end of 2002.
In addition, PCAST tentatively plans to hold an open forum on tech
transfer in December to assist in soliciting a wide range of viewpoints
on tech transfer programs including best practices under Bayh-Dole.
Sufficient Government Support of Nanotechnology Research
Question 2. Given that other countries are also investing
significant amounts in this field, do you feel that we are doing enough
to ensure our leadership in this field?
Answer. The administration proposed a $679 million investment in
nanotechnology for FY 2003, a 17 percent increase over FY 2002 funding
levels. Taken together with past increases (FY 2002 levels were 25
percent higher than FY 2001 levels, for example), nanotechnology
represents one of the fastest-growing areas of federal research
funding. The investment in nanotechnology also leverages the overall
federal R&D investment, which reached unprecedented levels in the
President's FY 2003 budget request. This overall investment helps
support the research facilities and the higher education system that
make the U.S. science and technology enterprise the world's best.
However, while federal funding is important to maintaining U.S.
leadership in nanotechnology, it is but one component underlying the
strength of this field. For example, private sector innovation, and
policies that support this innovation, are of critical importance as
well.
Question 3. The Administration has requested $1.1 billion for FY
2003 for nanotechnology. We want to ensure that the efforts are well
coordinated. How is that effort coordinated? How does its coordination
compare with the coordination mechanisms for the Information Technology
Research program? Does it make sense to bring in an advisory committee
of outside experts to aid in the coordination?
Answer. The Federal investment in nanotechnology is coordinated
through the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Technology (NSET)
subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
NSET is currently chaired by a representative from NSF. Representatives
from each agency participating in the NNI, as well as OSTP and OMB,
attend regular meetings of the NSET and have a voice in coordinating
the programs of the NNI. A National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office
(NNCO) serves as a secretariat for the NNI, in a manner directly
analogous to the function of the National Coordinating Office (NCO) for
the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) program.
Outside input on federal R&D issues is important, and Presidential
advisory committees are one mechanism for gaining this input. However,
formation and maintenance of a Presidential advisory committee comes at
significant cost. Creating an advisory committee dedicated solely to
advising on issues related to nanotechnology would necessarily draw
funds away from the research and development activities of the NNI. The
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an
independent, external advisory body comprised of leaders from industry
and academe who provide important extra-governmental input on R&D
issues to the President and are clearly qualified to provide advice on
issues related to nanotechnology. For this reason, drawing on an
existing body such as PCAST represents a preferable means for gaining
non-governmental, expert advice on nanotechnology without diverting
funds away from research and development activities.
Question 4. How are you tracking and measuring the success of
nanotechnology research programs?
Answer. Each agency that participates in the NNCO is responsible
for reporting its accomplishments to the NNCO, which then assembles and
includes these data in an annual report. Under the NNI, each agency
invests in those R&D projects that support its own mission as well as
the overarching NNI goals. While each agency consults with the NSET
Subcommittee, the agency retains control over how resources are
allocated against its proposed NNI plan. Each agency then uses its own
methods for evaluating potential projects, and each assesses its NNI
research activities according to its own Government Performance Review
Act (GPRA) policies and procedures.
Question 5. Your hearing testimony highlighted the economic
potential of nanotechnology. Let me play devil's advocate for a
moment--if nanotechnology is such a huge, revolutionary area, why
should the Federal government invest here? Why can't companies bear
this burden, if they are going to be positioned to reap the profits?
Answer. The Federal government supports basic research and
development across a broad range of disciplines that advance the
frontiers of knowledge. Because the field of nanotechnology is still,
in many ways, in its infancy, there is a clear need for fundamental
research that answers the most basic questions regarding why materials
behave differently when studied at the nanoscale instead of at more
conventional scales. Understanding these questions will enable further
research, including the type of research and development most important
to industry. Given industry's focus on shorter term return on the
research investment, the private sector simply will not fund the bulk
of this type of long term, basic research. Thus there is a clear role
for the Federal government in funding fundamental nanotechnology
research, and this has been the priority of the NNI as a result.
Question 6. What do you see as the biggest challenges nanoscience
currently faces? In other words, what barriers could potentially keep
nanotechnology from reaching its potential?
Answer. The biggest challenges facing nanoscience include the
development of new scientific instruments to enable precise
measurements and manipulation at the nanoscale; the development of
robust, reliable methods for fabricating reproducible structures; and
the generation of sufficient numbers of scientists and engineers to
make these advances. In addition, the societal impacts of
nanotechnology must be addressed. Each of these issues represents an
area of focus within the existing framework of the NNI.
Multidisciplinary Education
It appears that nanotechnology is an interdisciplinary science,
combining facets of chemistry, materials science, computer science,
biology, mechanical and electrical engineering, and physics.
Question 7. How well prepared are our universities to produce the
next generation scientists who have the requisite expertise in multiple
disciplines in order to ensure that the United States continues to lead
in nanotechnology research?
Answer. Academic institutions are routinely engaged in reviews of
existing curricula. How best to address the increasing need for
scientists and engineers who can function at the intersection of
multiple disciplines is a question many academic institutions are
grappling with. One role of the Federal Government in this area is to
fund the development of innovative educational programs aimed at
helping to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Examples of federally-funded higher education programs related to
nanotechnology include the following: Penn State used NNI funding to
implement a new degree program in Nanofabrication Manufacturing
Technology; NSF Integrative Graduate Education, Research and Training
(IGERT) programs have funded a host of graduate projects on
nanotechnology at a range of institutions; and NNI funding has
supported education and training centers and networks at Columbia,
Rice, Cornell, Harvard, Northwestern, and Rensselaer.
Question 8. What needs to be done to promote a multidisciplinary
curriculum at all levels, not just universities, so that we have a
properly educated nanotechnology workforce?
Answer. Decisions regarding the adoption of particular curricula at
the K-12 level are best made by local entities. Federally-funded
nanoscience-specific activities, including some funded through the NNI,
are aimed at increasing the scientific and mathematics proficiency of
the nation's K-12 students. For example, the NNI-sponsored activities
mentioned above also have outreach functions that support K-12
educational programs, and additional K-12 activities at Wisconsin,
North Carolina, Arizona State, Rensselaer, the University of Tennessee,
Rice and the University of Illinois at Chicago are funded through the
NNI. In addition, the National Science Foundation and the Department of
Education support the Mathematics and Science Partnerships program.
This program, a key element of President Bush's No Child Left Behind
education blueprint, supports partnerships between institutions of
higher education and school districts in order to improve preK-12 math
and science achievement for all students, to improve teacher training
and professional development in these crucial subjects, and to improve
the quality of math and science curricula. In addition, Federal
sponsorship of research at universities, including activities mentioned
in the previous answer, includes significant support of work that will
result in a better educated and larger nanotechnology workforce.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden to
F. Mark Modzelewski
Nanotechnology, Job Creation, Regional Centers
Question 1. How many jobs do you anticipate the nanotechnology
industry creating over the next ten years?
Answer. This is a challenging question to answer as no formal
studies currently exist. In fact, we urge the Congress to ensure that
the U.S. Department of Labor undertakes a study of this question in FY
2003.
The difficulty in developing such a projection stems from the fact
that nanotechnology is a platform technology--not unlike harnessed
electricity, the internal combustion engine and the transistor. As a
platform technology that will have a transformative impact on
everything from the material sciences to life sciences to information
technology and electronics means that in most cases nanotech will
expand growth in these industries or reverse downward trends. It is
expected that nanotechnology will become completely intertwined in
current industries--before creating new ones.
Nanotechnology employment growth trends will scale in much the same
way biotechnology, the semiconductor industry, and the Internet sector
developed; however, growth is reasonably expected to be sustained over
a longer period of time as nanotech's reach is far greater. Current
projections predict nanotechnology to represent a value of $1 trillion
to the U.S. economy in value in little over a decade, it is safe to say
that 10 percent-25 percent of all U.S. jobs in a decade will be
directly related to nanotechnology.
On a regional jobs development scale, we can look to history for
job growth projections. For instance, Albany, NY recently became home
to the next generation of SEMATECH--the semiconductor industry's
development program. This project involves nanoscale semiconductor
development and is part of the SUNY Albany NanoTech Center. Analysis by
the State of New York strongly suggests that this $400 million project
(together with the $400 million previously raised from corporate and
state interests for the Albany NanoTech Center) will trigger economic
development on par with Austin, TX's extraordinary growth initiated by
the original SEMATECH project in 1988.
Since arriving in Texas, SEMATECH has been responsible for
attracting 11 percent of all jobs in the State--35 percent of
manufacturing, 10 percent of service, 13 percent of trade, and 12
percent of construction job growth. Austin-metro region unemployment
rate is one-half that of the nation at large. Employment in the broad
technology sector totals 125,000 and includes approximately 2,000
firms, including:
More than 200 semiconductor and semiconductor related
companies located in the Austin area employing nearly 24,000
people.
Approximately 120 computer manufacturing and peripherals
companies employ more than 43,000 people.
More than 450 software development companies employing
30,000+ employees.
Annual R&D expenditures in Austin has risen from less than
$200 million prior to 1980 to in excess of $1.4 billion by the
private and public sectors with the number of technology
patents awarded to the areas inventors nearly doubling since
1991.
Groundbreaking nanotech projects today will mean incredible
regional--and national--job growth in the future. Again, serious
analysis on this point is needed going further to make proper
determination and to aid planning.
