[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 766, NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 19, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
85-696 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Washington CHRIS BELL, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROB BISHOP, Utah DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
March 19, 2003
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 11
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.... 12
Written Statement............................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Jim Matheson, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 14
Panel I
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Senator George Allen of Virginia
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Discussion....................................................... 21
Panel II
Mr. Richard M. Russell, Associate Director for Technology, Office
of Science and Technology Policy
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 25
Biography.................................................... 28
Dr. Thomas N. Theis, Director of Physical Sciences, IBM Research
Division, Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 34
Financial Disclosure......................................... 35
Dr. James B. Roberto, Associate Laboratory Director for Physical
Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 37
Biography.................................................... 39
Dr. Carl A. Batt, Co-Director of the Nanobiotechnology Center,
Cornell University
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 42
Biography.................................................... 48
Mr. Alan Marty, Executive-in-Residence, JP Morgan Partners
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 58
Biography.................................................... 63
Financial Disclosure......................................... 64
Discussion....................................................... 65
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Richard M. Russell, Associate Director for Technology, Office of
Science and Technology Policy.................................. 84
Mr. Alan Marty, Executive-in-Residence, JP Morgan Partners....... 87
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,
Nanotechnology Work Plan....................................... 90
CRS Report for Congress, Manipulating Molecules: The National
Nanotechnology Initiative...................................... 92
H.R. 766, Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003.... 98
H.R. 766, NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.
Boehlert (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H.R. 766, Nanotechnology Research
and Development Act of 2003
wednesday, march 19, 2003
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
PURPOSE
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, the House Science Committee will hold
a hearing to examine federal nanotechnology research and development
(R&D) activities and to consider H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research
and Development Act of 2003, which would authorize these programs.
2. WITNESSES
Panel I
Senator George Allen (R-VA), a former Governor of the State of Virginia
and a former Member of the House of Representatives, serves on the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Senator Allen
chaired the GOP High Tech Task Force in the 107th Congress and is one
of the lead sponsors, along with Senator Wyden, of S. 189, The 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, the Senate
companion to H.R. 766.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), the senior Senator from Oregon and a former
Member of the House of Representatives, serves on the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Senator Wyden chairs the
nonpartisan Forum on Technology & Innovation and is the lead sponsor,
along with Senator George Allen (R-VA), of S. 189, The 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.
Panel II
Mr. Richard M. Russell is the Associate Director for Technology at the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the White House science
office. Prior to joining OSTP he worked on the Presidential Transition
Teams for the Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation
and OSTP. From 1995-2001, Mr. Russell served in various positions for
the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives,
including as Deputy Chief of Staff for the full Committee.
Dr. Thomas N. Theis is the Director of Physical Sciences in the IBM
Research Division at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown,
New York. He is responsible for IBM's world-wide investments in
research in the physical sciences. Dr. Theis serves on the advisory
board for the National Science Foundation's National Nanofabrication
Users network and was a member of the National Academy of Sciences
committee that reviewed the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
Dr. James Roberto is the Associate Laboratory Director for Physical
Sciences at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee,
where he oversees ORNL's physics, chemistry, and materials science
research. Dr. Roberto led the effort to develop a nanotechnology
roadmap for the laboratory, including research plans for the Center for
Nanophase Materials Sciences, a national nanotechnology user facility
currently under construction. He is a past President of the Materials
Research Society and a past Chair of the Division of Materials Physics
of the American Physical Society.
Dr. Carl A. Batt is co-Director of the Nanobiotechnology Center at
Cornell University, a National Science Foundation Science and
Technology Center designed to advance interdisciplinary programs in
nanobiotechnology. Dr. Batt is also the Project Leader for the Alliance
for Nanomedical Technologies, a nanotechnology center supported by the
State of New York. He is a professor of food science at Cornell and he
is the founder of Agave BioSystems, a technology company focused on
developing optical biosensors for the detection of microorganisms in
food and the environment.
Mr. Alan Marty is Executive-in-Residence for JP Morgan Partners with
responsibility for leading the firm's nanotechnology investments.
Previously Mr. Marty was General Manager of Hewlett-Packard's (HP)
worldwide integrated circuit business with responsibility for all
aspects the enterprise. He also served as General Manager of Agilent
Technologies' microdisplay business, one of the earliest commercial
applications of nanotechnology.
3. OVERARCHING QUESTIONS
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
1. What is the state of nanotechnology science and
engineering? Are major new federal investments warranted in
this area?
2. What are the principal findings and recommendations of the
National Academy of Sciences review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative? Are the findings and recommendations
adequately addressed in H.R. 766?
3. Among the challenges identified by the Academy review panel
were the need to promote interdisciplinary research and
education, and the need to effect greater interagency
coordination. How can these challenges best be met? Are they
adequately addressed in H.R. 766?
4. What is the potential for future economic growth associated
with nanotechnology developments? To what extent is the private
sector investing in this area?
4. BRIEF OVERVIEW
Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating and
characterizing matter at the atomic and molecular level. It is
one of the most promising and exciting fields of science today,
involving a multitude of science and engineering disciplines,
with widespread applications in electronics, advanced
materials, medicine, and information technology. For example,
nanotechnology likely represents the future of information
processing and storage, as computer chips and magnetic disk
drive components will increasingly depend on nanotechnology
innovations.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is an
$849 million (FY04 request) research initiative involving 10
federal agencies--one of the President's most significant new
commitments to continued U.S. leadership in science and
technology.
The National Academy of Sciences conducted a review
of the NNI in 2002 and spoke favorably of the quality of the
research and the opportunities for rapid technological
innovation.
On February 13, Chairman Boehlert and Mr. Honda
introduced H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act of 2003, which authorizes a federal
nanotechnology research and development (R&D) program in
statute thus assuring stable, long-term support. The bill also
authorizes appropriations for nanotechnology R&D in those
agencies within the Science Committee's jurisdiction that
currently participate in the NNI. A companion bill, S. 189, has
been introduced in the Senate by Senator Wyden and Senator
Allen.
H.R. 766 supports the President's initiative but adds
review and oversight mechanisms to assure that new funds are
used in the most effective manner possible. The bill also
addresses a number of the issues raised by the National Academy
of Sciences and other outside experts.
5. ISSUES RAISED BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REVIEW OF THE
NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review\1\ of
the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a national nanotechnology
R&D program involving 10 federal agencies. In general, the Academy
review panel was impressed with the leadership of NNI and the
engagement of the participating agencies. The panel indicated that the
quality of the research and the potential return to society are both
high. The panel did flag some issues, however, and made a number of
recommendations, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences
Establish an Independent Advisory Board: the Academy panel recommended
the establishment of an independent standing advisory board on
nanotechnology composed of leaders from industry and academia with
scientific, technical, social science, or research management
credentials to provide advice on research investment policy, strategy,
program goals, and management processes.
Develop a Strategic Plan: the panel recommended the development of a
crisp, compelling, overarching strategic plan that articulates short-
(1 to 5 years), medium- (6 to 10 years), and long-range (beyond 10
years) goals and objectives, emphasizing goals that move results out of
the laboratory and into the service of society.
Effect Greater Interagency Coordination: the panel noted that the
current interagency coordination mechanism--the Nanoscale Science,
Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science
and Technology Council--is a strong foundation upon which to build an
NNI that adds up to more than the sum of its parts, but that more
meaningful interagency coordination and collaboration is required.
Promote Interdisciplinary Nanotechnology R&D: the panel noted that
nanotechnology is leading researchers along pathways where many
different disciplines converge--biology, physics, chemistry, materials
science, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering, to name
several. The panel noted further that our educational system is not
producing researchers who are capable of engaging in research that
crosses disciplinary boundaries and that many of the customs of
academic research, including the way research grants are evaluated and
the way faculty are judged for tenure and promotion, reinforce
disciplinary boundaries and may frustrate interdisciplinary research.
Accordingly, the panel recommended strong support for the development
of an interdisciplinary culture of nanotechnology research.
Address Potential Societal and Ethical Concerns: the panel noted that
the social and economic consequences of nanotechnology promise to be
diverse, difficult to anticipate, and sometimes disruptive. The
increasing rate of innovation associated with nanotechnology
developments has the potential to compress the time from discovery to
full deployment, thereby shortening the time society has to adjust to
these changes. The panel recommended that research on the potential
societal and ethical concerns associated with nanotechnology, and
research directed toward improving our understanding of how technical
and social systems affect each other, should be an integral part of any
federal nanotechnology R&D program.
6. ISSUES ADDRESSED IN H.R. 766
H.R. 766 authorizes the President's National Nanotechnology
Initiative in statute, providing a basis for sustained, long-term
funding nanotechnology research. The bill adds review and oversight
mechanisms to assure that new monies included in the President's fiscal
year 2004 budget request are used in the most effective manner
possible. H.R. 766 addresses a number of the issues raised by the
National Academy of Sciences and other outside experts, through the
following provisions:
Provisions in H.R. 766 That Address Issues Raised in the Academy Review
Advisory Committee: responding to the first recommendation of the
National Academy of Sciences review panel, H.R. 766 establishes an
advisory committee--appointed by the President and consisting of
outside experts qualified to provide advice on nanotechnology R&D,
education, technology transfer, commercial application, and societal
and ethical concerns--to conduct a broad assessment of federal
nanotechnology R&D activities and issue a biennial report. This
provision has stirred minor controversy. Citing expense and limited
resources, the Administration has indicated that it would prefer not to
convene a new Presidential advisory committee devoted to
nanotechnology. Instead, the President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST) has been tasked with conducting ongoing review
and oversight of federal nanotechnology programs.
Interagency Committee: responding to the Academy review panel's call
for more meaningful interagency coordination and a strategic plan, H.R.
766 establishes in statute an interagency committee, similar to the
existing subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology
(NSET), to oversee the planning, management, and coordination of all
federal nanotechnology R&D activities. The bill designates the Director
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to serve as chair of the
Interagency Committee and requires the Committee to include
representatives of participating federal agencies, as well as
representatives from the Office of Management and Budget. H.R. 766
requires the Interagency Committee to establish goals and priorities,
establish program component areas to implement those goals and
priorities, develop a strategic plan to be updated annually, consult
widely with stakeholders, and propose a coordinated interagency budget
for federal nanotechnology R&D.
Coordination Office: the bill also authorizes in statute the
Administration's National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, with
full-time staff, to provide technical and administrative support to the
Interagency Committee and the Advisory Committee, to serve as a point
of contact for outside groups, and to conduct public outreach.
Interdisciplinary Research and Education: responding to the Academy
review panel's recommendation, and similar recommendations offered by
other outside experts, H.R. 766 authorizes sustained support for
interdisciplinary nanotechnology R&D through grants to researchers and
through the establishment of interdisciplinary research centers and
advanced technology user facilities. The bill requires the activities
of the National Nanotechnology R&D Program to ensure that solicitation
and evaluation of proposals under the Program encourage
interdisciplinary research.
Societal and Ethical Concerns: again responding to the Academy's
recommendation, H.R. 766 establishes a research program to identify
societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology and requires
that such research be integrated into nanotechnology R&D programs
insofar as possible.
Periodic External Review: H.R. 766 requires the Director of the Office
of Science and Technology Policy to contract with the National Academy
of Sciences to conduct a review of federal nanotechnology R&D programs
every three years, including an assessment of technical progress,
managerial effectiveness, and adequacy in addressing societal and
ethical concerns.
7. BACKGROUND
The recent National Academy of Sciences review describes
nanotechnology as the ``. . .relatively new ability to manipulate and
characterize matter at the level of single atoms and small groups of
atoms.. . . This capability has led to the astonishing discovery that
clusters of small numbers of atoms or molecules often have properties--
such as strength, electrical resistivity, electrical conductivity, and
optical absorption--that are significantly different from the
properties of the same matter at either the single-molecule scale or
the bulk scale.'' Scientists and engineers anticipate that
nanotechnology will lead to ``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.''
A variety of nanotechnology products are already in development or
on the market, including stain-resistant, wrinkle-free pants and
ultraviolet-light blocking sunscreens. Other applications involve
Kodak's use of scratch-free, transparent coatings and Samsung's new
high-brightness displays. Experts agree that more revolutionary
products will emerge from nanotechnology research currently underway.
Many small start-up companies have been founded to develop new
technologies and new products based on breakthroughs in our
understanding of materials at the atomic and molecular level.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), formally established
in 2001, is the President's most ambitious interagency,
interdisciplinary science and technology program. Ten federal agencies
actively participate in research and development efforts that involve
physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers, and researchers from many
other disciplines. The initiative has grown rapidly from an initial
budget request of $464 million in fiscal year 2001 to the $849 million
requested for fiscal year 2004 (although these numbers are not strictly
comparable as some ongoing research programs have, over time, evolved
into nanotechnology research).
While each agency involved in the NNI focuses its research on that
agency's unique mission, the overall effort is organized at the White
House level through the articulation of Grand Challenges--or broad,
mission-related, technical goals. These include nanotechnology-based
innovations in manufacturing, energy production and storage,
information technology, medicine, robotics, aeronautics, and defense
and homeland security applications.
Recognizing the inherently interdisciplinary nature of
nanotechnology science and engineering, NNI supports research through
nanotechnology centers and user facilities, designed to bring
researchers from multiple disciplines together, as well as through
grants to individual researchers and groups of researchers. The
National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) currently sponsor,
or are in the process of establishing, a number of nanotechnology
research centers and user facilities around the country. Among the NSF-
supported centers, some are focused on specific industries, such as the
Center for Nanoscale Systems in Information Technologies at Cornell
University. Others are national user facilities, such as the
nanofabrication facilities at Stanford University and Pennsylvania
State University, and one, the Center on Biological and Environmental
Nanotechnology at Rice University, conducts research on the societal
implications nanotechnology development.
The overall federal effort is coordinated by the National Science
and Technology Council's (White House coordinating council composed of
the heads of the major research agencies) Subcommittee on Nanoscale
Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET), which has responsibility
for interagency planning and review. 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 inviting and evaluating research proposals.
*FY04 authorizations in H.R. 766 conform to the President's budget
request except for the NSF nanotechnology authorization, which conforms
to the National Science Foundation Act of 2002 signed into law by the
President last December, P.L. 107-368.
8. WITNESS QUESTIONS
Panel I
No questions for Senator Allen or Senator Wyden.
Panel II
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in
their testimony:
Questions for Mr. Richard Russell
What are the Administration's views on H.R. 766, the
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003?
What are the Administration's plans for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative this year?
Questions for Dr. Thomas Theis
What are the principal findings and recommendations
of the National Academy of Sciences review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative? Are there any improvements to H.R.
766 you would suggest in light of these recommendations?
Where are you targeting IBM's nanotechnology research
efforts? Are there particular industrial sectors that will
benefit in the near-term from anticipated nanotechnology
developments?
Are there potential societal and ethical concerns
associated with the development of nanotechnology? If so, how
should they be addressed?
Are the views of the U.S. research community
adequately reflected in the research plan for the federal
interagency nanotechnology research initiative? Do you believe
that there would be value in establishing an external advisory
committee for the initiative?
Questions for Dr. James Roberto
Through a workshop and other planning exercises, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed a roadmap for
its Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology research
programs, establishing criteria by which staff research
proposals are evaluated. ONRL's planning and management
activities are analogous to the tasks assigned to the
Interagency Committee established in section 3(c) of H.R. 766.
In your view, would it be worthwhile to develop a national
technology roadmap to guide federal nanotechnology research? To
your knowledge, is such an effort underway now?
Likewise, ORNL's Center for Nanophase Materials
Sciences, currently under construction, could be a model for
the interdisciplinary research centers and advanced technology
user facilities authorized in section 3(b). How will the Center
foster effective collaboration across academic disciplines, and
among government, university, and industry researchers?
Some individuals and groups have suggested that
nanotechnology developments may raise societal and ethical
concerns. Is any part of ORNL's activity devoted to addressing
such concerns?
Are the views of the research community affiliated
with ORNL adequately reflected in the research plan for the
federal interagency nanotechnology research initiative? Do you
believe that there would be value in establishing an external
advisory committee for the initiative?
Questions for Dr. Carl Batt
How does the Cornell Nanobiotechnology Center advance
nanotechnology research and development compared to what the
University could accomplish on its own? Does the center
actively foster collaboration across academic disciplines, for
example?
How does your center interface with the private
sector? Do you host any collaborative university-industry
nanotechnology research and, if the answer is yes, does the
existence of the center make those collaborations easier?
Some individuals and groups have suggested that
nanotechnology developments may raise societal and ethical
concerns. Is any part of your center's activity devoted to
addressing such concerns?
Are the views of the academic research community
adequately reflected in the research plan for the federal
interagency nanotechnology research initiative? Do you believe
that there would be value in establishing an external advisory
committee for the initiative?
Questions for Mr. Alan Marty
How or where is JP Morgan Partners investing in
nanotechnology? Are there particular industrial sectors that
look more promising than others?
Is the private sector primarily engaged in basic
nanotechnology research or do you expect marketable products
and services to be available in the near-term?
How do federal nanotechnology research and
development programs affect your investment decisions?
Some individuals and groups have suggested that
nanotechnology developments may raise societal and ethical
concerns. Does this affect your investment choices? Are the
companies you are involved with addressing these issues in any
way?
APPENDIX I
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act of 2003
Sec. 1. Short Title
``Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003.''
Sec. 2. Definitions
Defines terms used in the text.
Sec. 3. National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program
Establishes an interagency R&D program to promote and coordinate
federal nanotechnology research, development, demonstration, education,
technology transfer, and commercial application activities. The program
will provide sustained support for interdisciplinary nanotechnology R&D
through grants to researchers and through the establishment of
interdisciplinary research centers and advanced technology user
facilities.