Question 2. How can this industry effect areas of high unemployment
such as my home state of Oregon?
Answer. Nanotechnology will create jobs in two profound ways:
1. New development of jobs and industries
2. Invigoration of old industries as the opportunities
provided by nanotechnology render their continuation and
location economically feasible.
Nanotechnology is already fueling development in new methods of
drug delivery and medical treatments (in Texas and California); fuel
and solar cell development (in New York and Texas); and organic
electronics and quantum computing (in California, Colorado and New
York).
An example of a industry that is about to demonstrate explosive
growth through nanotechnology is the sensors sector. Sensors have
gradually found their way into vehicles and personal appliances, but
their size and cost have placed major limitations on their availability
and use. The industry was hitherto unable to maximize its extraordinary
potential: small and inexpensive sensors to detect pathogens on meat,
poisons in the air, diseases and disorders in the body, even tire
pressure and stress on an aircrafts wings. Nanotechnology is rapidly
providing the opportunity--through capability, size and price--to fuel
this development. Barriers to entry in this field from an R&D and
manufacturing perspective are very low and areas of Oregon and other
regions experiencing economic stress could certainly build and attract
efforts in the field.
As to invigorating old industries, nanotech is providing radical
innovations to current products: composite materials, coatings,
textiles, lighting, batteries and semiconductors, to name a few. at an
ever increasing rate, many of these sectors have been transitioning to
lesser-developed nations, leaving job loss in their wake. If the U.S.
invests sufficiently in nanotechnology, its developments will make
these industries economically feasible for the U.S. again.
For example, the textile industry has all but left the United
States, leaving major unemployment in its wake. Companies such as Nano-
Tex and eSpin are now providing radical improvements to this field with
wear resistant and water and stain repellent technologies. The cost of
implementing these technologies into the manufacturing processes of
textiles is nominal, yet it provides the industry with enormous
financial incentives to keep factories in the United States, where such
technology is easily available.
New York State explicitly noted that the ``Capital District'' where
the Albany NanoTech is located has both the solid university resources
to build around, and a manufacturing base of great potential but now in
despair since the relocation of IBM, Philips and other companies
operations. The decision to align this nanotechnology development
project with this region is purposeful and will allow for R&D to
interplay with corporate and employment development.
Focusing on Oregon's major employers we see the following interplay
of nanotechnology:
Healthcare (Children's Hospital, HMOs, etc): New drug
delivery and treatment techniques using Bucky Balls and Q Dots;
new MRI and X Ray technologies using caged atom techniques; new
bio-sensor detection methods to spot diseases at their earliest
stages.
University System (OU, OSU, etc): Research programs across
the spectrum of nanotech--materials science, catalysts, life
science and medical, and IT and electronics. Potential to spin
off start-ups and collaborate with in-state corporations.
Nike: Health Sensors and monitors; stain and wear resistant
nano-fabrics; and composites materials for the soles of shoes
and athletic gear.
Intel: Continuation of Moore's law through nanoscale chip
development and production technologies.
NORPAC Foods: Sensors to detect pathogens on foods; new,
more energy efficient refrigeration; new fuel, and lighting
systems technologies.
The NanoBusiness Alliance strongly urges that the Federal
Government undertake an effort to determine those regions most likely
to experience a major industrial impact from nanotech at the
management, research and wage earner levels. Additional studies are
needed for PhD, MBA level development, as well as at America's 4-year
undergraduate level and at two-year colleges.
Question 3. What does it take to get a successful nanotechnology
hub going? What elements do these communities share? How can the
Federal government help in that process?
Answer. This question is extremely important, as prevailing
economic theory demonstrates the importance of developing such hubs. In
his book ``The Competitive Advantage of Nations,'' Harvard Business
School professor Michael Porter makes the case for a new approach for
both understanding and creating economic success in a global economy.
Porter relates the competitiveness of nations and regions directly to
the competitiveness of their home industries. Moreover, he argues that
in advanced economies today, regional clusters of related industries
(rather than individual companies or single industries) are the source
of jobs, income, and export growth. These industry clusters are
geographical concentrations of competitive firms in related industries
that do business with each other and that share needs for common
talent, technology, and infrastructure (Mary Watts, ASU). Call it the
power of collaboration.--a new competitiveness framework for state
economic development.
For any cluster development to work, government, corporations,
start-ups, service firms, non-profits, venture capital and start-ups
must come together to develop three tiers of interaction and
collaboration:
First Tier: Leading companies and/or research universities
Second Tier: A myriad businesses that provide supplies,
specialized services, investment capital, and research to these
companies and others involved in the nanotech field.
Third Tier: is composed of essential economic foundations
(e.g., advanced infrastructure, specialized workforce training,
R&D capability, the pool of risk capital available in the
region) that are the building blocks of healthy clusters and a
competitive economy.
At this point no region has reach true critical mass in developing
a nanotechnology cluster. The industry is so nascent and has been
developing at an unexpectedly rapid rate that has prevented anyone from
developing an insurmountable lead. What my organization, the
NanoBusiness Alliance, has attempted to do is jumpstart the creation of
nanotech clusters through our NanoBusiness Hubs Initiative. The
Alliance Hubs bring together business leaders, researchers, government
officials, investors, corporations, service industry principles, start-
ups and other interested parties to drive forward the growth of
nanobusiness in their regions. The new program kicked-off in New York,
San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Colorado, Michigan, San Diego and Metro--
Washington DC.
The NanoBusiness Alliance Hub Initiative serves as a localized
catalyst to fuel understanding, discussion, planning, and
implementation for area specific nanobusiness development. Each
Alliance hub undertakes the process of bringing together key
stakeholders to develop regional nanotechnology business clusters. In
turn we provide them with a top line assessment of their nanotech
assets (universities, start-ups, corporate efforts, etc), generalized
best practices of other regional development (using past industries
efforts and current regional nanotech efforts as a model), organizing
meetings with area stakeholders and networking their efforts into our
other regional hubs so they can interact. Our goal is not to run these
efforts, but to set them in motion and tie them together through our
organization.
To be perfectly blunt, our resources at the Alliance have been
completely over tasked. We are proud of our work to date and have
already gotten major progress under way in the New York and Colorado,
substantial movement underway in 4 other regions, as well as other
efforts in Chicago and Texas into our network, we are an organization
of under 10 employees, on a tight budget raised through corporate
membership, events attendance, and report sales and can no way meet the
demands of organizations in 35 states and 11 countries that have
contacted us to help develop this capacity.
What the Federal Government could do to be a force in jumpstarting
the effort to create regional hubs is the following:
Education: Too few political and corporate leaders, as well
as the general public know anything about nanotechnology or its
economic promise.
National NanoBusiness Summit: Hold a high profile national
summit in Washington DC to educate the public on the future of
nanotechnology as a science, a technology and a business. Make
special efforts to educating the youth of America to pursue the
study of the physical sciences as a path for their future.
Trade Missions/Exchanges: Hold trade missions between the
U.S. and other leaders in the nanotechnology field to find
opportunities for collaboration and markets for their nanotech
developments.
Regional Events: It is not enough to hold a large scale
event in Washington to spread the word of nanotechnology and
its economic impact, efforts must be made to hold events in
states and regions to spark excitement.
Database: Though databases are being developed for the
nanosciences, no effort has been made to create or fund a
database of corporations, start-ups, supporting service firms,
and investment resources. There is also no platform for
existing government resources under one p banner for nanotech--
contracts, grants, loan programs. Not only to inform but also
to be a platform for collaboration. Regions could also explain
their efforts and share best practices.
Studies: Many basic studies to understand the dynamics of
the nanotechnology economy have yet to be performed. The
Departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, HUD, and Defense are
all necessary components in developing an understanding of the
nanotech workforce of tomorrow, its economic impacts and the
state of global competition, etc. In addition, as we learned
from how foreign markets have addressed GMOs, there is a real
aversion to surprises in technology development. Nanotech is
about to offer up many such surprises. There is a real need for
global studies on the health and environmental effects of
nanoscience right now or there may be major consequences
later--either real or imagined--that will slow and perhaps
cripple important developments.
Coordination: Make the National Nanotechnology Initiative
more than just an oversight and funding agency for basic
research. The NNI should also be equipped to address the needs
of the emerging business of nanotechnology and study the
competitive business climate in the U.S. and abroad. There
needs to be strong linkages with agencies such as Department of
Commerce Office of Technology Policy, the Department of Labor
and the Department of Education.
Capital: The timing for the sudden rise of nanotechnology as
a business could not be worst in terms of market conditions on
Wall Street and in the venture capital sector. Recent corporate
announcements by GE and Microsoft noting they saw real
opportunities in new future markets (like nanotechnology), and
hence were increasing R&D efforts, were met with extremely
negative responses on the Street.
There is no need for the Federal government to become a blank
checkbook for the nanotech industry with huge levels of new
funding for business. However, the Federal Government would be
missing a real opportunity to advance the nanotechnology
industry if it did not develop some level of new incentives
and, grant and loan programs. In addition, the Federal
Government should have a mandate to take existing programs and
ensure that they reach out to emerging technologies, such as
nanotechnology--particularly at Defense, Agriculture and SBA.