Establishes a research program to identify societal and ethical
concerns related to nanotechnology and requires that such research be
integrated into nanotechnology R&D programs insofar as possible.
Establishes an interagency committee, chaired by the Director of
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and composed of
representatives of participating federal agencies, as well as
representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, to oversee
the planning, management, and coordination of all federal
nanotechnology R&D activities. Requires the Interagency Committee to
establish goals and priorities, establish program component areas to
implement those goals and priorities, develop a strategic plan to be
updated annually, consult widely with stakeholders, and propose a
coordinated interagency budget for federal nanotechnology R&D.
Sec. 4. Annual Report
Requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy to submit an
annual report, at the time of the President's budget request to
Congress, describing federal nanotechnology budgets and activities for
the current fiscal year, and what is proposed for the next fiscal year,
by agency and by program component area. Requires that the report
include an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals and
priorities established for federal nanotechnology R&D, and the extent
to which the program incorporates the recommendations of the Advisory
Committee (established in sec. 5).
Sec. 5. Advisory Committee
Establishes a Presidentially-appointed advisory committee,
consisting of non-federal experts, to conduct a broad assessment of
federal nanotechnology R&D activities and issue a biennial report.
Sec. 6. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office
Establishes a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office with
full-time staff to provide technical and administrative support to the
Interagency Committee and the Advisory Committee, to serve as a point
of contact for outside groups, and to conduct public outreach.
Sec. 7. Authorization of Appropriations
Authorizes appropriations for nanotechnology R&D programs at the
National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, and the Environmental Protection Agency (see
table below).
Sec. 8. External Review of the National Nanotechnology Research and
Development Program
Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a
triennial review of federal nanotechnology R&D programs including
technical progress, managerial effectiveness, and adequacy in
addressing societal and ethical concerns.
APPENDIX II
See text of H.R. 766 located in Appendix 1: Additional Material for
the Record, pp. 90-93.
Chairman Boehlert. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order. It is a pleasure to welcome everyone here this morning,
and I wanted to give a special welcome to Richard Russell,
formerly Deputy Chief of Staff for this committee, who is
returning to his old precincts. I am sure he will be able to
make it through his testimony despite the pangs of nostalgia.
I am going to keep my remarks this morning brief, because
nanotechnology is the subject on which there is already broad
agreement: on this dais, at the witness table, and indeed in
the Congress and country at large. We all understand that
nanotechnology can be a key to future economic prosperity and
might improve our lives and that the Federal Government needs
to play a role in making that so.
With that in mind, I introduced H.R. 766 with Mr. Honda and
with the senior Members of this committee on both sides of the
aisle as cosponsors. Our plan is to have another hearing on
this subject on April 9, that hearing focusing exclusively on
societal consequences and then report out the bill in late
April or early May. It should be able to move to the House
floor swiftly after that. And as the welcome presence today of
Senators Wyden and Allen indicates, the Senate is extremely
interested in this matter and is providing some real
leadership. We worked successfully with Senators Allen and
Wyden on a wide range of issues last Congress, including
cybersecurity, and I am pleased that our partnership continues.
The hallmarks of H.R. 766 are three-fold. It aims to
increase interdisciplinary research, interagency coordination,
and research, excuse me, on societal consequences. It builds on
the excellent proposed budgets that have been put forward by
the Administration for nanotechnology. I think it is safe to
say that the bill is pretty non-controversial. It has been
endorsed by leading industry groups. I know the Administration
has some concerns about the Advisory Committee language, and I
have no doubt that those can be worked out.
The bill is designed to usher in a day when nanotechnology
is so routine that none of us feel compelled to make the
tiresome puns that now always attend discussions of nano. I
want to see nano become so much a part of daily life that
discussions of it are nothing more than, well, small talk. I am
sure we all look forward to that day.
Mr. Hall.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boehlert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
It's a pleasure to welcome everyone here this morning, and I want
to give a special welcome to Richard Russell, formerly the Deputy Chief
of Staff of this committee, who is returning to his old precincts. I'm
sure he will be able to make it through his testimony despite the pangs
of nostalgia.
I'm going to keep my remarks this morning brief because
nanotechnology is a subject on which there is already broad agreement--
on this dais, at the witness table, and indeed in the Congress and
country at large. We all understand that nanotechnology can be a key to
future economic prosperity and might improve our lives and that the
Federal Government needs to play a role in making that so.
With that in mind, I introduced H.R. 766 with Mr. Honda, and with
the senior Members of this committee on both sides of the aisle as
cosponsors. Our plan is to have another hearing on the subject on April
9--that hearing focusing exclusively on societal consequences--and then
report out the bill in late April or early May. It should be able to
move to the House floor swiftly after that. And as the welcome presence
today of Senators Wyden and Allen indicates, the Senate is extremely
interested in this matter. We worked successfully with Senators Allen
and Wyden on a wide range of issues last Congress, including cyber
security, and I'm pleased that our partnership continues.
The hallmarks of H.R. 766 are three-fold. It aims to increase
interdisciplinary research, interagency coordination and research on
societal consequences.
It builds on the excellent proposed budgets that have been put
forward by the Administration for nanotechnology. I think it's safe to
say that the bill is pretty non-controversial. It's been endorsed by
leading industry groups. I know the Administration has some concerns
about the advisory committee language, and I have no doubt that those
can be worked out.
The bill is designed to usher in a day when nanotechnology is so
routine that none of us feel compelled to make the tiresome puns that
now always attend discussions of nano. I want to see nano become so
much a part of daily life, that discussions of it are nothing more
than, well, small talk. I'm sure we all look forward to that day.
Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, because of the importance of the
time of the two Senators in front of us, I won't read my entire
opening statement. I just will say that I thank you for having
the witnesses here today. I thank you for your time, both of
you, friends of mine, long-time colleagues, have always
complained that he sat between Congressman Tallson and my Chair
and that we ``immersed him in oil'' was the way he put it. But
he was always a gentleman, always helpful, always very
intelligent, and a good member of the Senate. I am honored to
have both of you here.
I think nanotechnology is going to have enormous
consequences for the information industry, manufacturing, for
medicine and health, and indeed the scope of this technology is
so broad, it is to leave virtually no product untouched. So we
will have a pretty wide open field, and I would like unanimous
consent or ask the consent of the Chairman to put my entire
opening statement, which is an outstanding statement, and some
time later, I will get a chance to read all of it.
But thank you for calling this hearing on this important
legislative measure, and I appreciate the attendance of the
witnesses today and look forward to our discussion and yield
back my time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
I am pleased to join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses to
today's hearing on nanotechnology.
The advancement of civilization has been tied to human capabilities
to manipulate and fashion materials. For example, the stone age gave
way to the bronze age, which in turn gave way to the iron age. The
trend has been a better understanding of material properties at a
smaller and more detailed level.
Now, we stand at the threshold of an age in which materials can be
fashioned atom-by-atom. As a result, new materials can be designed with
specified characteristics to satisfy specific purposes.
The word ``revolutionary'' has become a cliche. But nanotechnology,
which is the subject of today's hearing, truly is revolutionary. As
stated in a report from the National Research Council:
L``The ability to control and manipulate atoms, to observe and
simulate collective phenomena, to treat complex materials
systems, and to span length scales from atoms to our everyday
experience, provides opportunities that were not even imagined
a decade ago.''
Nanotechnology will have enormous consequences for the information
industry, for manufacturing, and for medicine and health. Indeed, the
scope of this technology is so broad as to leave virtually no product
untouched.
At today's hearing we will consider bipartisan legislation that the
Chairman and Congressman Honda, along with 10 additional colleagues,
have introduced to authorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
In addition to setting funding goals, the bill puts in place
mechanisms for planning and coordinating the interagency research
program. The bill also includes provision for outside, expert advice to
help guide the research program and ensure its relevance to emerging
technological opportunities and to industry.
I am interested in hearing the views of our witnesses on the merits
of the legislation and their recommendations for ways to improve it.
Our witnesses should also feel free to provide their assessments of the
content and management of the current federally supported
nanotechnology research effort.
I want to thank the Chairman for calling a hearing on this
important legislative measure. I appreciate the attendance of our
witnesses today, and I look forward to our discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before
this committee to discuss federal nanotechnology research and
development activities and to consider H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act of 2003, which would authorize these
federal programs. The President's 2004 Budget provides $847 million for
the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a 9.5
percent increase over 2003. This investment will advance fundamental
understanding of the nanoscale phenomena. This increased understanding
promises to underlie revolutionary advances that will contribute to
improvements in medicine, manufacturing, high-performance materials,
information technology, and environmental technologies.
Nanotechnology can best be considered as a ``catch-all''
description of activities at the level of atoms and molecules that have
applications in the real world. A variety of nanotechnology products
are already in development or on the market, including stain-resistant,
wrinkle free pants and ultraviolet-light blocking sunscreens.
A unique feature of nanotechnology is that it is the one area of
research and development that is truly multidisciplinary. Research is
unified by the need to share knowledge on tools and techniques, as well
as information on the physics affecting atomic and molecular
interactions in this new realm. Materials scientists, mechanical and
electronic engineers and medical researchers are now forming teams with
biologists, physicists and chemists.
Illinois is among the leaders in nanotechnology. During the last
few years, success in the areas of nanotechnology at Southern Illinois
University-Carbondale (SIUC) have included patented technology for
conversion of carbon dioxide into methanol and sensors to detect
corrosion and stress in highway bridges. SIUC has also developed
industrial partnerships and collaborations with IBM, Proctor & Gamble,
and Argonne National labs to further research and development at the
atomic and molecular scale.
To keep America dominant in nanotechnology, I believe we must
create a coordinated interagency effort that would support long-term
nanoscale research and development, increase America's competitiveness
in nanoscale technology, and promote effective education and training
for the next generation of nanotechnology researchers and
professionals. H.R. 766 accomplishes these goals. I am interested to
hear from our panel on any further recommendations zor improvements to
this legislation based on the National Academy of Sciences review of
the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Further, I am interested in
discussing the potential societal and ethical concerns associated with
the development of nanotechnology and how these concerns should be
addressed.
I thank the witnesses for appearing before our committee and look
forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Nick Smith
I want to thank Chairman Boehlert for holding this hearing today to
review the status of federally funded nanotechnology research and
development activities and to review H.R. 766, which would authorize
the National Nanotechnology Initiative activities (NNI) into law.
Nanotechnology is defined in H.R. 766 as ``science and engineering
at the atomic and molecular level.'' It holds incredible promise in a
wide range of scientific disciplines. While relatively few
nanotechnology products are on the market today, such as my stain-
resistant, wrinkle-free pants, the industry is very close to achieving
several important breakthroughs that include revolutionary new
applications in materials science, manufacturing, energy production,
information technology, medicine, and defense and homeland security
applications.
Like the biotechnology and information technology sectors of 10-15
years ago, nanotechnology has reached a critical growth stage. As these
emerging innovations near fruition, it is important that the Congress
works pro-actively to guide the industry through the inevitable growing
pains that lie ahead. To accomplish this, we will need to intensify our
support for research and experimentation in nanosciences--specifically
the fundamental, novel research that is too risky for the private
sector to undertake. This effort, combined with strengthened
coordination and management of the multi-agency NNI, will help to
bridge the necessary link to the wide reach of business and industry
interests eager to create new products out of that research. The bill
before us today, that many of us have co-sponsored, will help us do
just that.
If the information technology revolution is any guide, the
nanotechnology revolution will not only improve our lives through the
development of many exciting new products, its contribution to
productivity gains could also help brighten future fiscal situations.
As the Semiconductor Industry Association has pointed out, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimation of the $1.3 trillion
projected deficit that we're facing for fiscal years 2004-2013 would
actually be $247 billion higher if it were not for improvements in
productivity due to computers. If we succeed in our effort to harness
the potential of nanotechnology, we will see productivity and revenue
gains of a similar magnitude.
As Chairman of the Research Subcommittee, which maintains oversight
of the National Science Foundation, we have held hearings on the
potentials of nanotechnology. I am particularly interested in hearing
the ideas today's witnesses may have on how to maximize NSF's
contribution to the initiative. NSF is the largest federal supporter of
non-medical basic research conducted at universities, and at $221
million for FY 2003, comprises almost 30 percent of the NNI budget. It
is important that the cutting-edge fundamental research conducted at
NSF is utilized by other agencies and the private sector and
transformed into real-world applications in a manner that can improve
our health, facilitate better research, and ultimately help our
economy. I believe the goals and priorities for the NNI established in
H.R. 766 will be an important aspect of this process.
I want to welcome all of the witnesses here today, and in
particular thank our colleagues from across the street, Senator George
Allen and Senator Ron Wyden, for taking the time to present testimony
to the Committee. I look forward to a productive discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jim Matheson
Nanotechnology presents incredible opportunities, not just for pure
science, but for a host of interdisciplinary areas. The wide range of
potential applications of this research is one of the best reasons why
we, as a nation, should commit to long-term support of nanotechnology.
Many of the most exciting ideas are still years from completion and
even the current success stories are products of long-term research,
study, and dedication.
It is also important to realize that, due to the expense of
establishing top-level research infrastructure, facility sharing must
also be a priority. We have an opportunity to promote relevant, needed
research and every effort should be made to best utilize limited
resources. I look to the national laboratories at Sandia National
Laboratories, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and at other sites to
avail themselves of the scientific talent within this nation.
Finally, there exists a tremendous opportunity for today's research
commitment to become tomorrow's commercial success. We need
partnerships between federally funded research facilities and private
industry in order to generate the ideas that will drive business in the
future. I thank the Committee for its interest in this area of science
and look forward to contributing to the national discourse on
nanotechnology.
Panel I
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. And it is a
distinct pleasure to welcome two partners and former colleagues
on the House side, who have made a mark for themselves in the
Senate, who are real leaders in the nano field: Senator Ron
Wyden of Oregon, and Senator George Allen of Virginia.
Gentlemen, the floor is yours. Start with Senator Wyden. Turn
it on.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RON WYDEN, DEMOCRAT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. There we are. Well, let me say first how
much I appreciate being here. My old seat mate for 15 years in
the House, Congressman Hall, and I go so far back. And the
Chairman is absolutely right. We have teamed up on one success
after another, most recently, the cybersecurity legislation.
And I think I would like to put my whole statement into the
record with your lead, Mr. Chairman, and just make----
Chairman Boehlert. Without objection.
Senator Wyden [continuing]. A few comments this morning.
Senator Allen and I have teamed up on this legislation now for
several years. And I think our message is really fairly
straightforward, and that is that we just think it is time for
Congress to think big about the small sciences. I mean, there
is extraordinary potential here. I am of the view that--and I
think it was best stated by one recent expert at a conference,
this is going to lead to a complete reversal in the way in
which man has produced things since the dawn of time. We
essentially always looked big and then tried to figure out how
to go from there.
What we are talking about with nanotechnology is
essentially reversing that and going from the bottoms up and
revolving around the small structures that are atom and
molecular size. And I think the potential in the area Ralph
Hall and I have shared an interest in for years in issues like
healthcare is just extraordinary. I mean, I see these
structures and these appliances, for example, bulldozing their
way through cancers and serious tumors and other kinds of
health problems the American people will have. And I think we
are going to hear more about those kinds of applications in the
days ahead.
I want to take just a second and talk about how Senator
Allen and I spent the previous two years, because I think there
is a lot of interest in what we are trying to do differently
here with nanotechnology. We have seen over a time a variety of
interesting ideas come along. People get excited about them
from time to time. Government converges and spends a bunch of
money and sets up a variety of programs, and very often at the
end, people say, ``Well, this is--was sort of a textbook case
of how you probably should have stepped back and been a bit
more thoughtful.''
What Senator Allen and I did is we essentially said when we
heard about the promise of this new science, the first thing we
are going to do is go out and talk to the private sector about
their ideas and their initiatives. And what we found is to a
person, they all thought that what the Administration was doing
was constructive, that their initiative, the one that has been
carried by executive branches, clearly, a step in the right
direction and one we ought to support. But their message also
to a person was: here is a chance to build on what the
Administration is doing in some very key kinds of areas.
If you look at our legislation, for example, with respect
to the ethical concerns, that is a new development. We try to
consolidate what government is doing right now. Some of the
nanotechnology efforts are essentially strewn across the
Federal Government. They are in a variety of different places.
We think we can do a better job of coordinating those efforts.
And I think we have tried to say, in issues particularly
relating to PCAST, that it would be very helpful to have some
people who are expert just on nanotechnology so that we could
have some people who would zero in on those initiatives. But it
is fair to say that Senator Allen and I are very supportive of
what the Administration is doing. I note of the case in this
committee on a bipartisan basis, we just think that we can be
bolder and more aggressive, and we ought to pursue those kinds
of efforts. So I think we really have set our--a path here that
can show that we have learned from the past and we are not
likely, in nanotechnology, to see a few years hence the people
say, ``Well, there was something promising. The government
threw a bunch of money at it. It really didn't work,'' and
people have regrets.
The last point that I would make, Mr. Chairman, is that
given what is going on around the world, this is not a time for
us to miss opportunities. This is a time for us to mine the
opportunities, because clearly Europe and other parts of the
world are blasting ahead very aggressively, and we ought to
make similar kinds of efforts.