In addition, though NIST ATP has certainly had its problems and
has many opponents, it nonetheless is a program that could be
critical to the long term development of nanotechnology. ATP is
almost unique in the Federal Government in that it acts as a
conduit for funding during the critical middle stage of
development--post-basic research/pre-commoditization--when
companies are dealing with issues such as packaging, scaling
and integration. This is a timeframe that no venture capital
firm will fund--and a timeframe they affectionately refer to as
the ``valley of death.''
Government Practices: There are many existing programs and
methods employed by the Federal Government if changed could
provide much needed assistance and resources to the emerging
nanotechnology industry without requiring huge funding outlays.
Some examples include:
Tech Transfer: The technology transfer environment in the
U.S. is abysmal at the university and government level--though
admittedly the government is certainly making greater strides.
Efforts should be made to reform the execution of the Bayh-Dole
Act or to rewrite it. In addition, government labs, the land
grant college system, and any university working on government
research grants, should be pushed to post their nanotechnology
IP portfolio in a central NNI database along with appropriate
contact information to spur use and commoditization of these
technologies.
Patents: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is among the
most highly overburdened organizations in the government. The
PTO is expected to receive 350,000 patents applications this
year and on top of backlog roughly equal to that number. PTO is
the gateway to technology commercialization on America. It must
be given the necessary funds (or allowed to retain their fees
collected) in order to properly attend to nanotechnology and
other emerging technologies.
Case in point, PTO must have the funding to provide training
to its examiners in the field of nanotechnology. Nanotech is an
extraordinarily cross-disciplinary technology reaching into
nearly all sectors of examination at PTO. Efforts must be made
to ensure PTO can properly understand and manage the
nanotechnology patent application process. In turn, PTO must
also work with the nanotechnology industry to help train its
researchers and companies so that legal protections are
appropriate and timely. At the NanoBusiness Alliance we have
begun to work with PTO on these issues, arranging for meetings
between industry and officials and bringing in researchers to
talk with PTO examiners about their work. Indeed we have found
PTO officials to be extraordinarily welcoming and professional.
However, this effort needs to be more formalized and extensive.
In addition, it is imperative that Congress address the
October 3, 2002 Madey v. Duke decision by the Federal Circuit
which ended the so-called research exemption from United States
patent law. The effect will no doubt be chilling, essentially
ensuring that all corporate collaborative research with
universities and other non-profit research institutions will
move offshore as every other industrialized country in the
world recognizes a research exemption in patent law but the
U.S.
Before Madey the research exemption had been unquestioned
under the convincing case law line that came from no less an
authority than perhaps the leading scholar on the early Supreme
Court, Joseph Story, in his landmark opinion in 1813 in
Whittemore v. Cutter which used the now anachronistic term
``philosophical'' instead of ``scientific'' to describe the
experimental use exemption from patent infringement. This
``scientific-philosophical'' exemption from patent infringement
resides at the very core of the Constitutional mandate for
Congress to create a patent system ``to Promote the Progress of
``the Useful Arts''--an essential component being that those
skilled in such Useful Arts are free to use the knowledge
imparted by a patent disclosure to create better and newer
technologies.
If the United States is to maintain its high level of
nanotechnology research--as well as any other emerging field of
scientific study whether it be biotech, photonoics, or fuel
cells--it is essential that the Congress not wait to see if the
Supreme Court intervenes on Madey, and immediately reinstate
the research exemption into law. If this is not done
immediately, expect corporate research collaborations with
America's universities and non-profit institutions in America
to come to a near end as this work is exported globally to the
major research centers of the world--Kyoto, Zurich or Shanghai.
FDA Advisory Committee: Much like the PTO, FDA is an
enormously burdened agency. FDA historically has responded to
new directions and techniques rather than being proactive. With
such revolutionary developments as bucky ball drug delivery and
protease inhibitors, quantum dot disease detection, and pin
point cancer detect and removal through gold nano-shells all in
advanced laboratory development, it is imperative that FDA be
ready to rapidly and properly address and evaluate these
developments and not let them languish--at the peril of the
American public--for a decade or more of evaluation. That is
why we strongly recommend that FDA be compelled and funded to
immediately create an internal advisory committee on
nanotechnology. This committee would establish education
initiatives and relationships in the nanotech research
community to ensure that future evaluations of developments are
handled with great speed and great caution.
EPA: Because of the rapid development of nanotechnology
from science to a business there has been little research done
into the health and environmental effects of the technological
developments. While all current evidence suggests that c60 is
safe for long term use in the body, we don't know definitively.
Activist groups, many of which have been involved in limiting
the growth of the GMO industry, are already lining up against
nanotechnology development, some even calling for moratoriums
on commercialization. This can't be allowed to happen.
For the industry to develop and meet its potential, we need
study and we need public education to begin now. The
NanoBusiness Alliance is working with our European and Canadian
counterparts to create a foundation to ensure that a dialog on
nanotechnology's health and environmental effects is begun
immediately. We are seeking to ensure that studies are
undertaken and that public awareness campaigns are begun today.
Our organizations are reaching out to the environmental
community to work with them to address any concerns they have
on nanotech's development. We believe that it is imperative for
the Federal Government to be aligned with these efforts--
particularly the EPA and FDA.
Government Grants and Programs: Because of the newness of
nanotechnology, many researchers, business leaders and
officials in the field have little understanding of programs
and grants already provided by the government that may help
develop nanotechnology. In turn government officials, at say
SBA, have little idea of how their programs can be adjusted or
administered to serve this emerging industry. Efforts should be
made to develop regional outreach events at all major
government agencies to ensure a dialog and full participation
in existing programs for the nanotechnology community. In
addition, the NNI website should become a one stop shop for all
government programs and grant information that may be open to
the NanoBusiness community.
Another area to address is evaluation criteria. Many self-
funded companies in the nanotech arena have complained at
length at how SIR criteria--for instance--is unbalanced and
better serves venture backed start-ups.
In addition, criteria for evaluating new nanotech centers--
whether it be new round of NSF, DoD or DOE centers--should be
made to include commercialization planning and regional
development planning as a grading criteria so that it does not
become merely for research sake.
Advisory Board: The NanoBusiness Alliance and our member
organizations welcome the call for the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act for the creation of
a national advisory board on nanotechnology. We believe that it
is imperative that the President and Congress have top advisors
from outside the government--people who are on the front lines
of nanotechnology' s development--to provide vital feedback and
advice on the NNI and overall government nanotech efforts.
However, we feel it is essential that such a board reflect the
full spectrum of the nanotechnology community and not be a
board made up of just the research community. Nanotechnology
business leaders--start ups, corporations, even service
industry executives must be part of this effort to ensure that
it is effective. Also, it is vital that the various regions of
the U.S. where nanotech is developing be included fairly, so
that traditional tech clusters like Silicon Valley, Boston and
greater Washington been't included at the exclusion of other
developing regions such as the Pacific Northwest, Chicago,
Texas, upstate New York, and others. Lastly, it is of grave
importance that the Advisory Board also cover the breadth of
the nanotechnology field--life sciences; material sciences;
electronics; etc.--and not merely concentrate on one or two
areas.
NNI Mission: Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is
vital that the NOT's mission be expanded beyond the initiation
and funding of basic research, and extend to the developing
business of nanotechnology and ensure America's leadership in
global marketplace.
Government Investment
Question 4. Some critics of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
argue that the research portfolio is not in balance, currently favoring
readily achievable research goals and not sufficiently supporting high-
risk research, such as truly exploratory work in molecular
nanotechnology. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.
Answer. We generally disagree. The NNI portfolio and other
government programs such as NIST ATP have been in solid balance funding
near, mid and long-term efforts. This should continue. The
nanotechnology field includes many long-term visionaries and to be
honest, some that harbor extreme ideas on technology development. It is
not the government's role in our opinion to fund their fantastic ideas
at the expense of real development for the American people and our
country's economy.
Currently the most under-funded area of nanotechnology is not the
longer-term ideas such as universal assemblers, it is actually the mid-
term development stage--the so-called ``valley of death.'' This is the
period after basic research but before commercialization. This period
of research and application development includes scaling, packaging,
and integration. Except for NIST ATP and some DARPA programs, no
government effort addresses this period in the life cycle of
development. Corporations and VCS also do not normally provide funds
for this period. This is an area that particularly the Asia countries
excel at--which is why so many Japanese and Korean companies are
attempting to license U.S. nanotech research right now. We need a
comprehensive effort on the part of the Federal Government to make
funds available for this stage of nanotech's development as it will
have the greatest impact on our people and our industries.
In this competitive budget environment it is important that funding
priorities remain in balance and frankly touch more near term and
achievable developments. With that said, as an industry that is
projected to have an unrivaled impact of the global economy, we feel
that more funding is necessary so that efforts can be enhanced and
perhaps some longer term theories can be funded. We would like to see
another doubling of the U.S. nanotechnology budget within two years to
ensure our nation can compete globally in what is becoming the next
industrial revolution.
Question 5. Given that other countries are also investing
significant amounts in this field, do you feel that we are doing enough
to ensure our leadership in this field?
Answer. No. Nanotechnology is emerging as a truly global
technology. Unlike the many waves of technological development,
nanotechnology is not dominated by the United States. In several areas
of nanotechnology the U.S. is being outpaced by foreign competition.
The Japan, EU, Russia, Korea, and China are all significant players in
the field of nanotechnology.
A recent report from the Journal of Japanese Trade & Industry notes
that the Japanese government views the successful development of
nanotechnology as the key to ``restoration of the Japanese economy.''
They are not alone. Funding has grown at unprecedented rates across the
globe over the last three years.
The upside of 2000's NNI announcement was that it provide the U.S.
with a rallying point as well as additional funding for nanotechnology
development. The downside was it set off a global competition not seen
since the space race of the 1960's. In addition, most of these foreign
efforts include strong corporate interaction, unlike the U.S. NNI
effort that for the most part is a basic research program.
The EU just announced a new $685.4 million budget for research in
nanotechnology and the formation of the EU Nanotechnology Industrial
Platform. When individual country spending is added to the EU mix,
overall spending is nearly double that of the U.S. EU corporate
spending has remained generally on par with ours.
The Japanese are outspending us from a government perspective and
their corporations are far more aggressive than ours in R&D and
investment. There are few U.S. based start-ups in the nanotech field
that have not been contacted by Japanese investors. Also in Asia, China
in adjusted dollars is clearly outspending the U.S.--and Korea,
Singapore, Taiwan and others all have very significant programs
underway. Add to this that the majority of U.S. nanotechnology grad
students and post-docs are non-U.S. citizens from Asia.
If one is to add to this construct the current U.S. business
environment of R&D cuts, Wall Street in a severe downturn, and a
stagnant VC market, the U.S. nanotechnology market is in need of
serious attention and assistance from the Federal Government.
To turn this around the U.S. government must consider the
following:
Increased funding for research and centers; additional
incentives and contract opportunities for nanotech business;
and extending current and adding new loan and assistance
programs for nanotech businesses.
Additional coordination between agencies and among
government programs to reach out to the nanotech research and
business community.
Information development in terms of monitoring and
developing reports on global competitiveness; regional
development; best practices; etc.
Promote regional development through information databases.
Promote business development through omnibus government
database of resources.
Refashion the NNI to include a strong commercialization and
industry development platform.
Improve the current state of technology transfer in the U.S.
Provide educational and organizational resources for PTO,
FDA, and other agencies at the front line of developing the
U.S. nanotechnology industry.
Develop model curriculums for U.S. schools for nanotech.
Create programs to promote careers in the nanotechnology field
to get more U.S. kids into this field now before it is too
late.
Question 6. What role could a Nanotechnology advisory committee of
academic, finance, and industry experts serve in improving and
grounding the Federal government's nanotechnology research? Would you
support the creation of such an advisory committee?
Answer. The NanoBusiness Alliance and our member organizations
welcome the call for of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act for the creation of national advisory board on
nanotechnology.
We believe that it is imperative that the President and Congress
have top advisors from outside the government--people who are on the
front lines of nanotechnology's development--to provide vital feedback
and advice on the NNI and overall government nanotech efforts. We feel
it is essential that such a board reflect the full spectrum of the
nanotechnology community and not be a board made up of just the
research community. Nanotechnology business leaders--start-ups,
corporations, even services industry executives must be part of this
effort to ensure that it is effective. Also, it is vital that the
various regions of the U.S. where nanotech is developing be included
fairly, so that traditional tech clusters like Silicon Valley, Boston
and greater Washington been't included at the expense of other
developing regions such as the Pacific Northwest, Chicago, Texas,
Upstate New York, and others. Lastly, it is of grave importance that
the Advisory Board also cover the breadth of the nanotechnology field--
life sciences; material sciences; electronics; etc.--and not merely
concentrate on one or two areas.
As to the role of the board:
Advice and real world feedback as to the industry's needs
and the effects of current government efforts.
Assist with the overall NNI coordination between government,
academia and industry.
Bench marking, review and evaluation of government
nanotechnology efforts.
Development and review of reports, studies, and surveys on
the field.
Promotion of the science and business of nanotechnology.
Intellectual Property.
Question 7. Mr. Modzelewski, in your testimony, you expressed
concerns over the current state of intellectual property and the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office.
Answer. Can you provide specific recommendations on how to improve
the Patent Office system so that it does not hamper nanotechnology
growth and innovation?
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is among the most highly
overburdened organizations in the government. The PTO is expected to
receive 350,000 patents applications this year and on top of backlog
roughly equal to that number. PTO is the gateway to technology
commercialization on America. It must be given the necessary funds (or
allowed to retain their fees collected) in order to properly attend
nanotechnology and other emerging technologies.
Case in point, PTO must have the funding to provide training to its
examiners in the field of nanotechnology. Nanotech is an
extraordinarily cross-disciplinary technology reaching into nearly all
sectors of examination at PTO. Efforts must be made to ensure PTO can
properly understand and manage the nanotechnology patent application
process. In turn, PTO must also work with the nanotechnology industry
to help train its researchers and companies so as that legal
protections are appropriate and timely. At the NanoBusiness Alliance we
have begun to work with PTO on these issues, arranging for meetings
between industry and officials and bringing in researchers to talk with
PTO examiners about their work. Indeed we have found PTO officials to
be extraordinarily welcoming and professional. However, this effort
needs to be more formalized and extensive.
It should be noted that the signing of H.R. 2215 will make it
easier for nanotechnology companies to eliminate mistakenly granted
patent claims that would otherwise hinder their business development
efforts. Other possible efforts can include accelerated patent
examinations for a reasonable fee should be permitted to enable
nanotechnology companies and other high-tech companies to bypass the
backlog of cases at the U.S. Patent Office.
In addition, it is imperative that Congress address the October 3,
2002 Madey v. Duke decision by the Federal Circuit which ended the so-
called research exemption from United States patent law. The effect
will no doubt be chilling, essentially ensuring that all corporate
collaborative research with universities and other non profit research
institutions will move offshore as every other industrialized country
in the world recognizes a research exemption in patent law but the U.S.
Before Madey the research exemption had been unquestioned under the
convincing case law line that came from no less an authority than
perhaps the leading scholar on the early Supreme Court, Joseph Story,
in his landmark opinion in 1813 in Whittemore v. Cutter which used the
now anachronistic term ``philosophical'' instead of ``scientific'' to
describe the experimental use exemption from patent infringement. This
``scientific-philosophical'' exemption from patent infringement resides
at the very core of the Constitutional mandate for Congress to create a
patent system ``to promote the progress of the useful arts''--an
essential component being that those skilled in such ``Useful Arts''
are free to use the knowledge imparted by a patent disclosure to create
better and newer technologies.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden to
Dr. Samuel I. Stupp
Bayh-Dole
Question 1. In testimony before the Subcommittee, Dr. Stan Williams
of HP stated that due to U.S. universities' interpretation of
intellectual property sharing regime created under Bayh-Dole, it is
easier to work with foreign universities rather than U.S. academic
institutions. How would you respond to this criticism from the academic
side? Does Bayh-Dole need an overhaul? If so, what would you
specifically suggest?
Answer. My personal view is that U.S. universities have been
extremely proactive on technology transfer over the past decade, and I
do not see any obvious problem with the system. If you look for example
at the large number of successful start up companies in biotechnology
and other fields that have emerged from technology transfer activities
at universities, you see definite evidence of a healthy system. Many of
these companies are now public and as far as I know no other country in
the world is as successful as we are in this respect. I have no doubt
that this proactive trend will continue into the nanotechnology era
over the next few decades and I certainly do not see a justification
for U.S. industry to flock to foreign universities to acquire
technology. Of course there will always be exceptions, when very
specific technologies are available for licensing overseas or when
going a broad will be the only way to strike a ``good deal'' for large
U.S. corporations. I do not know what experience Mr. Williams has had
that would lead him to hold his opinion.
Before opening a public forum on the subject, one would need to
back up with good stastistics the alleged inappropriate practices by
U.S. universities on technology transfer. My feeling is that
stastistics will not support the case, and that the Bayh-Dole act does
not need an overhaul. Furthermore, I would add that even ignoring
technology transfer, the billions of dollars invested in research at
U.S. universities have yielded over the course of decades the best
technical/scientific work force in the world. This has been a
critically important return for the economic success of our country.
Furthermore, now that large U.S. corporations have downsized their
research and development infrastructure, mostly for financial reasons
in my view, universities are the ones leading the way to technical
innovation as well as playing the role they always played of educating
our scientists and engineers. Is it appropriate to tamper now with
Bayh-Dole, I don't think so.
Promises of Nanotechnology
New revolutionary technology often promises to ``change the way we
live.'' Often times visionaries tell of how these technologies will
enable better, more improved lives. There have been a number of
promises about the bright potential of nanotechnology. For example, I
have heard that with the ability to manipulate atoms, we can completely
forgo smelting and instead essentially ``grow'' steel. While this is
undoubtedly promising, it sounds rather fantastic.
Question 2. Can you distinguish for me between what is reasonably
achievable and what are exaggerations?
Answer. I think growing steel because we have now demonstrated the
ability of manipulating individual atoms is an exaggeration. Smelting
will be around for a very long time. That said, nanotechnology has
undoubtedly the potential to change the way we live. My favorite
examples are its potential impact on health care and personal as well
as homeland security. Making nano-sized objects that can deliver
medicines or genes to the specific cells that need them is definetely
something that can happen and it would have remarkable impact on our
ability to cure certain diseases and also controld the side effects of
medication, including the life-threatening consequences of cancer
chemotherapy. Regeneration of tissues, including the spinal cord, the
heart, the retina which impact on dreams such reversing paralysis and
blindness, or returning to a completely normal life after heart
attacks. Along with advances in biology and medicine, nanotechnology
will impact this field because regenerative medicine will require
directing cells with nanostructured devices and materials. It is also
reality that we can build with nanotechnology powerful machines to map
out genomes very fast compared to current capabilities. This of course
will have innumerable consequences in disease prevention and cure, but
it will also advance biology faster. It is also real that we can
achieve with nanotechnology the fabrication of single molecule
detectors. This would have a profound impact on our security alerting
us of dangerous events a lot earlier than we can today. There is no
doubt that nanotechnology can also get us into a completely different
regime of the information age giving us faster, smaller, and softer
computers. On the lighter side it is also real that nanotechnology will
help us look better and healthier--we are only starting to see what
wonders nanotechnology can bring to the world of cosmetics. The real
vision of nanotechnology will no doubt include other things that we
cannot anticipate now that may deeply touch transportation and energy
technologies.