Let me at this point, if I could, yield to my good friend
and colleague, Senator Allen. I was the Chair of the
Subcommittee last time, so I introduced the legislation. He and
I have teamed up on this at every single step of the way, just
as you and I have. There is absolutely nothing partisan about
this particular issue. And my friend, Senator Allen, because of
Virginia's interest in technology very much parallels Oregon's
interests in technology, he and I have been partners on all of
these issues, and I am grateful to have a chance to----
Chairman Boehlert. Well, I just want to thank you, Senator
Wyden, and you, Senator Allen, for the leadership you are
providing day after day, year after year. This is a very
important area, and I like your phrase, ``Let's think big about
small science.'' Senator Allen.
[The prepared statement of Senator Wyden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ron Wyden
In the 107th Congress, as Chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee
on Science, Technology & Space, I introduced, along with my good friend
here, Senator Allen, the Wyden-Allen 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act. That bill, with its strong bipartisan
support, was unanimously passed out of the Commerce Committee.
This Congress, the Wyden-Allen 21st Century Nanotechnology Research
and Development Act is back with strong bipartisan support. Senator
McCain has assured me that we will have a hearing in the Senate on
nanotechnology and we are determined to pass the bill out of Committee
and this time bring the bill to the floor for a vote. I am confident
that in this Congress, with the Senate bill and with Chairman
Boehlert's leadership on the House bill, the President will sign into
law a strong federal policy that will guarantee that the United States
will not miss, but will mine the opportunities of nanotechnology.
Right now, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is
organized under the White House National Science and Technology
Council. In effect, it exists at the whim of this and future
Administrations. Efforts in the nanotechnology field are strewn across
a half-dozen federal agencies. With the Wyden-Allen legislation and the
House bill, and a strong partnership between the two chambers, America
can marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force
to remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field.
The global nanotechnology race has so many implications for this
country that it's hard to know where to begin. If I had to summarize--
and I bet you'd like me to do that instead of speaking for 90 minutes--
I would say the global nanotechnology race matters for America on three
distinct levels. It is rapidly becoming an economic issue and a
geopolitical issue. Eventually, every American may have a personal
stake in nanotechnology as well.
If science on the molecular scale is incomprehensible to some
folks, pretty much all of us can understand money. There is a lot of
money coming in nanotechnology. In the next decade or so the global
nanotechnology market should be worth about $1 trillion.
It will be worth that because of the awesome products
nanotechnology will yield. Imagine how a material 100 times stronger
than steel at one-sixth the weight could revolutionize the building
industry. Americans are already buying stain-resistant pants and
scratch-resistant eyeglasses. The world will line up for smart drugs to
treat cancers, cheap flat-screen TVs the size of living room walls, and
self-repairing concrete highways.
From a purely economic standpoint, America can't afford to miss the
nanotechnology revolution. The potential not just for direct revenue,
but also for jobs and the growth of related industries, is too huge.
Nanotechnology's significance extends beyond America's bankbook,
though. If private industry and the Federal Government fail to provide
organized, goal-oriented support now, this nation could fall behind
others who recognize nanotech's potential.
Major programs are underway in the EU, China, Japan, Taiwan and
across East Asia. Just this month Shimon Peres called on the Knesset
for a quote, ``superhuman effort'' to put Israel at the forefront of
nanotechnology. U.S. spending on nanotechnology is just about 25
percent of the world's total. Worldwide spending may reach $2 billion
this year.
America has to keep up not only financially, and scientifically;
America must also educate a competitive new generation of science
experts to move this field forward. In this respect, our nation may be
seriously unprepared.
American school children learn considerably less math and science
that their counterparts abroad. A significant percentage of this
country's math and science graduate students come from other countries
and return there after graduation. American nanotechnology and other
disciplines are facing a terrible shortage of human resources.
The U.S. has a deep well of untapped potential in women, who are
terribly under-represented in the math and science fields. Last year I
started a push to end the disenfranchisement of women in the hard
sciences. These efforts need to bear fruit. The National Science
Foundation estimates that over the next decade, America will need
800,000 to 1 million nanotechnology workers. The time to start
encouraging those folks is now.
An investment in nanotechnology education now could beget major
advances for every American school child. That's just the beginning of
the personal impacts of nanotech.
I've said before that this field has the potential to change
America on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the computer
revolution. Nanotechnology experts predict that research could lead to
$20 hand-held computers. That sounds great for all of us techies here.
But imagine the impact on America's rural and inner-city schools if
every school could afford a computer for every child. The digital
divide would close. Think about the enormity of that statement. All the
kids who don't have much of a chance now could have the tools to learn
and compete alongside the kids who've always had options.
Nanotechnology will eventually be a matter of life and death. When
revolutionary medicines are able to target cancers and kill them with
little or no damage to surrounding tissue--well, I bet all of us can
think of someone who might be alive today with that technology.
So the personal implications range from getting a better shot in
life to literally living longer. If that doesn't convince people that
America needs to commit to nanotechnology, I don't know what will.
The Wyden-Allen 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act provides 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. My legislation puts us on the
path to take these steps.
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, including State-supported 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. This bill guarantees a commitment 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. This committee would be composed of experts with
intimate knowledge of the nanotechnology field. The joke these days in
the world of science is that everyone is doing nano work. Just as the
'90s saw everyone putting ``dot com'' after titles, today, everyone is
putting ``nano'' before their sciences. We must ensure that the
Presidential Nanotechnology Advisory Committee is not composed of
``nano-come-latelys,'' but is instead composed of leaders in the field
who will best guide us in our efforts to nurture and develop the
strongest possible applications of nano research funding.
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 experts--the
Presidential Nanotechnology 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.
In my view, the U.S. is poised to maximize nanotechnology's
economic potential, its political potential, and its personal potential
for every American. I believe that decisive support from the government
and a strong partnership between Senate and House proponents of this
science are absolutely essential to grow this field. I encourage the
passage of the House legislation as well as the Wyden-Allen Act in the
Senate.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE ALLEN, REPUBLICAN OF THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you and
all of the Members of this committee, this wonderful Committee
on Science, for calling today's hearing. I was--as Senator
Wyden, I was listening to him, and I agree with everything he
said. And I love this quote from Proverbs you have here:
``Where there is no vision, the people perish.'' It reminds--
and then you have here, ``They see the vision of the future of
a world and all the wonders that could be.'' It reminds me of
the view of observations of America in the early 1800's that
the only things that haven't been done are those that have yet
to be imagined. And that is what we are talking about here,
that same spirit.
And Mr. Chairman, I will have my remarks put into the
record, if I could, as well----
Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Allen [continuing]. Hopefully as excellent as those
of Congressman Hall's record. However, I do want to commend you
for your leadership on this, visionary leadership, as well as
that of Congressman Honda and Ehlers and others on these
matters. We have worked together on cybersecurity, homeland
security, a variety of issues. What Senator Wyden, who is my
teammate on the Senate side on these issues, what we want to do
is take the best of our ideas, of the ideas here on the House,
improve the bills that we have introduced, make sure there is
complete symmetry and synergy there so that we take the best
ideas as we move forward in nanotechnology.
As you said and Senator Wyden said, there is so much
potential here. We recognize it. Sadly, I would say, no more
than five percent of Senators and House Members understand what
nanoscience is, nanotechnology. It is something that all
Members need to be more conversant upon, but leadership is
needed. We need to, as elected leaders, and the government
ensure that the right conditions precedent are there for those
who are researching whether in the private sector, state
sponsored, colleges, universities, the institutes, variety of
institutes, federal institutes, all are working together that
there is that sort of domestic and international efforts to the
extent we can to contribute to these results.
Now our nation, from the very beginning, has always been on
the forefront of technological or industrial revolutions. That
needs to be the same in nanoscience. My friend, Senator Wyden,
and I introduced Senate Bill 189, The 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. It is very similar
to yours. Before this is all through, they will be identical.
It is, for example, to get with the great work that is
going on right now with the National Institutes of Health where
there is great promising potential for precise medical
treatments and therapies and bioscience technologies that are
exciting and really life-saving in many regards. And we know
those stories about--you get the nanochip that gets to the
exact cancer cell as opposed to right now you get these shotgun
blasts killing all sorts of cells, weakening the body, with
nanoscience, you can get right to the cells that need to be
destroyed, the cancerous cells. So that is exciting. That is
promising for a better quality of life. Ours is a strategic
goal, as is yours, to get everyone to work together.
Now I am one, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
that is competitive. And the United States needs to be ready to
compete and succeed in this area of nanoscience. I feel that we
are falling behind. Japan, Korea, China, the European Union all
are really, I believe, ahead of us right now as far as research
and development in the applications of nanoscience. It is
important for healthcare, for communications, for commerce, for
manufacturing, for aeronautics, and indeed for our national
security that the United States is a leader in this
nanotechnology or nanoscience revolution.
There are, as was said by others, great opportunities in a
variety of areas. One other example, right now for the
archives, the National Archives and all of the volumes in the
Library of Congress, it takes up rooms of storage space, you
know, for the processors. With nanoscience, all of that can be
put into a processing chip, so to speak, the size of a sugar
cube. That is the promise as far as technology is concerned.
And we are proud that our states, my state of Virginia,
Oregon, California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania are proud of
their efforts. We need to be at the forefront working there.
The United States Government has an important role to play. It
is important for our security, for our health, and for our
future. And I really am excited and invigorated by the
opportunity to work with you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this
esteemed committee, to make sure that the United States is in
the lead in improving the lives of Americans and also our
security.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator George Allen
Chairman Boehlert (Sherwood Boehlert, R-NY), Ranking Member Hall
(Ralph Hall, D-TX) and Members of the Science Committee, thank you for
calling today's hearing and for allowing me the opportunity to testify.
Your visionary leadership on science and technology issues is a
model for the members of this committee and the House of
Representatives. I enjoy working with you as a teammate advocating and
championing these initiatives in the Senate.
Speaking of teammates, last September, Senator Wyden and I held the
first Congressional hearing on the topic of Nanotechnology. We posed
similar questions to those before your Committee today.
As many of you know, Nanotechnology is still in its infancy and as
this field matures it will undoubtedly have a substantial positive
impact on our daily lives.
America has historically valued and encouraged innovation and
entrepreneurship in virtually every emerging industry and
nanotechnology should be no different.
Our role as elected leaders should be to create the conditions and
precedent to position our researchers and innovators to compete,
contribute and succeed both domestically and internationally.
Our nation has been at the forefront of almost every important and
transformative technology since the Industrial Revolution, and we must
continue to lead the world in the Nanotechnology revolution. That is
why, working with Senator Wyden, we introduced S. 189, the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research & Development Act.
Similar to legislation before this committee (H.R. 766 introduced
by Chairman Boehlert) and in response to many of the recommendations
from the National Academy Sciences; our legislation looks to provide an
organized and collaborative approach to nanotechnology research and
commercial economic development.
S. 189 capitalizes on the fantastic work already taking place at
the National Nanotechnology Initiative (within the National Science
Foundation), and will build on existing interagency coordination with
the 10 federal agencies already working on nanotechnology. For example,
within the National Institutes of Health there is the potential for
promising and precise medical treatment therapies and bioscience
technologies that are exciting and life saving.
Our bill also looks to support the interdisciplinary nature of
nanotechnology; cutting across multiple disciplines such as:
information technology, chemistry, biology, mechanical & electrical
engineering, physics, and manufacturing.
Our strategic goal is logical and clear--we want to leverage the
government, academic and corporate research capabilities and assets
this country has available to compete and succeed worldwide. Ground-
breaking nanotech projects today will mean substantial regional and
national job growth in the future.
Unlike previous advances and developments in the technology
industry, nanotechnology is not dominated by the United States. The
NanoBusiness estimates the U.S. is being out paced in some areas of
nano-development by foreign competitors from Japan, China, Korea,
Russia and the European Union.
As production and innovation of nanotechnologies become faster,
cheaper and more efficient, every market sector in the economy will
begin to feel its impact creating an extraordinary opportunity to
promote and attract more jobs and economic growth.
From computing power where memory and processing chips the size of
a sugar cube will have the ability to store all the information in our
nation's National Archives and the Library of Congress combined; to
agriculture and energy efficiencies; health care therapies, and our
Homeland security and national defenses; nanotechnology will be the
platform that generates many of the advances and discoveries in the
decades to come.
State-led and regional economic clusters are developing around the
nanotech industry to attract nano focused companies--New York, Texas,
Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and I am particularly
proud of the efforts by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Initiative on Nanotechnology in Virginia has created a
collaborative environment for universities like Virginia Tech and UVA
to work with private sector companies like Luna Innovations and Nano
Sonic, Inc.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe the Federal Government
has an important role to play to ensure the United States leads the
world in nanotechnology. It will be a world competition to reap the
rewards and benefits of this revolutionary industry. The potential
economic and societal benefits are far too great to be overlooked. As
our scientist and researchers adventure boldly into this New Frontier
of Nanoscience and chart new paths in lands not yet discovered, good
public policy will need to be in place to serve as a catalyst to the
diverse, nascent nanotechnology community.
I commend this committee's efforts and focus on this important
issue. The work being done in the nanoscience field is invigorating;
it's exciting, and it's important for our future economy and millions
of jobs.
Discussion
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much for that eloquent
testimony, Senator Allen. And you two are living examples of
how we do things right more often than not in this town:
bipartisan, seizing an opportunity, providing leadership,
working across the Capitol. We are going to move forward with
this legislation, thanks to your leadership, and we will try to
contribute the maximum from this side. Thank you both very
much.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, if I could, one last point
from the Senate side, Chairman McCain on the Senate Commerce
Committee has told Senator Allen and I that he is going to put
this bill on the fast track as well. Our plan in the Commerce
Committee is to have a quick hearing move ahead, so Chairman
McCain has indicated that he shares your interests and wants to
move this quickly.
Chairman Boehlert. He is excited about it. There are a lot
of people, the more they know about it----
Senator Wyden. Right.
Chairman Boehlert [continuing]. You know, the zeal and
commitment you demonstrate, you can excite anybody about this.
And that is great. Keep it up. Thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Hall. I--just one. Normally, we seek support and as
this grows and they find out about it, you are going to have to
make decisions of whether or not you want to share this
support. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Honda, who along with you
has introduced this and ten others, was not here when I had the
opening statement, so I was going to yield 10, 20, or 30
seconds or five minutes to him. Could I yield the balance of my
time to him to make whatever statement he wants to make?
Chairman Boehlert. I--by all means. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really--I am excited,
and I share your enthusiasm. And when you say we talk about the
scale of nanotechnology, the scope of it is so immense and it
could be so ubiquitous and really extend what they call Moore's
Law another 30 or 50 years, which will really not--do nothing
but enhance our technology and enhance our economy. And I guess
one of the concerns I would have is that we sustain this effort
and sustain this enthusiasm by both bodies so that the
Administration will continue to support the NNI at a level that
it needs to so that we can move this whole movement forward.
And I certainly am as excited as you are when I think of all of
the potential and possibilities not only for technology, but
also for biomedical advances. So I think that the reason why we
need groups like advisory groups for PCAST so that we can
anticipate a lot of the issues now so that it doesn't become a
barrier in the future and that we can move forward in the most
expeditious way.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Honda. And I
want to thank both of my colleagues for coming across the
center of this Capitol complex. It is always a pleasure to see
you and continue your good work.
Senator Wyden. Good point. And thank you.
Chairman Boehlert. A second panel to our aide consists of
an alum of this very distinguished Committee: Mr. Richard
Russell, Associate Director for Technology, Office of Science
and Technology Policy; Dr. Thomas Theis, Director of Physical
Sciences, IBM Research Division, Thomas J. Watson Research
Center; Dr. Carl Batt, and I have the privilege of representing
Dr. Batt, Co-Director of the Nanobiotechnology Center at
Cornell University; Mr. Alan Marty, one of the great job titles
in America, Executive-in-Residence, JP Morgan Partners. And for
the purpose of an introduction, the Chair recognizes Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly good to
have on the panel today someone who works at Oak Ridge. Many of
the people who live in the district I represent perform work
and duties there as well. Dr. James Roberto is the Associate
Laboratory Director for the Physical Sciences at Oak Ridge
National Lab. He is responsible for ORNL's research portfolio
and materials science, condensed matter physics, chemical and
nuclear physics. He has been a distinguished member of the Oak
Ridge community since 1974 and has served on three national
research committees. He currently is a fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. I welcome him, and
I certainly look forward to him enlightening this committee on
many of the activities going on there at Oak Ridge. Welcome,
Dr. Roberto.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. And gentlemen, your
statements will appear in the record in their entirety. We
would ask that you try to summarize in five minutes or so. The
Chair will not be arbitrary, but we do want to give an
opportunity for questions.
Mr. Russell, you know the drill. You are up first.
Panel II
STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD M. RUSSELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank you
for your warm welcome. And it truly is an honor and a pleasure
to be able to come back to this committee and speak before you
today, especially on an issue where I think we all share the
same goals. It is one of great importance to everyone. It is an
issue that the Administration has spent a lot of time, energy,
and money on. It is an issue that I know this committee is
committed to seeing move forward in an aggressive fashion, and
we really look forward to working with you and the rest of the
Committee in making nanotechnology and the future of
nanotechnology as strong as possible. So I appreciate the
opportunity and appreciate the warm welcome and look forward to
working with you on this. This is one of the issues that really
makes my job worthwhile.
The Administration shares this committee's belief in the
importance of federal support for nanotechnology R&D and the
coordination of federal research efforts.
Nanotechnology is more than just the study of small things.
Nanoscale research is the study of systems that exhibit
physical and chemical properties quite different than those
found on larger scales.
Carbon is an excellent example. We are familiar with carbon
in many forms, from coal to diamonds, but when a sheet of
elemental carbon, a single atom thick, is rolled into a tube,
it takes on totally unique and unforeseen properties. For
example, an incredibly small shift on the scale of a single
atom can change the properties of the tube from conducting to
semi-conducting. This makes carbon nanotubes ideal candidates
for microelectronic materials.
Pushing or pulling on the tube also changes the electrical
properties, making carbon nanotubes ideal for sensors. Other
materials exhibit similar unexpected properties at the
nanoscale. And I think this is really one of the most important
points that we have to recognize when we are looking at
nanotechnology. We are not just talking about miniaturization.
We are talking about entirely new effects that can be seen on
the nanoscale that we don't see elsewhere, and I think that is
why I think this is such a vibrant area for research.
Nanotechnology is still in a very early stage of
development. The role for federal R&D funding is to provide the
fundamental research underpinning upon which future nanoscale
technologies will be based.
Nanotechnology research is coordinated in the Federal
Government through the National Nanotechnology Initiative, NNI.
The NNI is an interagency program that captures relevant
federal nanotechnology R&D. Currently, ten agencies participate
in the program. The NNI is a critical link between high-risk,
novel research concepts and new technologies that can be
developed by industry. NNI provides funding for fundamental
research at colleges and universities and at our national
laboratories.
NNI is creating centers of excellence that bring together
diverse populations of scientific domains under one academic
umbrella. It is also building a network of central, state-of-
the-art user facilities that can be accessed by industry as
well as academia.
The Administration's commitment to furthering
nanotechnology research and development has never been
stronger. Support for NNI is evidenced by significant funding
increases for this interagency initiative in each of the
President's budget proposals. That trend continues this year
with a 10 percent increase over last year's request for
nanotechnology, bringing the program's total to $849 million in
the President's '04 budget request.
Nanotechnology was also highlighted as a priority research
area in the '04 budget guidance memo issued last year to the
heads of research agencies by Dr. Marburger and Director
Daniels. This year, funding for NNI will support a range of
activities, including basic research, more focused efforts
directed at answering specific sets of questions, so-called
``grand challenges,'' and building research infrastructures and
centers and networks of excellence to support nanotechnology
research.
NNI funding also supports mission-oriented research within
agencies, research at national laboratories, and research at
academic institutions, and other research institutes. A portion
of the funding is also dedicated to addressing non-technical
research problems in a broader context, including societal
implications and workforce training issues.
The research agenda for the agencies participating in the
NNI is coordinated by the Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Technology Subcommittee, otherwise known as NSET, of the
National Science and Technology Council. The NSET Subcommittee
is made up of NNI agency representatives, OSTP [Office of
Science and Technology Policy], and OMB [Office of Management
and Budget]. NSET members meet on a monthly basis to measure
progress, set priorities, organize workshops, and plan for the
coming year.
In order to provide higher visibility for nanotechnology
and to elevate coordination and priority setting, OSTP has
proposed reformulating the current NSET as an interagency
working group and reconstituting the NSET Committee at a higher
level of agency representation.
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, NNCO,
assists NSET in their activities and serves as the secretariat
for the NNI program. The NNCO, which is funded by contributions
from participating agencies, carries out objectives established
by the NSET members, coordinates and publishes information from
workshops, and prepares annual reports on the activities of
NNI.
In the past, the Director of the NNCO was a part-time
position. Recognizing the key contributions made by the NNCO to
the success of this multi-agency effort, OSTP is in the process
of hiring a full-time director to run the NNCO.
The Administration appreciates the effort of the Chairman
and the other Members of this committee to highlight the
importance of nanotechnology through H.R. 766. We look forward
to continuing to work with you as the bill moves through the
legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration shares your strong belief
in the value of an independent external advisory panel to look
over NNI. As such, you will be pleased to know that the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, or
PCAST, recently looked--took on this responsibility.
PCAST will review the NNI on an ongoing basis and provide
the President with recommendations to improve the program. As
an initial step at their March 3, 2003 meeting, PCAST agreed to
begin this review with an effort that will assist the NSTC in
the development of crisp, compelling, and overarching strategic
plan and defining specific ``grand challenges'' to guide the
program.
Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I would like to ask
that the Nanotechnology Study Work Plan, as approved by PCAST,
be included as part of the record.
Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to appears in Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record.]
Mr. Russell. And let me--I see that my five minutes are up,
so let me quickly summarize the rest. Essentially, there are a
few small issues that I know we can work with you and the
Committee's staff on this bill, so I look forward to getting
started with that. And I am open to questions on this wonderful
set of technological challenges that we face.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard M. Russell
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Administration's
plans for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and the
Administration's views on H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act of 2003.
The Administration shares this committee's belief in the importance
of federal support for nanotechnology R&D and coordination of the
research efforts that are funded. In many ways, I am preaching to the
choir and vice versa. Our differences are minor and are mostly
reflected in the slightly different paths we use to reach our goals.
Nanotechnology is the ability to engineer at atomic, molecular or
supramolecular levels in the length scale of approximately 1 to 100
nanometers--about 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. Nanoscale science and engineering are not just
additional steps towards miniaturization. Nanoscale systems exhibit
physical and chemical properties quite different from those found at
the micro- and macro-scale. Take carbon, for example. We are familiar
with carbon in many forms-coal, diamond, etc. But when a sheet of
elemental carbon, a single atom thick, is rolled into a tube, this form
of carbon takes on totally unique and unforeseen properties. For
example, an incredibly small shift--on the length scale of a single
atom--changes the properties of the tube from conducting to
semiconducting, making carbon nanotubes (CNTs) an ideal candidate for a
microelectronic material. Pushing or pulling on the tube also changes
the electrical properties, making CNTs ideal candidates for sensors.
Other materials exhibit similarly unexpected properties at the
nanoscale.
Commercialization of nanotechnology is expected to lead to new
products and applications in materials and manufacturing, electronics,
medicine and health care, environment, energy, chemicals,
biotechnology, agriculture, information technology, transportation,
national security, and other areas. Nanotechnology will likely have a
broad and fundamental impact on many sectors of the economy.
New nanotechnology innovations are being made on a regular basis.
Just this week it was announced that researchers at the University of
Michigan are using nanoprobes to image chemical activity inside living
cells. The 20 nm diameter nanoprobes are small enough to fit inside a
cell without affecting the cell's normal functions. Sensor molecules
inside the nanoprobes emit light when select ions bind to the sensor.
This information will help scientists unravel the complicated metabolic
processes in living cells.
Scientists from Rice University have attached amino groups to
single-walled carbon nanotubes. These amino groups can be used to bond
the nanotubes to other polymers, or to form a `fabric' of nanotubes.
This is a crucial step towards manufacturing a new generation of
materials that are stronger, lighter, and potentially self-sensing.
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 nanoscale technologies will be
based. Numerous challenges must be addressed before the envisioned
promise of these technologies can be reached. Overcoming these
challenges will require 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. We face a very real challenge developing
new instruments that enable accurate, nanoscale-level measurement and
manipulation.
These challenges also present opportunities:
the opportunity to engage in interdisciplinary work,
between agencies, that bridge traditional delineations between
disciplines;
the opportunity to reinvigorate chemistry and
physics, bringing these disciplines into the mechanistic length
scales that underlie the unique properties of nanoscale objects
and, not coincidentally, the functioning of biological systems;
and
opportunities to develop new engineering systems and
instrumentation that can be used to manipulate and measure
properties of nanoscale structures, including biological
systems that were, just a short time ago, beyond our means.
As such, nanotechnology is creating a natural domain of
interdisciplinary interactions. It is igniting a review of college
curricula and creating new educational paradigms. This administration
is encouraging these activities through the existing structure of the
NNI.
Because of the complexity, cost, and high risk associated with
nanotechnology research, the private sector is often unable to assure
itself of short-to-medium term returns on R&D investments in this
field. Consequently, industry is not likely to undertake the basic
research investments necessary to overcome the technical barriers that
currently exist. The NNI is a critical link between high-risk, novel
research concepts and new technologies that can be developed by
industry. This is accomplished by providing funding for fundamental
research at colleges and universities as well as at our National
laboratories, by creating centers of excellence that bring together
diverse populations of scientific domains under one academic umbrella,
and by building a network of central user facilities that enable
access, by industry as well as academia, to state-of-the-art nanoscale
fabrication and analysis facilities. Funding programs are structured to
overcome barriers, in both knowledge and facilities, so that America's
industries will prosper from our investment in nanotechnology.
The Administration's commitment to furthering nanotechnology
research and development has never been stronger. Support for the NNI
is evidenced by significant funding increases for this interagency
initiative in each of President Bush's proposed budgets. That trend
continues this year, with a ten percent increase over last year's
request for nanotechnology (to $849 million) in the President's FY 2004
budget. In addition, last year the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget and OSTP Director Marburger issued a memo to the heads of
executive departments and agencies identifying nanoscale science and
technology as one of six interagency research and development
priorities.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Federal funding for Nanotechnology is coordinated through the NNI.
The NNI is an interagency program that encompasses relevant
nanotechnology R&D among the participating federal agencies. The
federal agencies currently performing nanotechnology research
coordinated through the NNI are:
National Science Foundation
Department of Defense;
Department of Energy;
National Institutes of Health;
Department of Commerce;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Department of Agriculture;
Environmental Protection Agency;
Department of Homeland Security; and
Department of Justice.
Funding for the NNI 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,'' and building research infrastructure (instrumentation,
equipment, facilities) and centers and networks of excellence (larger,
centralized facilities intended to provide sites for cooperative and
collaborative efforts among distributed networks and groups of
researchers at multiple affiliated institutions). Depending on the
agency, funding supports mission-oriented research within agencies,
research at national laboratories, and research at academic
institutions and other research institutes. A portion of the funding is
also dedicated to addressing non-technical research problems in a
broader context, including societal implications and workforce and
training issues.
The research agenda for the ten 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). As you know, the NSTC is a cabinet-level interagency
body through which interagency science and technology issues are
discussed and coordinated. The NSET subcommittee is staffed by
representatives of the participating agencies, OSTP, and OMB. It also
includes other federal agencies that do not fund nanotechnology R&D but
nevertheless have an interest in these technologies--agencies such as
the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of the Treasury.
NSET members meet on a monthly basis to measure progress, set
priorities, organize workshops, and plan for the coming year.
The current membership of the NSET reflects its origins as an
informal working group organized and populated by program officers and
researchers within agencies performing or funding nanotechnology R&D.
As such, the agency representatives to the NSET have extensive
knowledge of and experience with nanoscale R&D. This expertise has been
of critical importance to the success of the initiative, providing a
necessary link to nanotechnology researchers in industry and academia.
However, recognizing that the NNI will increasingly confront policy
issues central to its continued success, OSTP has proposed a
restructuring of the interagency nanotechnology effort within the NSTC.
Under the proposed structure, which was approved by the NSTC's
Committee on Technology--to which the current NSET reports--late last
year, the current NSET would be reformulated as an interagency working
group. In turn, the subcommittee would be reconstituted with membership
comprising of higher level agency officials. This new management
structure will enable enhanced coordination and priority setting.
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) assists
NSET-participating agencies in their activities, and serves as the
secretariat for the NNI. The NNCO, which is funded by contributions
from the participating agencies, 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. It has an annual budget of approximately
$1 million. In the past, the Director of the NNCO was a part-time
position. Recognizing the key contribution made by the NNCO to the
success of a multi-agency effort of the complexity of the NNI, OSTP is
in the process of hiring a full-time director to run the NNCO.
The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003
The Administration appreciates the efforts of the Chairman and
other members of this committee and others to highlight the importance
of nanotechnology science--and to address certain issues through H.R.
766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. We look
forward to working with you as the bill moves through the process as
our staffs have already begun to discuss some of the key provisions.
In the summer of 2002, the National Research Council (NRC) released
the results of their study of the NNI 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. One such recommendation was to create an
independent Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Advisory Board to provide
advice to the NSET on policy, strategy, management, and other issues.
The NRC proposed that the board be composed of ``leaders from industry
and academia with scientific, technical, social science, or research
management credentials.'' H.R. 766, incorporates this recommendation.
The Administration shares a strong belief in the value of
independent external advice regarding the NNI. As such, you will be
pleased to know that the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST), whose members encompass the range of experience and
backgrounds articulated by the NRC in their recommendation, recently
took on this responsibility. PCAST will review the NNI on an ongoing
basis and provide the President with recommendations to improve the
program. As an initial step, at their March 3rd 2003 meeting, PCAST
agreed to begin this review with an effort that will assist the NSTC in
developing a crisp, compelling, overarching strategic plan, and
defining specific ``Grand Challenges'' to guide the program.
PCAST co-chair Floyd Kvamme will lead this effort, which will be
undertaken at the full committee level, although separate task forces
will form to address particular sets of issues. PCAST will accomplish
its work in concert with the NSTC and the resident expertise within the
agencies represented on it. In addition, in accordance with a
suggestion from this committee, PCAST plans to tap leading researchers
in nanotechnology to provide PCAST with technical expertise on the
state-of-the-art in nanotechnology--forming a ``technical task force''
that will augment PCAST's expertise.
PCAST's role in reviewing the NNI fulfills the NRC recommendation
to form an external advisory committee. As such, the requirement in
Section 5 of H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
of 2003, which mandates the creation of a presidential nanotechnology
advisory panel, would duplicate PCAST's efforts and unnecessarily draw
resources from the scientific goals of the program. The Administration
believes that this provision needs to be stricken from the bill. OSTP
will work closely with PCAST to ensure that our mutual goal is met--
that is, ensuring that the Nation's investment in nanotechnology
research and development realizes its full potential.
The Administration's goals and plans for the NNI program, of which
I have provided a brief description today, capture almost every element
of the legislation we are discussing. The NNI is a relatively new
program, and represents a field that is, in many ways, also quite
young. Flexibility--to enable us to adapt the program over time and,
for example, on the basis of recommendations from PCAST--will be key to
the program's continued success. Of particular importance is the
flexibility to perform studies and allocate funds as needed to address
new research opportunities and emerging priorities. We also have some
concerns with some of the specifics in the bill, such as the exact
nature of the triennial review by the National Research Council, some
of the particulars regarding the National Nanotechnology Research and
Development program, and technical matters to ensure that the
interagency committee required by the legislation can function
effectively without advisory committee status. I appreciate the
Committee's willingness to work with us to address these issues, and
look forward to continuing to do so.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I hope that this
overview has conveyed this Administration's commitment to
nanotechnology and the NNI. OSTP is actively working with the NNCO to
implement many of the NRC recommendations--recommendations that are
reflected in the legislation under consideration today. We believe that
our efforts will improve the program substantially and will enhance our
nation's investment in nanotechnology.
Biography for Richard M. Russell
Richard M. Russell, Associate Director with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President, was
confirmed by the U.S. Senate in August 2002. As Associate Director he
serves as OSTP Director Dr. John Marburger's deputy for technology.
Prior to being chosen by the President for his current position,
Russell served as OSTP's Chief of Staff. Russell also worked on the
Presidential Transition Teams for the Department of Commerce, National
Science Foundation and OSTP.
From 1995-2001, Russell worked for the House of Representatives
Committee on Science and has a background in technology and
environmental policy. The Committee has oversight responsibilities for
all federal civilian research and development and authorizing
responsibilities for most civilian science programs.
During his time on the Committee, Russell helped draft a wide
variety of legislation, including efforts to expand and improve
coordination of federal information technology research, improve
computer security, and authorize agencies such as the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. He also was charged with
overseeing the Committee's technology policy, coordinating its
oversight agenda, and helping manage the Committee's majority staff.
Russell began his tenure on the Committee as a professional staff
member for the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. He was promoted
to Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Technology and finally to
Deputy Chief of Staff for the full Science Committee.
Prior to joining the Science Committee, Russell was a professional
staff member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on
Oceanography. The Oceanography Subcommittee had jurisdiction over ocean
and environmental research and management.
He also directed the Washington office of the Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA). ACWA is a non-profit association
representing 400 public water agencies responsible for delivering 90
percent of California's domestic and agricultural water.
Russell began his career in Washington, D.C. as a research fellow
for the Conservation Foundation. He also worked for Congressman Curt
Weldon (R-Penn.) and Senator John Seymour (R-Calif.). In 1988 he earned
a Bachelor's degree in biology from Yale University.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. And you are right:
there are just small differences, and we will work them out.
Dr. Theis.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS N. THEIS, DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL
SCIENCES, IBM RESEARCH DIVISION, THOMAS J. WATSON RESEARCH
CENTER
Dr. Theis. Good morning, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member
Hall, and Members of the Science Committee. I am the Director
of Physical Sciences for the IBM Corporation that includes
eight main [research] sites around the world. And I have
responsibility for IBM's research in the physical sciences. I
was also a member of the National Academy of Sciences review of
the National Nanotechnology Initiative and participated in the
drafting of their report, ``Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers.''
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
nanotechnology and H.R. 766. IBM supports increasing
nanotechnology coordination and expertise within the Federal
Government. We support the vision of adequate funding for
nanotechnology research. In particular, we believe that there
is a critical need for the Federal Government to support long-
term research and to seek the kind of expertise in the
scientific community that would guide this research strategy
and funding decisions. We think that the Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act of 2003 will be a great help in
achieving those objectives.
I am here to say that nanotechnology is a key to the future
of information technology. It is the future of information
technology hardware. History teaches us that each time we have
improved our ability to structure matter, that it has resulted
in enormous improvements for the status and condition of
humanity.
IBM is pursuing a research effort, a robust research effort
in nanotechnology, because that research is resulting right now
in better information technology products. The computer that
you have in your office contains devices, transistors, the hard
disk drive contains a read head--it contains devices that are
structured at the atomic scale and devices in which many new
dimensions are conveniently measured in nanometers. This is--
information technology hardware already involves
nanotechnology.