Government Investment
Question 3. Some critics of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
argue that the research portfolio is not in balance, currently favoring
readily achievable research goals and not sufficiently support high
risk research. Do you agree or disagree. Please explain.
Answer. I would agree that the NNI portfolio needs to fund more
high risk long term research. This was one finding of the National
Research Council's review of the initiative. In my own opinion, our
research funding system is in general not very conducive to long term
research because, budgets for the agencies fluctuate a lot leading to
year-to-year programmatic changes, there is insufficient NSF funding,
and the NIH has too much money and only a tiny piece of it is invested
in long term technology-based research.
Question 4. Given that other countries are also investing
significant amounts in this field, do you feel that we are doing enough
to ensure our leadership in this field?
Answer. In my opinion, we are not doing enough in nanotechnology
research. In order to keep a balanced portfolio within the NNI that
targets both short range development of nanotechnology products and at
the same time maintain funding stability for long range nanoscience we
need to be ramping up rapidly to a budget of at least one billion
dollars a year. Our report shows for example that Japan's
nanotechnology budget is similar to ours. Normalizing by our GDP it is
clear that we do not have equal capabilities. This is particularly
important given that large industries are not contributing as much as
they would have two decades ago to the research and development
infrastructure. One critical issue is to raise the budget of the NSF,
and get the NIH to engage in research programs on nanotechnology that
are out of their box.
Question 5. What role could the Nanotechnology advisory committee
of academic, finance, and industry experts that was suggested by the
Academy panel serve in improving and grounding the Federal government's
nanotechnology research?
Answer. This panel would be able to perform several critical
functions. One of them is to guide the NNI's development in the context
of ongoing scientific interests and discoveries in the international
community. They could be a very important science and technology
``radar'' to ensure that programs being funded couple to the most
promising directions rather than to the internal interests and concerns
of the various federal funding agencies. They will police for a more
effective development of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Another
important function will come from the members of this board associated
with industry. These individuals can guide the programs to areas of
interest to our economy in the global competition, ensuring that
adequate programs of this type are always part of the NNI. This board
should also develop the appropriate metrics to judge the success of the
NNI and the changing needs for investment in this initiative year to
year.
Question 6. All of us have called out the economic potential of
nanotechnology. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment--if
nanotechnology is such a huge, revolutionary area, why should the
Federal government invest here? Why can't companies bear this burden,
if they are going to be positioned to reap the profits?
Answer. Companies, particularly the large ones that have
traditionally had the greatest resources, cannot develop effectively
the nano era of science and technology because they have by now nearly
destroyed their R&D laboratories guided by Wall Street forces, merges
and acquisitions. Most industrial labs are focused on short term
product development and improvement. The most promising activities with
regard to industry lie in start companies and these are often
associated with universities. Once these grow and become successful
they will hopefully use their wealth to remove at least part of the
burden from the Federal Government. Thirty years ago maybe the argument
would have been valid but at this time we need to move quickly in the
global competition and there is no time to wait for industry to rebuild
its long term research infrastructure. Funding to universities and
small companies would be at this time the fastest route to success at
this time.
Question 7. What do you see as the biggest challenges nanoscience
currently faces? In other words, what barriers could potentially keep
nanotechnology from reaching its potential?
Answer. One barrier in my view would be a weak economy because we
will then loose any chance of engaging industry for development that
uses technology transfer from our academic and government laboratories.
Another barrier is of course political instability in the world which
is of course a real threat at this time. Nanotechnology development
will benefit from meaningful international partnerships and flow of
scientific information and people among communities in different parts
of the world. Another possible barrier has to do with our educational
systems. In this regard the interdisciplinary culture in which young
scientists are conditioned and challenged to work on complex problems
is a very important element for nanotechnology development to its
optimal potential.
Multidisciplinary Education
It appears that nanotechnology is an interdisciplinary science,
combining facets of chemistry, materials science, computer science,
biology, mechanical and electrical engineering, and physics.
Question 8. How well prepared are our universities to produce the
next generation scientists who have the requisite expertise in multiple
disciplines in order to ensure that the United States continues to lead
in nanotechnology research?
Answer. Programs at our universities are changing rapidly toward
the interdisciplinary mode which is very critical to nanotechnology
development. However, they are still sub-optimal and very deep cultural
changes need to occur for the various scientific communities to learn
to recognize and respect the value of interdisciplinary activity in
science. Most scientists are hesitant to operate outside their comfort
box, but starting early on with young students we can encourage those
with interdisciplinary intelligence to stick to this mode throughout
their careers and eventually natural selection will produce the right
community for optimal nanotechnology development. The broad scientific
scope of nanoscience and also its broad range of applications requires
very definitely individuals who are themselves interdisciplinary and
can work at interfaces among fields. Multidisciplinary teams, the
current common mode in universities is not effective for
interdisciplinary activity. It only serves to hide individuals that
cling on to traditional modes of scientific thinking and results in
ineffective investment in nanoscience which is a pervasive revolution
across all of science. The nanotechnology board can play a key role in
helping the agencies catalyze the process with innovative programs.
Question 9. What needs to be done to promote a multidisciplinary
curriculum at all levels, not just universities, so that we have a
properly educated nanotechnology workforce?
Answer. We need to create programs from the top (OSTP for example)
that offer significant resources to inter-agency programs at all levels
that will attract what one might describe as individuals with
interdisciplinary intelligence. The hope is that these populations of
strong interdisciplinary scientists will eventually dominate the
community demonstrating their ability to make key discoveries on
complex phenomena and invent new things. This is a natural selection
problem that nonetheless needs guidance from the top.
Measurement Tools
Dr. Stupp, the Academy panel pointed out the need to develop the
tools and measurements to support nanotechnology in order to spur
nanotechnology innovation.
Question 10. Please explain this recommendation. What agency or
agencies are best known for this field? Are we allocating enough
resources in this area?
Answer. The development of new tools is key for nanotechnology. In
fact it was new instruments enabled by microtechnology and software
that spearheaded many of the activities we now label as nanotechnology.
Agencies such as the Department of Energy and the NSF have always
played a pivotal role on tool development. These agencies cannot afford
to fund sufficient research activity on tool development. This is
clearly a budget problem, and no we are not allocating sufficient
resources to this objective. The NIH and possibly DoD should take a
stronger interest in funding outstanding teams and even international
collaborations to develop new tools for measurement, manipulation, and
characterization of nanoscale systems. Clearly DOE and NSF need greater
budgets to be able to address this problem.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden to
R. Stanley Williams
Bayh-Dole.
Question 1. In your testimony before the Subcommittee, you stated
due to U.S. universities' interpretation of intellectual property
sharing regime created under Bayh-Dole, it is easier to work with
foreign universities rather than U.S. academic institutions. What would
it take for you to work with U.S. universities? Does Bayh-Dole need an
overhaul? If so, what would you specifically suggest?
Answer. I believe that it is still possible for leaders of good
will from U.S. academia and industry to agree on a workable compromise
that is fair and equitable to both parties and that satisfies the
intent and the letter of the Bayh-Dole act.
Unfortunately, we have seen significant polarization between
attorneys representing these groups, and the level of acrimony has
risen to the point that I despair that we can work together in the
future. Typically at present, negotiating a contract to perform
collaborative research with an American university takes one to two
years of exchanging emails by attorneys, punctuated by long telephone
conference calls involving the scientists who wish to work together.
All too often, the company spends more on attorneys' fees than the
value of the contract being negotiated. This situation has driven many
large companies away from working with American universities
altogether, and they are looking for alternate research partners.
On the other hand, many high quality foreign universities are very
eager to work with American companies, and by keeping attorneys out of
the discussion completely they have streamlined processes to allow a
successful negotiation to take place in literally a few minutes over
the telephone. It is possible to specify what one wants to a professor
at a university in China or Russia and then issue a purchase order to
obtain a particular deliverable. The deliverable is received and
verified to be satisfactory before the American company pays for it,
and in this case the American company owns all rights to the
deliverable and the process by which it was created. Often, such
transactions can be completed in a few months, a fraction of the time
required to just negotiate a contract with an American University,
which will insist on owning all rights to whatever is produced. Thus,
just as American companies were long ago forced to deal with high
quality and low priced foreign competition, American universities will
either have to modify their behavior or lose their industrial
customers.
In my opinion, the root of the problem is in the desperate
financial situation of most American universities. In the physical
sciences and engineering, the support from the U.S. government for
academic research has been decreasing in real terms for over a decade.
This has forced the universities to try to raise funds from other
sources. Since a few universities have made a large amount of money
from a piece of valuable intellectual property, this has encouraged
nearly all universities to attempt to duplicate this success. However,
this strategy is rather like planning ones retirement on winning the
lottery. The vast majority of those adopting this strategy will lose.
In negotiations between American universities and large companies,
the term ``Bayh-Dole Act'' comes up frequently to justify an extreme
position taken by universities with respect to intellectual property.
Most universities claim that the Bayh-Dole Act requires them to retain
complete control of all intellectual property produced at the
university. This then leads to the position by a university that a
company needs to pay for research that is being done up front in a
collaborative project, to pay the costs for any patents that are filed
as a result of the research, and then to enter into a separate
negotiation with the university to license the intellectual property
that is created. In many cases, the root idea originated with the
sponsoring company in the first place, not the university. Companies
take the view that they are thus forced to pay three times for their
own intellectual property, which puts them at a significant
disadvantage with respect to a company that doesn't spend anything to
sponsor university research. Some companies have agreed to this
arrangement in the past, but there are several instances where
intellectual property that was supported and generated in collaboration
with one company was then licensed to a different company, often a
start-up that is owned by the professors who participated in the
research. Again, this behavior is defended as being necessary because
of the Bayh-Dole Act. However, I contend that this is an extreme
interpretation of the Act, and in fact there are fair and equitable
compromises that can be made that in the long run will benefit
universities much more than the disastrous short-term strategies they
are now following. Universities will in general receive far more
funding in the form of research contracts from high tech companies than
they will by licensing technology, because of the short life of such
technologies and the fact that it is always possible to substitute one
technology for another.
If we look at the actual language of the Bayh-Dole act itself, it
is difficult to understand where university-industry cooperative work
is impacted. However, the Council on Government Relations (COGR--``An
association of research universities--COGR's primary function is to
help develop policies and practices that fairly reflect the mutual
interest and separate obligations of federal agencies and universities
in federal research and training'') has created a set of guidelines for
university behavior: The Bayh-Dole Act--A Guide to the Law and
Implementing Regulations (http://www.cogr.edu/bayh-dole.htm) . In these
guidelines, we find the statement ``In their marketing of an invention,
universities must give preference to small business firms (fewer than
500 employees), provided such firms have the resources and capability
for bringing the invention to practical application,'' which is the
justification for channeling IP rights to university-based start-ups.
Unfortunately, these start-ups almost always fail to get their
technology to the market, since they lack the resources to do so and
the market itself moves too quickly for them to be ready. The next
sentence of the COGR guide states ``However, if a large company has
also provided research support that led to the invention, that company
may be awarded the license.'' The natural compromise position is this:
in recognition of the fact that other research support created the
institution and the general environment where any large-company funded
research leads to intellectual property, that large company should be
awarded a nonexclusive license, and the university should have the
right to sell nonexclusive licenses to any other companies interested
in buying them. This will be by far the most efficient means of
actually getting a technology into the market place--by creating a
competitive environment with multiple entities vying to get the
technology to market.
If we fail to find a broad consensus agreement between research
universities and companies on IP licensing, then I would recommend
amending the Bayh-Dole act to restrict the ability of a private
institution that receives federal funding to award exclusive licenses.
Government Investment
Question 2. Some critics of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
argue that the research portfolio is not in balance, currently favoring
readily achievable research goals and not sufficiently supporting high-
risk research. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.
Answer. I agree with this criticism, but this issue of sandbagging
research proposals is not restricted to nanotechnology research alone--
it is endemic within the entire academic and national lab research
enterprise. Again, the problem is the scarcity of research funds.
Individual professors believe that the risk of failure is too high, so
they only propose projects that they know will succeed (or indeed
projects that they have already completed). To have a `failed' project
could mean that the professor never gets another grant funded, which is
the equivalent of academic death. Thus, nearly all projects `succeed',
but at a very small scale. This extreme risk aversion is now
characteristic of nearly all research in the physical sciences and
engineering. It means that in general we are not seeing many big
breakthroughs, but mainly incremental progress along easily predicted
directions. In order to escape from this risk-averse environment, it
must be possible for university researchers to gamble big and not
receive the equivalent of an academic death sentence if things do not
work out exactly as they predict--we need to reward grand visions
whether they turn out to be viable or not. It was possible to do that
in an era where grant funding was plentiful--it can also be possible in
an era of restricted funding if agencies decide to play long shots
consistently, understanding that only a small fraction of them will pay
off. This is the very nature of the way Venture Capital works, and I
think that funding agencies should adopt some of the practices of VC's
when constructing their research investment portfolio.
Question 3. Given that other countries are also investing
significant amounts in this field, do you feel that we are doing enough
to ensure our leadership in this field?
Answer. The European Union is currently boasting that they own a
commanding lead in nanotechnology research, that they will invest at
least twice as much for basic research in this crucial area as the
United States in 2003, and that the entire field is ``Its Ours to
Lose'' (title of an October 3, 2002 report issued by the European
Nanobusiness Association). The Japanese government plans to invest 40
percent more than the presently announced U.S. National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) budget for 2003, and has consistently demonstrated a
strong resolve to raise the ante every time the U.S. provides budget
figures for the NNI. Given the local purchasing power of a dollar, the
$200 M budget announced by China is already supporting what is probably
the world's largest nanotechnology effort in terms of the number of
young scientists working in the field. Make no mistake about it: we are
in a global struggle to dominate the technological high ground, and
thus a large portion of the economy, of the 21st Century. The U.S.
cannot outspend the rest of the world on research and development this
time, so we must be by far the most productive at creating new
technologies and the most efficient at bringing them to the
marketplace. This will require coordination and cooperation across a
wide variety of institutions and disciplines such as we have never seen
before in the U.S.. To fail places the wealth and security of this
nation at serious risk.
We certainly can and must invest more in basic research, primarily
to ensure that all the excellent proposals coming into the funding
agencies are being supported. My suggestion is that the U.S. should
increase funding for the NNI at the rate of 30 percent per year for the
next three years, and monitor the field to make sure the investment is
well utilized. However, the only hope that we have to dominate this
field is if we can be much more effective than anyone else with the
research dollars we spend. Nanotechnologies will all be subject to
exponential improvements for decades, which means that a sustained lead
of just one-year in any area by one country can be an insurmountable
barrier to entry of commercial products for all others. We need to have
a balanced portfolio, with a reasonable number of well-placed long shot
investments. Our real strength in American science and technology lies
in our diversity of institutions: our research universities, our
National Laboratories and our great corporate research labs. As to the
latter, much has been made of corporate America's de-emphasis of basic
research, but in fact we have invested heavily and consistently in
applied research and development over the past twenty years, and in
general we have developed the world's best institutions for turning
technology into products. To win globally in nanotechnology, these
strategic assets must work together as partners. This will require a
significant engagement among these institutions to build trust and
working relationships, which in turn will require wise and consistent
policies that remain stable and are emphasized over many years. We will
have to come to a better understanding of intellectual property and its
value to each of these stakeholders, and attempt to understand how to
adequately reward each partner while creating the maximum total benefit
for the country. This is a difficult task, and in my view we are
presently moving in exactly the opposite direction. Our current
policies are driving American companies to look overseas for their
research partners, which eventually will lead to the relocation of
corporate R&D labs to be close to those partners.
Question 4. What role could a Nanotechnology advisory committee of
academic, finance, and industry experts serve in improving and
grounding the Federal government's nanotechnology research? Would you
support the creation of such an advisory committee?
Answer. I am always wary of creating a new bureaucracy, but in this
case the stakes are so high that I think we should do so on an
experimental basis. However, this advisory committee has to include
real decision-makers, people who can come to agreements and obligate
their institutions to abide by those agreements. Otherwise, it will
just be a lot of hot air that winds up being more fodder for attorneys
and multi-year debates. These decision-makers should create model
agreements for their institutions that would then hopefully be adopted
as standards for all university-government-corporate research
interactions. It will take a few bold and brave visionaries to lead the
way out of our current rather miserable situation. However, I believe
that once some sensible new practices are established, they will become
such a strong competitive advantage that the rest of the American
institutions not leading way will have to follow the leaders.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Cristina Roman, Executive Director, European
NanoBusiness Association
It's Ours to Lose--An Analysis of EU Nanotechnology Funding and the
Sixth Framework Programme
Executive Summary
With funding for the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) due to come
into effect in a few months, comparisons have been made between U.S.
and European nanotechnology funding that suggest that the U.S. is
investing significantly more in this important area than the European
Union.
In fact, a closer look at the figures, performed here through the
mechanism of three scenarios, suggests that European Union spending on
nanotechnology research is not just comparable to that of the U.S. but
will probably exceed it by a factor of two or more for 2003. Moreover,
the reason that the `hidden' European funding is not obvious may
arguably lead to more results per dollar or euro spent. Although the
increased focus on multidisciplinary endeavours that nanotechnology
requires does argue for dedicated nanotechnology spending, there is
also, no doubt, value in framing spending decisions in terms of high-
level goals, in which nanotechnology will figure only if merit
dictates, rather than being pre-ordained. The `hidden' FP6 spending is
of this nature, being directed according to the Framework Programme's
`thematic priorities'. This balanced approach may well yield dividends.
According to our analysis, EU nanotechnology funding alone, which
constitutes between 4 percent and 20 percent of total European research
funding, will exceed the recently proposed 2003 U.S. nanotechnology
budget. Given that EU spending often does not cover the infrastructure
and manpower that U.S. spending does, this being met by individual
nations, and given that European research funding represents a much
smaller fraction of total European funding than U.S. federal funding
does of total U.S. funding, European nanotechnology funding may exceed
U.S. funding by a factor of 2 in 2003, or greater if funding from
individual EU nations is taken into account.