Without further advances in nanotechnology, however, the
improvements in speed, cost, energy efficiency of that hardware
that we have come--that we have become accustomed to, must
slow. And that means that the associated productivity gains and
the further development of new applications, which come with
cheaper and cheaper hardware, that must also slow.
As Mr. Russell indicated, nanotechnology allows us to
characterize and structure new materials with precision at the
level of atoms. And you know, this--there are--this has a wide
range of impacts across the entire society. One of the simple
things is, and he has already alluded to it, carbon nanotubes
and other nanostructure materials, hold the promise of being
stronger and lighter than conventional materials. And we can
all imagine the benefits of having lighter cars and lighter
airplanes and maybe even baggage that would survive airport
handling.
But the point I want to make here is that strength is only
one materials property, and designing materials with atomic
precision allows control of all properties of materials,
unprecedented control: electronic, magnetic, optical, thermal,
any property that we want to enhance. And the reason this ties
into information technology is that information technology is
not, as Mr. Russell said, just about miniaturization. It is
about new invention, new materials, new devices, new structures
that are used to process, communicate, and store information.
So nanotechnology is at the basis of further--is at the core of
any further miniaturization that we will accomplish. And
miniaturization has translated into faster, cheaper, more
efficient.
The relentless advance of information processing and
storage technologies has provided consumers with a wide range
of products that do more every year for less: computers, of
course, but cameras, cell phones, entertainment systems, and
your automobile, which has over 50 microprocessors in it, I
believe you would agree, runs better and is more reliable than
the one you might have purchased 10 or 15 years ago. The impact
on our society has been enormous.
It is not possible to say exactly what entirely new
products and services would be supported by these continued
advances in information technology hardware. Right now, I can
buy a little memory card that goes in a camera or goes in my
computer, and it can store many books, hundreds of pictures,
and quite a bit of audio information. With the advances that we
foresee in nanotechnology, I should be able to buy, and I
expect to be able to buy, a card that would store all of the
audio that I would ever want to record in my lifetime, all of
the pictures I would want to take in my lifetime, and probably
anything of interest and any text that I have ever read. I
don't know exactly how we would take advantage of that, but I
know my children are very, very creative at finding new uses of
this technology. And I strongly suspect that they are going to
figure out new things to do with it that I can't imagine.
In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did publish the
review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative titled ``Small
Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative.'' I helped write it, and on that
basis, I would like to note a few concerns and recommendations
of the panel on which I serve.
First, the panel made a series of recommendations toward a
shared goal to increase the existing interagency coordination
and ensure long-term stability of the federal effort.
Nanotechnology is inherently interdisciplinary. The scientific
challenges and ultimate benefits cross a variety of agencies.
It is very important that we ensure the maximum coordination.
The Review Board recommendations on advisory committees,
strategic plan setting, long-term funding, multi-agency
investments, special funding for interagency collaboration,
interdisciplinary culture, all of these recommendations were
motivated by this desire to contribute to the coordination and
the long-term stability necessary to return the maximum
investments from this very considerable investment that the
Federal Government is making.
Second, the panel noted the need for expertise to identify
and champion research opportunities that do not conveniently
fit within any single agency's mission. That is also related to
the issue of coordination. The panel recommended the
establishment of an independent advisory board to provide
advice to the Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology, the
existing NSET Committee. In my view, the exact reporting
structure is not important. What we want to emphasize is the
need to pull in expertise in nanotechnology to whatever
advisory board or committee is set up.
Third, the panel recommended that the societal implications
of nanoscale science and technology become an integrated--an
integral and vital component of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative. The broad capabilities of future information
technology are easy to forecast, but their implications for
society are still very difficult to discern. And yet, society
will choose how any given technology is used in the end. And in
a democratic society, the basis of that choice should be public
discourse about not only the advantages and value of the
technology, but also the possible dislocations and problems
that may be associated with it. So I urge the Committee to
anticipate that there will be societal implications, not every
one of them necessarily good and comfortable, for any rapidly
advancing technology. We see this across the board. It is not a
particular attribute of nanotechnology, so we need to accompany
our research effort with efforts to anticipate and manage those
implications. And papers that will be published on possible
implications will lead to the kind of public discourse that I
champion.
Finally, the panel recommended that the National
Nanotechnology Initiative support long-term funding in
nanoscale science and technology so that that research can
achieve its potential and promise. And it is really over--hard
to overstate the importance of federal funding for basic
research. The simple fact is IBM finds that it is very valuable
to participate not just in the development of products, but
also in the basic research enterprise. However, that basic
research enterprise is so broad and so vast, there are so many
opportunities to explore, that no company, not even a company
the size of IBM, not even the entire information technology
industry, is capable of exploring all of the possibilities.
So in closing, I would like to thank the Committee for the
invitation to testify here today. IBM believes nanotechnology
has a big place in the future and in the future of society. We
urge the Committee to pass legislation--this legislation that
will assist in the coordination of the research.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Theis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas N. Theis
Good morning, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Hall, Members of
the Science Committee. My name is Thomas Theis and I am the Director of
Physical Sciences for the IBM Corporation. The IBM Research Division
totals over 3000 people in 8 main sites around the world. I have
responsibility for IBM's research in the physical sciences. I also was
a member of the National Academy of Sciences review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative and participated in the drafting of their
report, Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative.
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss nanotechnology and
H.R. 766, Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003.
IBM supports increasing nanotechnology coordination and expertise
within the Federal Government, and providing adequate funding for
nanotechnology research. In particular, we believe that there is a
critical need for the Federal Government to seek additional external
nanotechnology expertise and input to guide its research strategy and
funding decisions. The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of
2003 will assist in several of these areas.
Nanotechnology is key to the future of information technology.
History teaches us that each time man has extended his ability to
structure matter, whether it be to shape an ax from rock or a
microprocessor from silicon, the benefits are extraordinary and
enduring. Nanotech is the next frontier. Research in nanotechnology is
driving breakthroughs in materials and all the devices that can be
built with new and better materials.
IBM is pursuing a robust research effort in nanotechnology because
that research is resulting in better information technology products.
(The computer in your office already contains devices with some
dimensions best measured in nanometers.) I encourage this committee to
similarly support nanotechnology and to extend the benefits of
nanotechnology across society to a range of industries and endeavors.
Without further advances in nanotechnology, improvements in the
speed, cost, and energy efficiency of IT hardware must slow. In turn,
the economic growth of the IT industry must slow--along with the
associated productivity gains, and the further development of new
applications of information technology.
Nanotechnology allows us to characterize and structure new
materials with precision at the level of atoms, leading to materials as
superior to existing materials as steel was to iron, and iron was to
bronze in earlier eras. Nanostructured materials hold the promise of
being stronger and lighter than conventional materials. This would have
innumerable beneficial impacts from more fuel efficient and safer
airplanes and cars, to luggage that can withstand baggage handling at
airports! But strength is just one property. Designing materials with
atomic precision allows unprecedented control of their electronic,
magnetic, optical, and thermal properties--in fact, any property that
we want to enhance.
Raw materials constitute an enormous sector of our economy, but the
popular imagination is captured by devices--machines that multiply the
abilities of body and mind. The history of information technology can
be read as a history of miniaturization--of continuous invention of
ever smaller versions of the devices that process, store, and
communicate information. The story of information processing goes back
to mechanical systems such as those used to tabulate the U.S. census a
century ago. These were replaced by electromechanical calculators based
on relays. Vacuum tubes were used to build the first stored-program
computers a half century ago. The transistor quickly replaced the
vacuum tube, and in a historical eye-blink, the discrete transistor was
displaced by the monolithic silicon integrated circuit. A similar story
of new devices and ever-advancing miniaturization can be told for
information storage. Through the history of information technology,
smaller has consistently translated into faster, cheaper, and more
power efficient, supporting the ongoing explosion of new applications
of information technology and the growth of the entire industry.
This relentless advance of information processing and storage
technologies has provided consumers with a wide range of products that
do more every year for less--computers of course, but also cameras,
cell phones, entertainment systems, and automobiles that are better in
every way than those of ten years ago. The impact on our society,
economy and security has been enormous. However, scientists and
engineers believe that we will soon reach the practical limit to
miniaturization of devices that operate with today's materials and
principles. At the same time, we see no fundamental laws preventing the
processing and storage of information by new devices operating at the
atomic scale. To prepare for this future, IBM's Research Division has
been actively pursuing research on new nanostructured materials,
nanoscale devices, and the processes to fabricate these materials and
devices.
The nano-devices being explored in laboratories around the world do
indeed suggest that we still have a way to go on the road to Lilliput.
Experimental silicon transistors with a critical dimension, the channel
length, as small as six nanometers were fabricated last year. Molecular
devices that do away with silicon are being explored for information
storage and processing. These may not be ultimately much smaller that
the smallest possible silicon transistors, but they may be amenable to
fabrication by new chemical-synthetic processes that will dramatically
reduce the cost of manufacture of complex IT systems.
It is not possible to say exactly what entirely new products and
services will be supported by these continued advances in IT hardware.
Right now I can buy a tiny memory card that can hold the text of many
books, or hundreds of pictures. With continued advances in
nanotechnology, I expect to someday buy a memory card that can hold an
audio recording of everything of interest that I have ever heard, the
text of everything I have ever read, and all the pictures I have taken
in a lifetime. My children will find new and surprising uses for all
that information.
Although the economy, particularly the information technology
sector, is currently in the doldrums, make no mistake. The rapid pace
of technology development is accelerating worldwide. Engineering teams,
striving for a competitive edge, are taking greater risks and exploring
a bolder range of options. Scientific discoveries that would have
languished in the laboratory in years past are being pulled into the
product development stream with unprecedented speed. Our country
continues to lead the world in information technology, but maintaining
this leadership requires continued research investments, particularly
in the basic research that feeds this pipeline of innovation. If key
scientific advances are made and first exploited outside the U.S.,
growth will move off-shore.
In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences published the results of
a review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative titled, Small
Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A review of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative. I would like to note a few of the concerns and
recommendations of the Panel.
First, the Panel made a series of recommendations toward a shared
goal--to increase the existing interagency coordination and ensure
long-term stability of the federal nanotechnology effort.
Nanotechnology is inherently interdisciplinary. The scientific
challenges and ultimate benefits cross a variety of agencies, funding
programs, and constituencies. Yet, in the absence of coordination,
research decisions will be formed primarily from the perspective of a
single agency or discipline. In the absence of coordination, an
agency's nanotechnology strategy is unlikely to be broad in scope or
bold in vision. The Review Board recommendations (on advisory
committees, strategic plan setting, long-term funding, multi-agency
investments, special funding for interagency collaboration,
interdisciplinary culture, etc.) each can contribute to the
coordination and stability necessary to return the maximum benefits
from nanotechnology research.
Second, the Panel noted the need for expertise to ``identify and
champion research opportunities that do not conveniently fit within any
single agency's mission.'' To this end, the Panel recommended that the
Office of Science and Technology Policy establish an independent
advisory board to provide advice to the multi-agency Nanoscale Science,
Engineering and Technology (NSET) committee. In my view, the exact
reporting structure and composition of this board are not important, as
long as the advisory board seeks the advice from ``leaders from
industry and academia with scientific, technical, social science, or
research management credentials.'' These leaders should have
appropriate credentials in the field of nanotechnology. It would be
desirable to have some of this expertise reside within the standing
membership of the advisory board.
Third, the Panel recommended ``that the societal implications of
nanoscale science and technology become an integral and vital component
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative.'' To grasp some implications
of a mature, imagine a world where information technology is truly
ubiquitous and dirt cheap, where even trivial human artifacts contain
extraordinary complexity and therefore extraordinary ability to store,
process and communicate information. These broad capabilities of future
information technology are easy to forecast, but their implications for
society are still difficult to discern. That is why we should start to
study these issues now. We will not be able to anticipate every
societal implication, but the rational study of possible implications,
and the publication of research results should enable a healthy public
discourse. In the final analysis, society must decide on the
appropriate applications of any technology. In a democratic society,
such decisions should be made under the light of public discourse I
urge the Committee to anticipate the societal implications of a rapidly
advancing technology, and accompany our research effort with efforts to
anticipate and manage those implications.
Finally, the Panel recommended that the National Nanotechnology
Initiative ``support long-term funding in nanoscale science and
technology so that they can achieve their potential and promise.'' They
further noted that ``Truly revolutionary ideas will need sustained
funding to achieve results and produce important breakthroughs.'' It is
hard to overstate the importance of federal funding for basic research.
Each of the critical breakthroughs in nanotechnology has been based on
years of sustained federal funding for researchers. The breakthroughs
funded by the Federal Government are the foundation that enables
subsequent efforts by the business sector to translate that research
into products on the marketplace. Without the Federal Government
underwriting the long-term funding, there will be fewer breakthroughs
to translate into products and economic prosperity. Simply put, the
research opportunities are enormous and there is no way that IBM or the
even the entire IT industry can do the job on its own. Furthermore,
federally funded university research is the training ground for the
scientists and engineers who work in industry and translate basic
research results into products.
In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for the invitation
to testify here today. IBM believes that nanotechnology has a big place
in its future and in the future of society. We urge the Committee to
pass legislation that will assist in the coordination of nanotechnology
research, incorporation of additional nanotechnology expertise, and
long-term and stable funding of nanotechnology.
Biography for Thomas N. Theis
Dr. Thomas Theis received a B.S. degree in physics from Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute in 1972, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Brown
University in 1974 and 1978, respectively. A portion of his Ph.D.
research was done at the Technical University of Munich, where he
completed a postdoctoral year before joining IBM Research in 1979.
Dr. Theis joined the Department of Semiconductor Science and
Technology at the IBM Watson Research Center to study electronic
properties of two-dimensional systems. He also collaborated in research
on surface enhanced Raman scattering, light emission from tunnel
junctions, and conduction in silicon dioxide. The latter work helped to
lay the basis for the present understanding of conduction in wide band-
gap materials. In 1982 he became manager of a group studying growth and
properties of III-V semiconductors. He published extensively on the DX-
center, a donor-related defect which limits the digital performance of
some III-V transistors.
In 1989 he was named Senior Manager, Semiconductor Physics and
Devices. In 1993, he was named Senior Manager, Silicon Science and
Technology, where he was responsible for exploratory materials and
process integration work bridging between Research and the IBM
Microelectronics Division. While in this position, he was the principal
author of IBM's successful contract proposal for the DARPA Low Power
Electronics Program. This fifteen million dollar, three year, industry-
university-SEMATECH joint program significantly advanced silicon-on-
insulator materials, devices, and design techniques for low-power,
high-performance microelectronics. Also while in this position, Dr.
Theis coordinated the transfer of copper interconnection technology
from IBM Research to the IBM Microelectronics Division. The replacement
of aluminum chip wiring by copper was an industry first, the biggest
change in chip wiring technology in thirty years, and involved close
collaboration between research, product development, and manufacturing
organizations. Dr. Theis assumed his current position, Director,
Physical Sciences, in February 1998.
Dr. Theis is a member of the IEEE, the Materials Research Society,
and a Fellow of the American Physical Society and currently serves on
advisory boards for the American Institute of Physics Corporate
Associates, the American Physical Society's Physics Policy Committee,
the National Nanofabrication Users network, and the National Research
Council's Board on Physics and Astronomy. He served as a Member of the
Committee for the Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
sponsored by the National Research Council. He has authored or co-
authored over 60 scientific and technical publications.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Theis. Dr.
Roberto.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES B. ROBERTO, ASSOCIATE LABORATORY
DIRECTOR FOR PHYSICAL SCIENCES, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Roberto. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
am the Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is a Department of Energy
multi-program lab managed by UT-Battelle, a partnership of the
University of Tennessee and Battelle Memorial Institute. It is
an honor to appear before the Committee in support of H.R. 766.
At ORNL, I oversee the physical sciences, which include
nanoscale science and technology and the development of ORNL's
Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences. This is one of DOE's
five planned Nanoscale Science Research Centers. The CNMS is a
state-of-the-art user facility for nanoscale science and
technology. It is located next to the Spallation Neutron Source
and builds upon ORNL's strengths in neutron scattering,
materials and chemical sciences, and computational science.
I would like to emphasize that the excitement surrounding
nanoscale science and technology is real. The recent Nanoscale
Science Research Centers Workshop, which was held in
Washington, DC, attracted more than 400 scientists from 94
universities, 40 industries, and 15 federal laboratories. It
was a pleasure to have Mrs. Biggert join us and give the
keynote address at that workshop. In all, more than 2,000
researchers have attended regional and national workshops for
the DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers, excuse me.
Nanoscale science and technology crosscuts the traditional
disciplines of materials science, chemistry, physics, biology,
computational science, and engineering. It occupies the
frontiers of this field, and many of the most important
problems in science and technology. The solutions to these
problems offer a line of sight to technical advances of
enormous impact in materials, information technology,
healthcare, and national security. Many see nanotechnology as
the basis of the next industrial revolution.
John Marburger describes this revolution as one in which
``the notion that everything is made of atoms has a real
operational significance''. What this means is that we are
learning how to use atoms and molecules as building blocks for
larger assemblies with more--with new and astounding
properties. This has been made possible by extraordinary tools,
including synchrotron light sources, neutron sources, electron
microscopes, scanning probe microscopes, and high-performance
computers. These tools have enabled the atomic-scale
characterization, manipulation, and simulation of complex
assemblies of atoms and molecules. This is a ``bottoms up''
view of the world, Mother Nature's world, that embraces
breathtaking complexity and seemingly endless possibilities.
So we are at a crossroads in the physical sciences. The
boundaries between scientific disciplines are disappearing at
the nanoscale. The study of simple, isolated systems is giving
way to complex assemblies. We are moving from atomic-scale
characterization to atomic-scale control, from miniaturization
to self-assembly. This paradigm shift for the physical sciences
rivals other revolutions in science, such as the revolution in
biology following the discovery of the molecular structure of
DNA.
It is this paradigm shift and the technological impact that
will result that underpins H.R. 766. This Act is an important
part of the strategy to strengthen the physical sciences in the
United States. Other components include the Energy Research,
Development, and Commercial Application Act and the Energy
Science Research Investment Act. The traceability of advances
in the physical sciences to economic growth, new medical
technology, energy independence, and enhanced national security
are direct. As you know, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology has given high priority to strengthening
the physical sciences, including nanoscale science and
technology. This priority is reflected in the budget request
for the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which increases to
849 million in fiscal year 2004, including 197 for DOE.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your commitment to science and
to nanotechnology research and development. H.R. 766 is good
for science, and it is good for America. I appreciate the
Committee's leadership in this area, and I firmly believe that
the future of our nation depends on continued leadership at the
scientific and technological frontier, a frontier that includes
nanoscale science and technology. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Roberto follows:]
Prepared Statement of James B. Roberto
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is James Roberto, and I am the Associate Laboratory
Director for Physical Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
ORNL is a Department of Energy multi-program laboratory managed by UT-
Battelle, LLC, a partnership of the University of Tennessee and
Battelle Memorial Institute. It is an honor to appear before the
Committee in support of the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
of 2003.
In my role at ORNL I oversee the physical sciences, including
nanoscale science and technology. This includes the development of
ORNL's Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences (CNMS), one of DOE's
five planned Nanoscale Science Research Centers. The CNMS is a state-
of-the-art user facility for nanoscale science and technology. It
builds upon ORNL's strengths in neutron scattering (for atomic-scale
structure and dynamics), materials and chemical sciences (for synthesis
and characterization), and computational science (for simulation and
modeling).
The excitement surrounding nanoscale science and technology is
real. The recent DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers Workshop and
National Users Meeting in Washington, D.C., attracted more than 400
scientists and engineers from 94 universities, 40 industries, and 15
federal laboratories. More than 2000 researchers have attended regional
and national workshops for the DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers.
It is difficult to find a month without a national or international
meeting in this field.
Nanoscale science and technology crosscuts the traditional
disciplines of materials science, chemistry, physics, biology,
computational science, and engineering. It occupies the frontiers of
these fields and includes some of the most challenging research
problems. The solutions to these problems offer a line-of-sight to
technical advances of enormous potential in materials, information
technology, health care, and national security. Many see nanotechnology
as the basis of the next industrial revolution.
John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, describes this revolution as one in which ``the notion that
everything is made of atoms has a real operational significance.'' This
has been made possible by extraordinary tools such as synchrotron light
sources, neutron sources, electron microscopes, scanning probe
microscopes, and high-performance computers. These tools have enabled
the atomic-scale characterization, manipulation, and simulation of
complex assemblies of atoms and molecules. This is a ``bottoms up''
view of the physical world--Mother Nature's view--that embraces
breathtaking complexity and seemingly endless possibilities.
So we are at a crossroads in the physical sciences. The boundaries
between scientific disciplines are disappearing at the nanoscale. The
study of simple, isolated systems is giving way to complex assemblies.
We are moving from atomic-scale characterization to atomic-scale
control, from miniaturization to self-assembly. Change is opportunity,
and this paradigm shift for the physical sciences rivals other
revolutions in science, such as the revolution in biology following the
discovery of the molecular structure of DNA.
It is this opportunity, and the technological impact that will
result, that underpin the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
of 2003. This Act is an important element of the strategy to strengthen
the physical sciences in the United States. Other components include
the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial
Application Act of 2003 (H.R. 238) and the Energy and Science Research
Investment Act of 2003 (H.R. 34). The traceability of advances in the
physical sciences to economic growth, new medical technology, energy
independence, and enhanced national security is strong. As you know,
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
has given high priority to strengthening the physical sciences,
including nanoscale science and technology. This priority is reflected
in the budget request for the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which
increases to $849M in FY 2004, including $197M for DOE.
I offer the following responses to the specific questions posed by
the Committee:
Question 1. LThrough a workshop and other planning exercises, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed a roadmap for its Nanoscale
Science, Engineering and Technology research programs, establishing
criteria by which staff research proposals are evaluated. ORNL's
planning and management activities are analogous to the tasks assigned
to the Interagency Committee established in section 3(c) of H.R. 766.
In your view, would it be worthwhile to develop a national technology
roadmap to guide federal nanotechnology research? To your knowledge, is
such an effort underway now?
Answer 1. Through two widely-attended workshops (there has been a lot
of interest in these workshops), ORNL developed with the scientific
community a set of proposed research focus areas, equipment priorities,
and access policies for the CNMS. This input is reflected in the design
and research capabilities of the CNMS. This was a very productive
exercise, embodying the elements of identifying research grand
challenges, improving community cooperation, and enabling
interdisciplinary planning that are addressed in the National Academy
of Sciences recommendations on the National Nanotechnology Initiative
and the provisions of H.R. 766.
A similar roadmapping exercise to guide federal nanotechnology
research would be useful. Nanotechnology is here and growing, and the
time between discovery and application is shrinking. A coordinated
federal program could more effectively leverage the capabilities of the
various agencies, establish overarching investment strategies, and
inform the research community of technological challenges and needs.
One must be careful here. We do not know all the answers. The roadmap
will provide focus and accelerate progress in identified directions,
but a healthy component of fundamental research must be maintained to
underpin the overall nanotechnology effort and provide a broader avenue
for innovation.
There are many planning activities under way in nanotechnology at
agency, interagency, institutional, professional society, and industry-
specific levels. I am not aware of any comprehensive federal
nanotechnology roadmapping effort.
Question 2. LLikewise, ORNL's Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences,
currently under construction, could be a model for the
interdisciplinary research centers and advanced technology user
facilities authorized in section 3(b). How will the Center foster
effective collaboration across academic disciplines, and among
government, university, and industry researchers?
Answer 2. The Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences is organized
around research focus areas that represent grand challenges in
nanoscale science and technology. These focus areas are inherently
interdisciplinary and will naturally attract researchers from many
disciplines. In addition, an active workshop program will bring
together scientists and engineers from a variety of disciplines to
assess opportunities in emerging areas of nanoscale science and
technology. These workshops, which will be broadly advertised and open,
will precipitate the assembly of interdisciplinary teams that will
develop user proposals. Finally, the Center will be staffed with
scientific and technical user support staff that span materials
science, chemistry, physics, biology, computational science, and
engineering. These staff and the users will work together in laboratory
spaces designed for interdisciplinary research.
Question 3. LSome individuals and groups have suggested that
nanotechnology developments may raise societal and ethical concerns. Is
any part of ORNL's activity devoted to addressing such concerns?
Answer 3. There are legitimate societal and ethical concerns related to
technological advances including nanoscale science and technology.
While these concerns have been exaggerated in the popular press, all
technical progress includes some risk. Public awareness and involvement
are essential to dealing with this risk. I am pleased that H.R. 766
includes specific provisions for supporting studies of societal and
ethical concerns.
ORNL has a significant outreach program of communication and
interaction with the public. This includes public lectures, tours, and
secondary school programs, including classroom visits and teacher
development. CNMS will be actively engaged in these programs.
Question 4. LAre the views of the research community affiliated with
ORNL adequately reflected in the research plan for the federal
interagency nanotechnology research initiative? Do you believe that
there would be value in establishing an external advisory committee for
the initiative?
Answer 4. I believe that the views of the nanoscale science and
technology community affiliated with ORNL are generally reflected in
the research plan for the federal nanotechnology research initiative.
However, as the initiative develops, continued review and oversight of
federal nanotechnology programs by PCAST would be useful in providing
overall guidance for the initiative, providing high-level feedback on
programs and research directions, and providing visible and independent
assessment of national policy and opportunities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your commitment to science and
nanotechnology research and development. The scientific community
appreciates the Committee's leadership in this area and firmly believes
that the future of our nation depends on continued leadership in
science and technology.
Biography for James B. Roberto
Jim Roberto is Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. As Associate Laboratory Director, he
is responsible for ORNL's research portfolio in materials science,
condensed matter physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics. This includes
the Chemical Sciences, Condensed Matter Sciences, Metals and Ceramics,
Physics, and Research Reactors divisions; the High Flux Isotope
Reactor; the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences; and scientific
user facilities in neutron scattering, heavy ion nuclear physics, and
materials microanalysis (more than 600 staff and $180M in annual
expenditures).
Roberto joined ORNL in 1974 following completion of a Ph.D. in
applied physics from Cornell University. Prior to his present
appointment he served as director of ORNL's Solid State Division from
1990 to 1999. His research interests have included x-ray and neutron
scattering, ion-solid interactions, and materials for fusion reactors.
He is a former President of the Materials Research Society and Chair of
the Division of Materials Physics of the American Physical Society. He
has served on three National Research Council committees, most recently
as Vice-Chair of the NRC study on Condensed-Matter and Materials
Physics, and is a fellow of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Roberto. And
let me thank you for providing specific responses to specific
questions posed to you, which is in your testimony, which I
commend to the attention of my colleagues. Thank you for that.
Dr. Batt.
STATEMENT OF DR. CARL A. BATT, CO-DIRECTOR OF THE
NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY CENTER, CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Dr. Batt. It is rare that an academic has such a rarefied
audience, and it is also rare that I only have five minutes to
talk about a whole field. So if you will, I will quickly go
through a series of images, which I hope will sort of portray
what nanotechnology is all about and the excitement of the
Nanobiotechnology Center, which is a National Science
Foundation supported science and technology center.
So let me, first of all, treat you all like I would my
students, and those include not only undergraduates and
graduate students at Cornell, but also kids in elementary
programs, middle schools, and high schools. I try to see them
all.
Chairman Boehlert. That is at the right level.
[Slide]
Dr. Batt. So I will pose a question here, and the question
is: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And the
answer is, of course, one, as you will see in the image over on
your left. The real question is: How small can we make the head
of a pin, but more importantly, how small can we make the tip
of a pin? And the image over on the right is an atomic force
microscope, which is basically like a microscope. It feels
along the surfaces, and we can make these tips as narrow as a
single molecule. Back in 1959, Richard Feynman prophetically
sort of laid out nanotechnology as we know it by suggesting the
notion that why couldn't we write the Encyclopedia Britannica
on the head of a pin? An IBM--my colleagues at IBM, about 10 or
12 years ago, actually showed that you could really write out
IBM, which was one of the most brilliant sort of advertising
schemes that I have ever thought of. And so we can write the
Encyclopedia Britannica on the head of a pin. There is no issue
related to that.
So let's again continue our education lesson. When we talk
about nanotechnology and we talk about nanometer scale, we are
talking about molecular scale. We go from the width of a hair,
which is about 100 microns, about what we can see, except when
we get a little bit older and we need some glasses, down to
around two nanometers. So it is two nanometers across the helix
of DNA.
So really what we do at the Nanobiotechnology Center is,
really, we are trying to build innovative tools to study
biology at the nanometer scale. Most biology really occurs at
the nanometer scale, but we have yet to really discover all of
the interesting tools that we need to study this phenomena at
that scale, and that is what our Nanobiotechnology Center is
all about.
The Center is composed of six institutions, Cornell being
the lead institution, and we are very grateful to the National
Science Foundation for their investment in our Center. We are
joined by Princeton University, Clark Atlanta, Howard, Oregon
Health and Sciences Center, and Wadsworth Center, which is in
the New York State Department of Health.
So let me just spend a few minutes telling you about what
we are doing now and what totally exciting things that are
going on in nanotechnology. Basically, the human genome is
done. We have finished that, and although it lays out a
blueprint for what is the basis for human beings, as we know
it, we really are only beginning to scratch the surfaces.
[Slide]
On the right hand side, is an image of a machine that is
used to sequence DNA. It took about 300 of these machines about
a year to sequence one genome. If we are going to ever advance
genomics into the realm of sort of modern medicine and be able
to have sort of healthcare directed toward genomics, we are
going to have to improve that. My colleagues Paul McEuen and
Harold Craighead, and this was the cover of Science a few weeks
ago, have developed a new technology for sequencing DNA. They
are sequencing single molecules of DNA, which allows us to do
this process in a massively parallel type of fashion, which
really allows us to then look at instrumentation for sequencing
DNA at, really, the nanometer scale.
Some other colleagues of mine, Bob Austin, who is at
Princeton University, and Lois Pollack, who is at Cornell, are
studying the fundamental issues of how proteins fold. Again, we
understand the complete genome. We understand all of the DNA
sequences, but what we don't understand is how these sequences
actually fold up into proteins. And they are studying this
fundamental phenomenon by taking single molecules of proteins
and watching how they fold, watching how they fold in a
microsecond time scale.
My own group at Cornell is looking at what we call
biofabrication. We want to take all of these chip people and
actually put them out of business by making structures
biologically, by producing various types of structures.
[Slide]
And what you see there, that NBTC [Nanobiotechnology
Center] image, is actually about the width of a hair. And we
have grown these sort of structures onto the surface of silicon
using enzymes and various types of components.
And then finally, we are not unaware of the fact that we
need to take this technology and reduce it to something that is
relevant to things like homeland security. And so my group is
working on basically hand-held sensors that we believe in the
next few years will be able to detect a wide variety of food-
born pathogens, biowarfare agents, and other sorts of medical
pathogens that might be important in the future. And I have--
and at some point you might want to come and see, we have these
little chips here, which are basically chips to actually purify
DNA and then do the amplification all on the chip. And we see,
in the next five years, these being very affordable hand-held
sensors.
So what is the road to success? The road to success in the
Center is basically looking at interdisciplinary efforts. We
try to ask fundamentally important biological questions. We try
to ask how cells respond, what--how does DNA sort of function.
But we are also trying to do, in collaboration with engineers
and physicists, develop innovative tools.
We are very grateful to the National Science Foundation for
their long-term investment, but there are issues to be
addressed. University departments are like little kingdoms.
They are basically built to function primarily in the education
area, and when we start looking at research opportunities that
sort of cross over these areas, we have significant challenges.
Independent investigators, the term used in academia is
``herding cats.'' If you can imagine how hard that is to do,
that is how hard it is to sort of get different faculties to
sort of agree on a single research focus. We need to sort of
understand how we can evolve departmental structures and how
eventually the flow of what we call indirect cost really
benefits all.
And there are solutions. Certainly, our Center is a
solution. We bring to the problem a variety of different
departments throughout Cornell University as well as a number
of other institutions. We recognize contributions that
individuals make. And what is really needed is investment in
infrastructure. We are one of the hubs of the National
Nanofabrication Users Network, a wonderful system, a wonderful
toolbox where we can go out and perform nanotechnology.
So what is not nano? The book came out, I bought it, hard
cover, 30 bucks, and let me just tell you, that is not what
nano is.
[Slide]
The images you see at the left and the right are cartoons.
They are nothing more than an artist's imagination. They are
not what nanotechnology is all about. The book in and of itself
has really no technical base that I could understand. I am a
microbiologist. It was kind of interesting reading. I am
looking forward to the movie. Maybe it will make sense then.
What is nanotechnology to me and what is important in terms of
addressing societal and ethical issues is sort of portrayed on
this next set of images.
[Slide]
As I said, I spend about a third of my time out in schools
talking to little kids. They are the future of science and
engineering in this country. We have programs that we run not
only at--around the Ithaca area, but we also go up to the
Onondaga Nation School, a very charming community of Native
Americans about an hour away. We go up to Shea Middle School up
in Syracuse. This is the future of science in America. These
are the sort of people--these are the sort of opportunities
that academic scientists need to embrace and need to really
understand their role in sort of communicating to this
audience.
[Slide]
The group of pictures over in the lower right hand side are
my students. They are very much committed to this era. They are
very much interdisciplinary. I am amazed at how much they know,
and I try to pretend that I really understand all of it, so I
thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Batt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl A. Batt
Let me first thank you for the invitation to offer my testimony on
H.R. 766, Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. It is a
privilege to speak not just on behalf of my own group, but the
Nanobiotechnology Center and moreover the scientists and engineers who
are engaged in a grand adventure. To start the discussion, I would pose
the age old question, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
While this vexing question has been the fodder of philosophers and
theologians, a practical answer eludes us. Two confounding factors: how
small are angels and how small can we make the head of a pin. In
medieval times, angels were believed to be the smallest possible
physical object. A more approachable challenge came in 1959 with the
question from Richard Feynman ``Why cannot we write the entire 24
volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica on the head of a pin?'' \1\ The
challenge of moving around single atoms has been met, the issue of
making it practical remains.\2\ We can now for all practical purposes
write the Encyclopedia Britannica on the head of a pin. But what should
come of these technological feats, what is nanotechnology?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Feynman, R.P. (1959) (http://nano.xerox.com/nanotech/
feynman.html)
\2\ Eigler, D.M., Schweizer, E.K. Nature 344:524-526 (1990).
(http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/atomo.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through nanotechnology we seek to control single molecules at the
atomic level and through those processes create novel materials as well
as new devices. Nanotechnology as practiced by scientists and engineers
in the academic sector is not just an exercise in fancy science, it
will have a significant impact on industry and society as a whole. It
will provide novel medical therapies, help to survey and protect the
environment, make unique materials that have enhanced properties and
lead to a new generation of manufacturing capabilities that will simply
revolutionize and revitalize American industry.