Though this analysis demonstrates that Europe recognises the long-
term economic potential of a strong nanotechnology research base and is
acting accordingly, it should not lead to complacency as there are
still areas that warrant further attention if we want to maximise
Europe's ability to perform not just world-leading research but to
translate that into economic benefits. These are outlined below.
Recommendations
In order to enable European industry to continue to be competitive
on a global basis, attention is required in areas beyond providing
adequate funding under FP6. These need to be tackled at national levels
and at the European level, both from within the existing European
structures and through organisations such as the ENA.
Basic R&D and Fundamental Science: The EU cannot, for
political and budgetary reasons, coordinate all European
research. It is essential for all European countries to
increase their efforts to fund both basic and applied
nanotechnology research. Individual countries have the ability
to react much faster to changing scientific and economic
conditions than the EU, and should use this to their advantage.
By implementing local measures based on local conditions,
abilities and market requirements, Europe as a whole can
maintain its current leading position. While some European
countries have recognised this challenge and are meeting it
head on, others could do more.
Business Climate: The climate for nanotechnology business
start-ups across Europe varies from friendly to positively
hostile. This applies both to government regulations and
funding bodies, both private and public.
Technology Transfer: The wide variations across Europe will
lead to a technological divide. While academic research is of a
generally excellent standard across the continent, technology
transfer is not. This will have an impact on both the corporate
funding of academic research and start-up activity, these being
concentrated in areas where technology transfer is most
efficient for business. The recipe for successful technology
transfer will vary from one member state to the other and some
creativity will be required to come up with the best solutions
for areas that currently lack effective mechanisms. Analysis of
the mechanisms that have already shown success should be the
starting point.
Public Perception: The widespread perception among both the
business community and the general public that nanotechnology
is still science fiction does little to encourage industry to
take advantage of it. An appropriate appreciation of the
realities and potential of nanotechnology is taking root more
slowly in much of Europe than in the rest of the world. The
European Union, the ENA and individual governments need to
continue to work on improving the perception of nanotechnology
among the business community and the public.
Government Inaction: While some European countries are
already taking proactive measures, many, especially in southern
Europe, seem to be taking a wait and see approach or ignoring
the area completely. Applying this philosophy to
microelectronics and the Internet has led to a wide economic
gap between technology-based and agrarian/tourism-based
economies. Nanotechnology will be much more fundamental to
economic performance than any previous technological revolution
and will have a part to play even in predominantly agrarian
economies. All governments within Europe should be encouraged
to understand what nanotechnology can do for them.
Education: From Korea to the Irish Republic there have been
many examples in recent history of countries being rapidly
transformed into technological powerhouses by virtue of a well-
educated and relatively cheap work force. The agrarian/tourism-
based economies of Europe do offer low labour costs and many
offer attractive climates and lifestyles. Thanks to European
Union efforts they also offer good infrastructure. The final
piece in the jigsaw that might allow such economies to
transition to being more technology-based is education--it is
essential that a significant pool of technically highly
educated workers is maintained throughout Europe. An increased
emphasis on natural science training is urgently required for
European institutions to be able to absorb the planned funding.
Equally important are mechanisms for attracting more students
into science-related subjects. This is a problem that is being
tackled with some success in a few European countries but the
lessons learned need to be heeded elsewhere.
Communication: It is intrinsically difficult to get messages
across in an economic block composed of many countries with
different languages and cultures. However, researchers,
entrepreneurs and the public at large must be made aware of the
significant opportunities that are available to them in Europe
so that they don't get the impression that the opportunities
are greater elsewhere when this is not in fact the case.
Combined efforts from the ENA, such as this report, and the
European Union should be able to address this issue.
Introduction
A figure against which nanotechnology funding is often benchmarked
is the budget of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative. At first
glance this appears to suggest that Europe's often quoted 1.3 billion
over 4 years is tiny compared to the 2003 NNI budget of $710.2 million
( 0.72 billion). Our analysis indicates that the top level figures do
not reveal the whole story, that many of these headline figures are in
fact misleading, and that European nanotechnology spending may in fact
be significantly higher than that of the U.S.
Two criticisms are commonly levelled at endeavours such as this.
One is that variations in funding mechanisms in different economic
areas are complex, and varying definitions of nanotechnology add to
this such that any comparison of numbers will always require certain
assumptions and may be open to alternative interpretations. However,
the comparisons can certainly give an indication of the approximate
state of play.
The other criticism is that putting numbers on nanotechnology
spending is a pointless exercise, a little akin to putting numbers on
spending for research into chemistry. Meaningful comparisons, the
argument goes, would be at higher, application-oriented levels, such as
cancer research, alternative energy, etc.
The need for some sort of figure for nanotechnology spending, even
if expressed as a range of figures in which the true figure probably
falls, comes from the fact that businesses and academics look to these
headline numbers and make decisions based upon them. If academics feel
that the funding environment for nanotechnology is better in another
region, they may be inclined to relocate. Equally, businesses will
favour locations where grants may be more accessible and a greater pool
of qualified individuals is present. For this reason, some attempt must
be made to produce meaningful numbers.
Global Nanotechnology Funding
Europe
Table 1. Final budget breakdown (in millions of euros) for the Sixth
Framework Programme for 2002 through 2006. (Source. CORDIS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission's final budget June 2002 Final
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTEGRATING AND STRENGTHENING THE ERA
1. Focusing and integrating Community research 13345
1.1 Thematic priorities 11285
1.1.1 Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology 2255
for health
1.1.2 Information society technologies 3625
1.1.3 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge- 1300
based multifunctional materials and new
production processes and devices
1.1.4 Aeronautics and space 1075
1.1.5 Food quality and safety 685
1.1.6 Sustainable development, global change and 2120
ecosystems
1.1.7 Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based 225
society
1.2 Specific activities covering a wider field of 1300
research
Non-nuclear activities of the Joint Research 760
Centre
2. Structuring the European Research Area 2605
3. Strengthening the foundations of the European 320
Research Area
SPECIFIC PROGRAMME NUCLEAR ENERGY 1230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA
Table 2. Breakdown (in millions of dollars) of NNI spending for FY 2001
(appropriated and actual), 2002 (appropriated) and 2003 (congressional
request). Note: the `total' includes funding reported on 2/4/02 p/us
funding in associated nanotechnology programmes. (Source: National
Nanotechnology Initiative)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2001 FY 2002 FY 2003
Department/Agency ---------------------- Appropr. Request
Appropr. Actual Total Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense 110 123 180 201
Department of Energy 93 87.95 91.1 139.3
Department of Justice 1.4 1.4 1.4
Department of Transportation 0 2 2
(FAA)
Environmental Protection 5 5 5
Agency
National Aeronautics and 20 22 46 51
Space Administration
National Institutes of 39 39.6 40.8 43.2
Health
National Institute of 10 33.4 37.6 43.8
Standards and Technology
National Science Foundation 150 150 199 221
U.S. Department of 1.5 1.5 2.5
Agriculture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 422 463.85 604.4 710.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia
Table 3. Estimated Japanese government nanotechnology R&D expenditures (in millions of dollars). (Source:
National Science Foundation, Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan 120 135 157 245 465 750 1000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Asian countries have also allocated large budgets to
nanotechnology although many of these figures are not associated with
clear timescales. However, given the increased purchasing power in many
Asian countries, e.g. a researcher in China costs much less than one in
Amsterdam, the funding is none the less significant.
In the Japanese case, the annual 50 percent increases cast doubt
upon the accuracy of these figures. While there is no question that
funding will increase, increasing the number of researchers available
to absorb this extra funding does not seem possible on an annual basis.
Furthermore, given the difficulty of even agreeing on what
constitutes nanotechnology, many of these numbers must be treated with
caution. An example would be the recent assertion from the Taiwanese
government that 800 companies in that country will soon be involved in
nanoscience. This figure does not square with estimates from other
sources of between 700 companies involved in nanotechnology (including
multinationals) and 1000 nanotechnology start-ups worldwide (this
latter figure quite likely uses an overly broad definition of
nanotechnology).
Table 4. Asian nanotechnology budgets (in millions of dollars). (Source:
CMP-Cientifica; Asia Pulse).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan 750
China 200
Taiwan 111
Korea 150
Singapore 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1251
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU Funding
EU funding for nanotechnology is contained within the 6th Framework
Programme, which runs from 2002 to 2006 and has an overall budget of
17.5 billion. (The discussion will be focused on `thematic priorities',
which is the area where nanotechnology can have a significant impact.
Notice that almost a quarter of the budget goes to: Euratom;
strengthening the European Research Area (ERA); and other, non-
research-related, activities.)
The official EU figure for nanotechnology, as quoted by Research
Commissioner Philippe Busquin, is 700 million over 4 years, if
nanotechnology is defined as only processes involving the manipulation
of atoms and molecules. However, the EU does not have a standard
definition of nanotechnology, preferring to use an upper limit of 50
nm, or `exploitation of mesoscopic and quantum effects at the
macroscale' or `the manipulation of atoms and molecules'.
A more detailed analysis of EU spending is given below in table 5.