The impact that nanotechnology is currently having on new and
existing industries is significant, but the potential for the future is
enormous. It is estimated that nanotechnology will have a one-trillion
dollar impact on the global economy in the next decade. Existing
industries including those not typically characterized as `high tech'
will see their product lines and the way they manufacture them
influenced by our growing knowledge in nanotechnology. Moreover,
aspects of nanotechnology will help to drive small companies whose
products are developed for niche markets including sensors, bio and
chemical analytical devices and boutique chemical and ingredients.
These technologies are not likely to require the multi-billion dollar
investments that `chip' manufacturers must face. Therefore progress
will be even more rapid as the relative risk from investing in
nanotechnology will be lower. Nevertheless significant investment in
research and development is needed especially in the academic sector.
Nanotechnology will lead a renaissance in manufacturing in more
rural areas abandoned by traditional manufacturing over the past 50
years. It has the potential for reviving communities that used to be
the home of skilled laborers who contributed to the last industrial
revolution. While `traditional' chip based manufacturing has
contributed to economic growth in a select number of regional areas,
nanotechnology and especially its applications to the interface with
biology will have a more wide-spread geographic impact. As a resident
of upstate New York, I look forward to nanotechnology being an economic
driver in a community that has seen most of the manufacturing jobs lost
over the past 50 years. I live in a small town, Groton, New York that
used to be the home of Smith Corona. At one point it employed over a
thousand people in my town but those jobs left as the utility of the
typewriter dwindled.
How does the Cornell Nanobiotechnology Center advance
nanotechnology research and development compared to what the
University could accomplish on its own?
Support from the National Science Foundation through our
designation as a Science and Technology Center is clearly the driving
force behind our research and development efforts at the
Nanobiotechnology Center. Our center has one mission: to build
innovative tools to study biology at the nanometer scale. Cornell
University is the lead institution in the Nanobiotechnology Center and
our partners include Wadsworth Center (NYS Department of Health),
Princeton University, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Howard
University and Clark Atlanta University.
The field of nanobiotechnology, as created with the establishment
of our center in 2000, would not exist in its current incarnation were
it not for the collective efforts of the center's faculty and the
commitment of the NSF. Most of today's most challenging problems in
science and engineering are complex and they will not be solved by
single investigators working within the borders of their own chosen
fields. Problems as far ranging as curing cancer to building the next-
generation of sensors to help safeguard our homelands, could not be
successfully addressed without support similar in size and scope to the
investment made by the NSF in our center. That investment over the
anticipated 10 years of our center's life will total approximately
$40M. While that is substantial compared to individual investigator
awards (by an order of magnitude), the support per investigator within
the Nanobiotechnology Center is not extraordinary, nevertheless the
center concept works and value is added through a `center' type of
mechanism. What is extraordinary is the nature of the center and the
commitment that we have to act as an interdisciplinary team pooling our
collective skills in fields including life sciences, engineering,
physics and chemistry. Not an obligation borne out of mandate, but a
commitment that arises from the notion that no individual and no single
discipline can bring all of the skills that are required for these
complex endeavors. The center will cease to be a Science and Technology
Center at the end of 2009, the obliged 10-year sunset of all NSF
supported Science and Technology Centers. What we hope to leave as a
legacy is a unique collection of innovative tools to study biology at
the nanometer scale, a fledgling knowledge of how biological molecules
behave in the nanospace and a talented group of young people. My
colleagues Paul McEuen, Harold Craighead and I are extending Paul's
efforts to create single molecule transistors\3\ to develop sensors
that are sensitive enough to detect a single piece of DNA. We see
applications in environmental protection, food safety and homeland
security for these sensors and envision how a network of these sensors
can form a web that would survey large areas alerting us to potential
hazards. Others at the Nanobiotechnology Center including Lois Pollack
and Robert Austin (Princeton) are creating devices\4\ to understand how
proteins fold, a fundamental process that will unlock the mysteries of
the genome by informing us how to translate the vast databases of DNA
sequences into functional elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Park J., Pasupathy A.N., Goldsmith J.I., Chang C., Yaish Y.,
Petta J.R., Rinkoski M., Sethna J.P., Abruna H.D., McEuen P.L., Ralph
D.C. (2002) Nature 417:722-725
\4\ Pollack, L., Tate, M.W., Finnefrock, A.C., Kalidas, C.,
Trotter, S., Darnton, N.C., Lurio, L., Austin. R.H., Batt, C.A.,
Gruner, S.M., and Mochrie, S.G. (2001) Phys Rev Lett 86:4962-4965
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenges of addressing the development of new scientific
disciplines in a university setting are significant but Cornell does it
better than most. The University is just a physical entity that
hopefully fosters the faculty, students and staff to excel. Fortunately
if you are at a university like Cornell, which is rich in a tradition
that nurtures interdisciplinary research and whose departments, schools
and colleges cover a wide range of areas from food science to physics
(not to mention the humanities), you have all of the resources that you
could ever hope to muster. Nevertheless there needs to be some glue,
some incentive. The Nanobiotechnology Center with the support of the
NSF provides that incentive, as it encourages faculty to nucleate and
explore complex problems that can only be addressed by developing and
exploiting unique tools. Support is primarily used to provide stipends
and salaries for graduate students and postdoctoral associates. They
are truly the bright young minds that bring their enthusiasm to bear on
these biological problems. So in effect the center has many products,
not just the fruits of our scientific discoveries but also the students
and postdoctoral associates that are supported and trained by the
center. These students and postdoctoral associates are the next-
generation of scientists and engineers who are equipped with a unique
set of skills honed by the interdisciplinary nature of their research.
My students approach scientific questions in a much different fashion
than traditionally trained students, acquiring, then applying a wide
range of skills far more diverse and more versatile than I garnered as
a graduate student. Graduate training, at its core, is focused on
engaging a student's mind and providing them with challenging
questions. It is not much different than when I was a graduate student,
but the current set of questions and the potential routes to answer
those questions are much more robust for students engaged in the
center's programs. For example students in my laboratory are actively
engaged in what we call biofabrication, using biological systems much
the same way that you would use tools and processes from the
microelectronics industry to build computer chips. We, on the other
hand, instead of using x-rays and harsh chemicals, use biological
molecules and `grow' our components with tools isolated from cells. We
hope over the coming years to marry the biological machinery with more
traditional forms of fabrication to develop unique materials and then
structures that have properties virtually unknown in the natural or
manmade world. These might be replacement parts for damaged cellular
components or new devices that can survey the environment for
pollutants well before we recognize the impact of these pollutants on
our health. We look to biofabrication as being an environmentally
friendly form of fabrication that will complement the existing silicon
processing methods that are well entrenched in the industry.
Does the center actively foster collaboration across academic
disciplines, for example?
The research projects supported by the Nanobiotechnology Center are
expected to be interdisciplinary, and in fact, it would be virtually
impossible for us to make progress if we worked in isolation apart from
our colleagues in other disciplines. The challenges are simply too
complex and for the faculty our training was for the most part focused
narrowly in a single discipline. When you survey the goals of the
various research projects you discover that even those biological
questions which appear simple are vastly complex. We also seek unique
solutions for fabrication at the nanometer scale using biology to
inform us. You can look at something as simple as a diatom and realize
that within its limited genome is the blueprint for creating three-
dimensional structures in silicon that would be the envy of any
engineer. But our main focus is on exploring problems in biology at the
nanometer scale. For example, a number of projects seek to explore the
question: how molecules behave in the nanospace? Through nanotechnology
we seek to have an unprecedented and highly precise means to understand
and control molecules. To assemble them and to rearrange them in a
manner that yields unique properties. Molecules behave quite
differently when they are constrained and yet most models to explain,
for example, how various molecules regulate the controlled growth of
cells (or the uncontrolled as in the case of cancer) do not account for
the complexity of these situations. So to address the question, the
center fosters interactions between biologists who understand the
nature of the molecules and the engineers who can build tools to study
these molecules. Left alone biologists would not attempt to build tools
to study molecules at the nanometer scale, while engineers would not
have an appreciation of the complexity of biological molecules let
alone the systems in which they are found.
Cornell University is fortunate to have four NSF supported centers
that have a focus or at least a concentration in nanotechnology. These
include my own Nanobiotechnology Center, the Cornell Center for
Materials Research, the Center for Nanoscale Systems and a splendid
facility, the Cornell Nanofabrication Facility that is our beloved
`tool box' where we create these nanodevices. There are faculty that
are members of more than one of these centers and we collectively form
a very strong foundation in nanotechnology. We come from different
departments and from different colleges scattered throughout Cornell
University. We come together not just because of the funding but
because of the intellectual community that exists within these
different centers.
For faculty, working across disciplines is a matter of
communication. We speak different languages and exist in different
cultures. We approach problems differently. Physicists work in a world
dominated by large analytical instruments many of which are custom
built and years are invested in their creation. Biologists are much
more likely to seek out existing technology because their science
involves generating data that can be compared to data generated using
similar instrumentation. But moreover we differ in the way we approach
experimentation and the questions that we are seeking to answer. Our
students are hybrids able to conceive, create and use innovative tools
and seek answers to important biological questions. Our job as faculty
is to facilitate and encourage this interaction. In my experience once
it gets started, those students that are motivated and forward
thinking, get engaged and will move the effort along.
How does your center interface with the private sector? Do you
host any collaborative university-industry nanotechnology
research and, if the answer is yes, does the existence of the
center make those collaborations easier?
In 2001, I was fortunate to be the project leader for an effort
that was selected by New York State, through the New York State Office
of Science, Technology and Academic Research (NYSTAR) for support. Over
two years, $2.8M was pledged to the Alliance for Nanomedical
Technologies. The Alliance had one simple goal: to bring together
academia and the private-sector to develop the next generation of
nanomedical devices. In establishing this research and development
center, we sought industrial input from the beginning. Too often
academic institutions invent, publish and then look to find a champion
for its technology. Too often then the specifications of the technology
arising from a scientific discovery made in academia do not match the
needs of the private-sector. Too often then the investment in
retrofitting technology developed in academia for the private-sector is
greater than the return. Academia is a grand incubator from which
emerges scientific discovery and that process should remain unfettered.
Nevertheless the Alliance set forth, in developing its research goals,
to be inclusive of the private-sector and within one year we had 28
affiliates who brought their business plans and technology targets to
the table and engaged our academic scientists in serious discussions.
From those discussions, a series of research projects were formulated
which were driven by the rigorous academic questions offered by the
faculty balanced with the future needs of the industry. For example,
Alliance supported researchers are looking at arrhythmia in cardiac
cells while also designing the next generation in wireless cardiac
monitoring all guided by specifications articulated by our private-
sector affiliates. Similarly, Alliance supported research will yield a
new class of hand-held sensors that are capable of precise
identification of bacteria. This technology will have multiple uses in
insuring food safety and well as homeland security.
The linkage between the university and the private-sector is
absolutely critical. Having been engaged in one form or another of
technology development for over 20 years, I believe that success is
dependent upon the technology having a practical impact on the lives of
people. Making scientific discoveries, publishing papers, going to
meetings to exchange ideas with my colleagues is only part of the
process. Seeing technology reach a point where it is available is also
important. And the university is typically awful about bringing
technology to a point where it is commercially viable. The Alliance for
Nanomedical Technologies is attempting to bridge that gap and simplify
the hand off from the university to the private-sector. Not everyone in
academia is happy about this linkage, many feeling that it will
compromise their `academic freedom.' To paraphrase the words of Lloyd
Old, a friend and the Chief Executive of the Ludwig Institute for
Cancer Research (with whom we have a partnership to develop therapeutic
agents for cancer research) scientific discoveries by the academic
community in and of themselves, are admirable but it remains a great
challenge to insure that they are useful. While linkages with industry
are only one way that research discoveries can achieve a degree of
usefulness, certainly seeing research reach some stage of application
is important especially as we articulate its value to the general
public.
Some individuals and groups have suggested that nanotechnology
developments may raise societal and ethical concerns. Is any
part of your center's activity devoted to addressing such
concerns?
New technology will always raise the concerns of the public
especially when we, the scientific community do not take the time and
have the patience to articulate the field. What falls into the void
that we create by remaining cloistered in our laboratories, are pundits
and pseudoscientists whose mission is to, at best, tantalize, at worse,
to strike fear. It makes great novels, and it makes even better movies
but the threshold into science fiction is murky. Nanotechnology will
not as a technology spawn a new threat to society. History shows that
most of the dangers to society that result from the misuse of
technology arises not from state-of-the-art technology but more mundane
technology in the hands of opportunists. We have in the last twenty
years alone seen horrific acts carried out by individuals and groups
with some fairly unsophisticated technology.
There are certainly ethical concerns with any new technology that
must be considered. The prospects of a run away technology as described
in Michael Crichton's book Prey would be a sad outcome, but the current
state-of-the-art in nanotechnology in no way enables that outcome. The
technology as described in this fictional account is not even close to
reality. No enabling technology exists or is on the horizon that could
account for the fanciful creatures described there. In fact I was, as a
microbiologist disappointed by the lack of even a single technically
feasible anchor in the book. Yet it received lots of press coverage and
through a variety of media especially the Internet, fanciful
predictions of doom proliferated. Unfortunately, the barrier between
scientific reality and science fiction is only as high as the
imagination of a talented cartoonist. Pictures abound on the internet
of nanobots and other imaginary things and we at the Nanobiotechnology
Center spend a good deal of time engaged in reality checks for students
and the general public. Even some of my colleagues lean over the line
at times seduced by the publicity and the potential that this notoriety
brings in terms of funding and other opportunities. Yet the practical
reality, self-assembling, autonomous machines smaller than a bacterium
that can scurry about like little fleas are still just the product of
an artist's imagination. One practical problem that is yet to be solved
is powering these devices. In most cases the battery to run any
mechanical device far exceeds the device itself.
There are real dangers in the world and those that concern us now
are fifty year old technologies, lethal in the hands of individuals and
organizations that would choose to use them.
So how best to meet the societal concerns of nanotechnology? My
colleague, Anna Waldron (who directs our education effort at the
Nanobiotechnology Center) and I have elected to focus our attention on
the next generation of potential scientists and engineers. This is not
a theoretical exercise carried out in the ivy covered walls of Cornell
University, but a practical experiment in classrooms in towns and
villages that surround our campus. We are engaging the young men and
especially the young woman, who in increasing numbers, do not look at
science as an educational opportunity let alone a career for them. They
do not see themselves as scientists and that is a significant barrier
that we seek to overcome. We work in concert with their teachers
recognizing that this partnership will only work if we understand their
world. With more and more mandated curricula, we need to fit into their
needs rather than offering content that has no relevance to the rest of
their educational experience. We operate three middle school science
clubs for girls addressing the challenge of encouraging young women to
consider careers in science. We also host two afterschool science clubs
for underrepresented minorities at the Onondaga Nation School and Shea
Middle School (Syracuse, NY) exercising our belief that these young
students have all the potential in the world. We offer events for the
general public and every summer we engage more than 3,000 people at the
Great New York State Fair with the wonders of the Nanoworld. In about
one month we will have the grand opening for a traveling museum
exhibit, It's a NanoWorld,\5\ that has been developed with our
collaborators from the Sciencenter and Painted Universe in Ithaca,
which we estimate will reach more than one million people during its
tour around the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ www.itsananoworld.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In helping educate and more importantly inspire these young
students, we hope to raise the general awareness of the public at large
as to what nanotechnology is all about. That this technology and in
general most technology has a very positive impact on our lives. We
have coined this effort Main Street Science and over the next five
years hope to take the scientific discoveries of our center and others
and translate them into practical and approachable concepts for
students and the general public. At Main Street Science we will harness
the energy of our undergraduates and graduate students to develop
hands-on activities giving them a practical experience in community
science. What scientific discoveries do we hope to share with young
students? For example few students even through high school understand
what the term `nano' means in its fullest context. They understand that
a nanosecond is pretty fast but they don't comprehend that a
hummingbird beats its wings about 100-200 times per second. That is
virtually imperceptible to the human eye and is faster than the
flickering of a fluorescent light bulb. Never the less computers
operate about a million times faster. They know that a nanometer is
pretty small, but they do not realize that the distance between atoms
is on the order of a nanometer. So for younger children, we consider it
a challenge for them to comprehend simply what a billion is and expose
them to the concept using thousands of little plastic Lego blocks. We
engage kids and have them hopefully begin to believe that science is a
good thing and learning about science can be exciting. Regardless of
whether these kids go on to get their Ph.D. in nanotechnology it is
important to have them believe that they can do it.
A more scientifically literate public is one sure route to
ameliorate the fears that seem to accompany many scientific
revolutions. History is replete with examples of where new scientific
discoveries were met with public challenges and only after a
significant back lash, did we the scientific community come out of our
laboratories and seek to engage the public. The NSF to their credit has
put engagement as one of the important criterion for their supported
research programs.
Are the views of the academic research community adequately
reflected in the research plan for the federal interagency
nanotechnology research initiative? Do you believe that there
would be value in establishing an external advisory committee
for the initiative?
Clearly any researcher focused on nanotechnology would find merit
in the research plan for the interagency nanotechnology research
initiative as outlined in H.R. 766. I have watched with a great deal of
satisfaction and pride the efforts of the National Science Foundation
in their development of the current array of centers and other
programs. It is precisely these types of external stimuli that help
drive innovation at the university. Investments by the NSF are welcome
and more would be appreciated. The benefit from investing in technology
is magnified well beyond the academic community and is an economic
driver for new and existing industries. The number of new startups
whose business plan includes nanotechnology is growing exponentially.
An external advisory committee would have a daunting task in
lending guidance to a national nanotechnology initiative.
Nanotechnology is a very complex field whose definition has yet to be
fully formulated and embraced by everyone in the scientific community.