Following detailed discussions with Commission officials, an upper and
lower limit for the nanotech percentage was assigned to each thematic
priority. It is immediately obvious that the headline figure of 1.3
billion is in fact incorrect as thematic priority 1.1.3 is only partly
dedicated to nanotechnology.
Table 5. Budget percentage corresponding to Nanotechnology for each thematic priority of the 6th Framework
Programme for 2002-2006 (in millions of euros). (Source: EU Commission officials.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2002 Min Max
Thematic priorities budget Final (percent) Total (percent) Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1 Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for 2255 1.0 22.6 2.5 56.4
health
1.1.2 Information society technologies 3625 7.0 253.8 9.0 326.3
1.1.3 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge- 1300 25.0 325.0 30.0 390.0
based multifunctional materials and new production
processes and devices
1.1.4 Aeronautics and space 1075 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.2
1.1.5 Food quality and safety 685 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.4
1.1.6 Sustainable development, global change and 2120 0.2 4.2 0.2 4.2
ecosystems
1.1.7 Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based 225 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5
society
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 11285 609.7 781.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the above table justifies Commissioner Busquin's statement on
EU spending, the figures should be treated as conservative. While
institutions such as the European Space Agency have failed to match the
NASA lead (and the $51 million 2003 budget) in applications of
nanotechnology, it is clear that any materials-dependent applications
such as those prominent in aerospace will have a nanotechnology
component far higher than 0.2 percent. Food quality and safety are
seeing packaging applications based on nanotechnology already on the
market and a variety of sensor technologies look set to hit the market
soon, which also argues that the nanotechnology component in research
would be significantly higher than 0.2 percent. Sustainable development
is equally an area where recent nanotechnological developments show
significant promise. Life sciences, genomics and health are already
seeing major impacts from microtechnology, with nanotechnology looking
to play a larger role very soon, in areas ranging from bioanalysis to
drug delivery.
In fact, some EU officials expect the percentage of nanotech across
all items to be as high as 30 percent, as taken in the `nano inside'
scenario outlined below.
So there is good reason to believe that the 0.7 billion figure
given in the table above is a serious underestimate, and that the 30
percent figure is probably a better reflection, although this may, of
course, be optimistic.
The aim of the FP6 is to produce breakthrough technologies that
directly benefit the EU, whether economically or socially. In order to
achieve this, the research programme contains broad thematic areas,
such as health, which are then broken down into sub-components for
research funding. Instead of funding nanotechnology and nanoscience
directly, an issue which is addressed in the nanotechnology thematic
priority, the focus is on breakthroughs. By focusing on breakthroughs,
nanotech funding is targeted at applications rather than pure science.
Similar applications are being pursued in government programmes in the
U.S. and in Europe; the fundamental difference between the European
approach and that of the U.S. and some other countries is the way the
applications are grouped--the EU structure makes considerations of
benefits the priority by embodying them in the highest level of the
funding structure. The NNI in the U.S. starts with a nanotechnology
budget, then apportions this to various departments representing
thematic areas.
In order to decode the European Union's spending plans on
nanotechnology three scenarios have been examined. While none of these
approaches is entirely adequate to explain the complexities of European
funding, they do at least allow an approximate level of European
commitment to nanotechnology to be determined.
Scenario 1--`Nano Inside'
Applying the view of some within the EC who believe that
nanoscience and technology will play a large part in producing the
breakthrough technologies of FP6, for example in drug delivery and
biodetection, leads to the assumption by certain programme officials
that 30 percent of all spending will be nanotechnology-related. This
fits well with NNI estimates, which reach the fabled $1 trillion market
size for products and services affected by nanotechnology by assuming
that nanotechnology will have a part to play in almost everything.
This 30 percent estimate for the nanotechnology component of the
funded projects for FP6 is an average across all the thematic
priorities and is described as `nano inside'.
Of course, the true nanotechnology component may be higher or lower
than 30 percent and it will not be possible to extract it until a final
review of the FP6 is complete after the end of the programme.
If this 30 percent figure is applied to the European funding figure
of 11.28 billion, then 3.4 billion, or 850 million a year, may well be
spent on nanotechnology.
Scenario 2--Mobilised Capital
Many EU-funded programmes are not entirely supported by the EU. In
the case of university research 100 percent of the marginal cost, e.g.
for additional researchers or equipment, but not for those already in
place, is funded, but for many other projects matching funds are
provided by national governments or participating companies.
The main instruments of FP6 are integrated projects (IP) and
networks of excellence (NoE) proposed under FP6. For each NoE the EU
funds up to 50 percent of the project. For each IP the EU only funds up
to 25 percent of the project, requiring a minimum national contribution
of 75 percent. Given the 400 million allocated for IPs and the 300
million allocated for NoEs, the amount of capital released by EU
funding may be in the region of 2.4 billion, or 600 million a year.
Taking another EU definition, that of `the manipulation of atoms
and molecules', which commission officials estimate to be around 1
billion, would give a mobilised capital figure of 3.43 billion or 857
million per year.
Scenario 3--Pro-rata Comparison
There are several fundamental differences between the EU approach
and that of the U.S. and Japan. While a detailed analysis of U.S. and
Japanese funding mechanisms is beyond the scope of this report, an
appreciation of these differences changes the relative balance of
funding.
As previously discussed, the EU structure makes considerations of
benefits the priority by embodying them in the highest level of the
funding structure. Another fundamental difference is that rather than
assigning a fixed budget for nanotechnology in health care, as the NNI
is doing via the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the EU assigns a
budget for health.
A further difference arises as the EU funding only covers marginal
cost, i.e. the extra funding required for researchers, equipment etc.
The cost of infrastructure and that of paying academics already in
place is borne by the national governments (but will generally not be a
part of the budget for their own nanotechnology initiatives). This is
in marked contrast to the U.S. system where the NNI generally wholly
supports the institutes dedicated to nanotechnology. In fact, the
National Science Foundation funding includes almost 10 percent of its
budget for research infrastructure.
However, the most significant difference is that the FP budget
represents about 4 percent of the total European public research
budgets (see, for example, ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/
nanoscience_presentation_022002_en.ppt).
This is, however, an average figure. In high-technology areas such
as aerospace, the figure is closer to 20 percent, while in others, such
as cancer research, it is substantially less than 4 percent. Thus,
assuming a similar nanotech proportion in other budgets, and an EU
contribution of 10-20 percent, the conservative estimate of 700 million
over 4 years could result in spending of between 3.5 billion and 7
billion over 4 years, or 0.88-1.75 billion per year.
This figure would, of course, need to be compared with a U.S.
figure that included funding from individual states. However, current
U.S. state spending suggests it may exceed the NNI budget by a factor
of two, not, as in the EU, by a factor of 10-25. In fact, to date,
total nanotechnology funding by individual U.S. states has so far not
approached the levels allocated nationally by the NNI.
Table 6. Total EU nanotechnology funding for the period 2002-2006.
Comparison of the three described scenarios (in billion of euros).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobilised Pro-rata
Scenario Nano Inside Capital Comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU Funding (Total FP6)........... 3.4 2.4-3.43 3.5-7.0
EU Funding per year.............. 0.85 0.60-0.86 0.88-1.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also arguable that by targeting some funding to specific
thematic priorities, in addition to providing funding specifically for
nanotechnology, which is probably necessary to effectively tackle the
new cross-disciplinary issues it presents, EU funding may prove more
effective in terms of results per dollar or euro spent.
Given the huge differences between the EU and U.S. funding
programmes, a direct comparison between them is difficult to make. An
analysis of European researchers and patents by Commission official Dr.
Ramon Compano, published in the journal Nanotechnology (volume 13,
number 3, June 2002) indicates that European researchers are performing
as well as their U.S. counterparts, with apparently far less funding.
This is a further indication that the headline figures are not telling
the whole story.
Conclusions
On balance, it looks as if Europe has a significant edge at the
moment. However, it should be remembered that since discussions about
FP6 started the U.S. NNI budget has almost doubled. Once the economic
benefits of U.S. funding begin to be felt, whether in new company
start-up activity, or progress towards military or social goals, U.S.
funding is expected to increase rapidly. In addition, the FP6 budget is
now fixed until 2006, at which point the balance may have changed
dramatically. This is where the initiatives of individual European
governments become important, as outlined in the recommendations at the
start of this report.
While European funding appears to be adequate to match the U.S. and
Japanese initiatives, it is simplistic to divide the funding figures by
4. Simply turning on the funding will cause problems unless the
scientific infrastructure is there to absorb that funding. Europe
cannot just suddenly double the number of physics students being
produced because the funding is there for their PhD and post-doctoral
work. We will see more of an exponential ramp-up.
The EU, national governments and organisations such as the ENA need
to continue to focus on: improving the business climate in member
states; developing strategies for improving technology transfer and
increasing the number of students embarking on scientific training, to
ensure an adequately trained labour pool; ensuring that public and
business perception of nanotechnology is realistic; encouraging local
governments that have not yet recognised the importance of
nanotechnology to do so; making sure the opportunities in Europe are
adequately communicated; and ensuring that national governments have
nanotechnology R&D policies that allow a more rapid reaction to
changing opportunities than is possible from the Europe-wide
programmes.
While much of the headline news is made by the EU, we expect
European funding will be picked up where it goes with the grain of
member states' own programmes. Given that EU funding represents only 4
percent of Europe's total, the efforts of member states are likely to
be the deciding factor in the eventual competitiveness of European
funding.