Purists look at nanotechnology as including only those efforts that
impact at the nanometer scale. I take a more broader view cognizant of
the appeal that the term `nano' has especially when it comes to
engaging young scientists. I like the definition in H.R. 766 ``at the
atomic and molecular scale.'' Certainly an advisory committee charged
with insuring that the scientific community moves forward is important.
Too often academics look at research in their chosen field and funding
for it as an entitlement. The never-ending battle cry that more
research is needed is something that I believe needs to be continuously
reassessed. Scientists in academia have two important functions, to
engage in scientific discovery and to provide educational opportunities
for students of all ages. Nanotechnology represents one field that will
have a dramatic impact on our nation and its citizens. Moving forward
in a bold and progressive fashion is important and certainly guidance
from highly regarded and respected scientists in the field would be an
useful component.
In summary, this bill represents a significant investment but one
that will stimulate a new era in, not only science but technology.
Nanotechnology will be the basis for vast improvements in materials,
sensors, electronics and will impact a number of fields including the
life sciences. It will stimulate scientists in a diverse array of
disciplines to think beyond their current set of tools and the
potential is enormous. We will see nanotechnology impact existing
industries but also drive the development of new industries launching
new start-up firms that take the best of American entrepreneurship and
couple that to discoveries in academia. Investment in nanotechnology
through the a mechanism as outlined in H.R. 766 will help enormously.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Dr. Batt. Mr.
Marty.
STATEMENT OF MR. ALAN MARTY, EXECUTIVE-IN-RESIDENCE, JP MORGAN
PARTNERS
Mr. Marty. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you on
behalf of the Nanobusiness Alliance and its member
organization.
We are witnessing the dawn of a new era in science,
industry, and quality of life. More quickly than anyone could
have imagined even just a few years ago when the NNI was
announced, nanotechnology is entering the marketplace. And my
testimony will be focused on that marketplace transition more
than on the science specifically and indeed changing our lives.
My own firm, JP Morgan Partners, believes that
nanotechnology advances will impact many of the sectors where
we already invest, including biotechnology, energy,
communications, and semiconductors. Over the past few years, we
have provided venture capital to five nanotechnology companies
in diverse market applications like textiles, drug discovery,
electronics, and flat panel displays. Last quarter, JPMP led a
$30 million C round of funding in Optiva, which was one of the
largest nanotechnology funding rounds for all VCs in 2002. We
are continuing to diligently investigate private equity funding
opportunities in nanotechnology and feel that it is a promising
area for commercial growth.
The NSF conservatively predicts a $1 trillion global market
for nanotechnology in little over a decade. In order to ensure
that nanotechnology hits its potential, we must proceed
aggressively, learning from lessons of the past, and create a
dialogue with the public today so that everyone understands and
prepares for the transformative effects of nanotechnology in
the future. This starts with the passage of the Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act of 2003.
The Act is a visionary piece of legislation. It has the
strong support of the Nanobusiness Alliance and its member
organizations: some 250 start-ups, corporations, universities,
economic development groups, and investment firms from across
the United States.
With a plethora of products in the market, and more on the
way, it is no longer prudent to view nanotechnology as just a
science. While basic research efforts must be protected and
enhanced, as they are the linchpins of this new industrial
revolution, our focus must be widened to include
commercialization and a global race in the field of
nanobusiness. We must look to find ways to take basic research
and advance it toward commercialization. We must--we are--we
need funding solutions for technical problems, such as
packaging and integration of nanotechnology. Further, we need
funding solutions to scaling problems, such as process
reproducibility and process quality.
In the effort to commercialize nanotechnology, private
equity can play an important role. Over 60 U.S. venture capital
firms and numerous corporate venturing operations have invested
in nanotechnology related start-ups. But many promising
entrepreneurs and interesting technologies will not be funded
by private equity sources, because they can not bridge the gap
from the laboratory to the marketplace.
Venture firms must place funds in a manner that will bring
competitive returns to our limited partners. Usually this means
that a start-up must make reasonable progress in
commercialization issues before a venture firm can reasonably
invest. Unfortunately, this is often where federal funding has
been lacking. The result is that many businesses that could
drive future commercial growth for our country never get their
ideas out of the laboratory.
Foreign governments, on the other hand, are very focused on
bridging the gap from the laboratory to the marketplace, and
here is a recent example. Two weeks ago, Japan held a nanotech
event that demonstrated products that were already in the
market or were about to be introduced to the market. 25,000
attendees showed up over three days at the convention center.
Some 18 countries had booths at the show. What was particularly
telling was that all of the country booths were sponsored by
government economic development groups, except the United
States, which was science and academic backed. Also telling was
that most commercialized technology demonstrated at the show
was derived from U.S. developed intellectual property, only it
was Japanese, German, and Korean companies that were
commercializing these technologies and advancing them beyond
basic research.
But while the proposed increases to the NNI are indeed
solid and significant, especially in these turbulent economic
times, we must remain aware of the fact that other nations are
challenging us and are willing to match and, in some cases,
exceed us in spending and effort.
In closing, the Nano Alliance--excuse me, the Nanobusiness
Alliance sees the Act's ability to strengthen the structure of
the NNI as being vitally important. Second, we support the
Act's call for the development of some sort of outside advisory
board, though we feel this group must include not just
researchers, but business people, local government officials,
economic development experts, and ethicists. Third, we support
the Act's call for further examination and tracking of
international funding, development, and competition. Fourth, we
support the Act's efforts to further address the social and
environmental impacts of the science, but we would caution, as
mentioned by Dr. Batt, that this effort be focused on real
science, not well-read science fiction. And fifth, we back the
Act's efforts to encourage nanoscience through additional
grants and the establishment of interdisciplinary
Nanotechnology Research Centers.
Again, I would like to thank the Chairman, Congressman
Hall, and the Committee for this opportunity to address them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan Marty
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hall, Members of the Committee, I thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you on the topic
of the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003--on behalf
of the NanoBusiness Alliance and its member organizations.
We are witnessing the dawn of a new era in science, industry and
quality of life. More quickly than anyone could have imagined even just
a few years ago when the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was
announced, nanotechnology is entering the marketplace and indeed
changing our lives.
Today's nanotech industry might be compared to the computer
industry of the 1960s, before the integrated circuit, or the biotech
industry of the 1970s. A variety of nanomaterials including enhanced
polymers, coatings, and fillers, are already available, producing
revenues, and profits. America's store shelves have sunscreens, tennis
rackets, and cell phones with nanotechnology elements bettering them.
Carbon nanotube flatscreens, advanced military sensors and other
electronic products will be in the market within 18 months. And
advanced nanotech medical advances will be imminently impacting lives
as they proceed through human trials--targeted drug delivery and cancer
tagging procedures.
My own firm, JP Morgan Partners, believes that nanotechnology
advances will impact many of the sectors where we already invest,
including biotechnology, energy, communications and semiconductors.
Over the past few years, we have provided venture capital to five
nanotechnology companies in diverse market applications like textiles,
drug discovery, electronics and flat panel displays. Last quarter, JPMP
led a $30 million C round of funding in Optiva, which was one of the
largest nanotechnology funding rounds for all VC's in 2002. We are
continuing to diligently investigate private equity funding
opportunities in nanotechnology and feel it is a promising area for
commercial growth.
As production of nano-products becomes easier, faster and cheaper,
every market sector will begin to feel their impact. The NSF
conservatively predicts a $1 trillion global market for nanotechnology
in little over a decade.
In order to ensure these types of numbers; in order to ensure that
nanotechnology hits its potential; in order to ensure that the U.S.
remains the leader in nanoscience and nanobusiness; we must proceed
aggressively--learning from the lessons of the past--and create a
dialog with the public today so that everyone understands and prepares
for the transformative effects of nanotechnology in the future. This
starts with the passage of the Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act of 2003.
The Act is a visionary piece of legislation. It has the strong
support of the NanoBusiness Alliance and the Alliance member
organizations--some 250 start-ups, corporations, universities, economic
development groups and investment firms from across America. By all
accounts this is a vital and timely bill that builds on the fine work
of the NNI and will assist America's long-term scientific and economic
competitiveness in the nanotech field.
NanoScience to NanoBusiness
Nanotechnology is becoming nanobusiness faster than anyone
imagined. A big reason for this has been the ripple effect from the
NNI's groundbreaking work and how it has sparked the imagination of
researchers, entrepreneurs, executives, and people from across the
world. The foresight of Presidents Clinton and Bush, the efforts of
Mike Roco, Jim Murday, Phil Bond and others has been the trigger for a
new age of industry.
With a plethora of products in the market and more on the way, it
is no longer prudent to view nanotechnology as just a science. While
basic research efforts must be protected and enhanced as they are the
lynchpin of this new industrial revolution, our focus must be widened
to include commercialization and a global race in the field of
nanobusiness. We must look to find ways to take basic research and
advance it towards commercialization. We need funding solutions for
technical problems such as packaging and integration of nanotechnology.
Further, we need funding solutions to scaling problems such as process
reproducibility, product quality and product cost. We must find a way
to use nanotechnology to give taxpayers a return on their investment,
develop the economy and create good high paying jobs. The
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 lays the foundation
for this.
Corporations
Just five years ago only a few corporate visionaries--IBM, HP, TI
among them--were undertaking any research and development in the
nanosciences. Today you would find that most manufacturing companies of
the Fortune 500 have some nanotechnology effort--GM, GE, Siemens,
Intel, NEC, ChevronTexaco, Mitsubishi, Hitachi and Dow have launched
significant nanotech efforts--in R&D, investment and product
development.
Start-Ups
Unlike the Dot-com era, nanotech start ups are built on physical,
chemical and biological science. They have real technology. Real
assets. And more often than not, they are founded by researchers from
universities, government and corporate laboratories.
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 over one thousand are currently in operation or in
the incubation stage in the U.S., up from approximately one hundred
just three years ago. Although these start-ups are driven by
enthusiastic entrepreneurs and usually have valuable technology, most
of these small companies will fade away due to lack of expertise or
funding necessary to bring them to product commercialization.
Private Equity Funding
Over sixty U.S. venture capital firms, in addition to numerous
corporate venturing operations, have invested in nanotech-related
companies. Because the formal definition of nanotechnology is quite
malleable, it is difficult to measure the total private equity
investment level, but Venture One tracked almost $500 million in
nanotech funding to start-ups in 2002.
Many promising entrepreneurs and interesting technologies will not
be funded by private equity sources because they cannot bridge the gap
from the laboratory to the marketplace. Venture firms like JP Morgan
Partners must place funds in a manner that will bring competitive
returns to our limited partners. Usually, this means that a start-up
must make reasonable progress in process reproducibility, product
quality and product cost before a venture firm can reasonably invest.
Unfortunately, this is often where federal funding has been lacking.
The result is that many businesses that could drive the future
commercial growth for our country never get their ideas out of the
laboratory.
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. Localized development
efforts are already underway from Virginia to Texas to California.
In February alone, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and
Connecticut announced the formation of statewide nanotechnology
initiatives, initiatives that begin to bring together businesses,
universities, investors and government agencies. This has been the
fulfillment of much of the Johnny Appleseed-like efforts of the
NanoBusiness Alliance that started at its inception.
The Alliance launched a ``Nanotech Hubs Initiative'' last year to
jump start regional technology cluster development. It has been
overwhelmed with interest in starting these efforts. Though it has
launched efforts in six regions--as well as affiliates in the EU and
Canada--the Alliance has been inundated with calls from 38 states and
27 countries to help develop this capacity. These states and regions
are already looking to nanotechnology to ignite economic development.
Regions are looking to grasp the size of the market, its dynamics,
its best practices, how to improve tech transfer efforts and how to
leverage other nanotech initiatives. In some cases the Alliance has the
answer. In many it does not. This is a consequence of the nanotech
field's growth outpacing original projects.
Foreign Competition
Nanotechnology is emerging as a truly global technology. Unlike
many past 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. 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.''
In an editorial to the Jerusalem Post just last week titled
``NANOTECHNOLOGY HOLDS A KEY TO ISRAEL'S FUTURE,'' Shimon Peres made a
similar case. They are not alone. Funding has grown at unprecedented
rates across the globe over the last three years as nations try to
outpace the U.S.
Two weeks ago Japan held a nanotech event that demonstrated
products that were already in the market or were about to be introduced
to market. 25,000 attendees showed up over 3 days at the convention
center. Some 18 countries had booths at the show. What was particularly
telling was that all the country booths were sponsored by government
economic development groups except the U.S.--which was science and
academic backed. Also telling was that most commoditized technology
demonstrated at the show was derived from U.S. developed intellectual
property--only it was Japanese, German and Korean companies that were
commercializing these technologies and advancing them beyond basic
research.
China spends about $300-400 million on nanotechnology a year--yet
in adjusted value that is a huge amount. The European NanoBusiness
Association has made the claim that nanotech is ``the EU's to lose''
and says that they outspend the United States 2 to 1. Japan's numbers
are almost directly in line with our NNI and from a per capita level
the Swiss and even the Australians are spending more than the U.S.
So while the proposed increases to the NNI are indeed solid and
significant--especially in these turbulent economic times, we must
remain aware of the fact that other nations are challenging us and are
willing to match and in some cases exceed us in spending and effort. It
is important that we focus on this and spend money wisely and create a
solid partnership between government, industry and the U.S. university
system to ensure that effort and performance are maximized so that we
can indeed win this next industrial revolution.
Summary of Challenges in the NanoBusiness World
Many nanotech companies have emerged from the basic research cycle
and are addressing commercialization issues such as packaging,
integration and scaling. Except for the ATP program, no government
programs properly address this vital timeframe in the cycle of research
and business. This time period is one that competing nations in Asia
and the EU are particularly attuned to addressing and are providing a
life line to many U.S. start-ups, which sends growth and profits
abroad.
Another area of concern for nanotech start ups is the current state
of U.S. intellectual property. The Patent Office is in desperate need
of training programs to ensure its examiners understand nanotechnology
and its multi-disciplinary nature.
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 very difficult. Bayh-Dole is a well
written piece of legislation, but its implementation at America's
universities is stalling the transfer process.
And 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.
Also, education, as well as workforce training and development are
beginning to become issues among the nanotech community. In order to be
the industry of tomorrow nanotechnology companies need the workforce of
tomorrow--well trained researchers and staff.
Lastly, while the futuristic nanotechnology scenario described by
Michael Crichton is thankfully science fiction, real researchers in the
lab still have many questions on nanotechnology's health, environmental
and societal effects. These concerns are leading to hesitation. They
have also left room for activists with bad intent to fill the
information void with fear. Nanotechnology is too important to the
future of the American people to let this happen. We need more
information and a coordinated effort to educate and dialog with the
public on nanotechnology and its potential.
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 NNI. However, we are now at a cross
roads where we must expand its reach 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 Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 is so
important.
1. We see the Act's ability to strengthen the structure of the
NNI as being vitally important--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. We especially support the Act's call
for the development of some sort of outside advisory board--
though we feel this group must include not just researchers,
but business people, local government officials, economic
development experts and ethicists.
3. To ensure America's long-term leadership in nanoscience and
nanobusiness, we also strongly support the Act's call for
further examination and tracking of international funding,
development and competition.
4. We strongly support the Act's efforts to further address
the social and environmental impacts of the science, but we
would caution that this effort be focused on real science, not
well read science fiction.
5. And, we back the Act's efforts to encourage nanoscience
through additional grants, and the establishment of
interdisciplinary nanotechnology research centers. 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 developing programs--and expanding existing
programs--for commercializing nanotechnology development.
1. Develop real numbers and benchmarks for the size and
projected growth of the nanotechnology field and its economic
effects.
2. Create programs to develop the nanotechnology workforce of
tomorrow from Ph.D. level through K-12. We must find ways to
incentivize American children to pursue the sciences in
general--but especially nanoscience.
3. Ensure that the USPTO is properly educated and equipped to
evaluate and approve nanotechnology patents. And make sure that
there is global patent fairness. We cannot allow other nations
to use patent approval as a weapon to slow down and steal our
basic research.
4. Develop programs that promote and nurture regional
nanotechnology cluster development.
5. Develop programs to improve the state of tech transfer at
government labs and academic institutions which will improve
the commercialization of emerging technologies.
6. Involve the U.S. public more in the dialog educating them
and listening to their views on this paradigm shifting
technology.
Again, I would like to thank the Chairman, Congressman Hall and the
Committee for this opportunity to address them.
Discussion
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Let me ask our non-
government witnesses--well, let me ask all of you, where are we
vis-a-vis the competition? Are we playing catch-up? Are we
ahead, but being challenged as never before? How would you
assess where we are, and what are other governments doing to
support nanotechnology R&D? Dr. Theis?
Dr. Theis. Well, certainly, we see other governments
willing to fund this kind of research and development at a
level that is comparable to the U.S. National Nanotechnology
Initiative. I do personally believe that the United States has
a bit of a secret weapon in our venture capital community and
our entrepreneurial spirit that we are willing to focus and--in
a way, and take chances and accelerate certain science, the
development of that science into products. And that is a system
that should be encouraged. And it is a system that can't
function without government funding of basic research, which--
--
Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Roberto, yeah, what do you--how do
you see things?
Dr. Roberto. I think we are in a very tough fight. I think
that we have an edge right now, but I think the kind of
investments that we are talking about in H.R. 766 and the kind
of priority you are addressing this with is essential to
staying ahead.
Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Batt.
Dr. Batt. I think you have to define, you know, which
particular field we are looking at. I think if you are talking
about sort of the grinded out kind of miniaturization sort of
stuff, yeah, I would say that we are not necessarily as
competitive as we should be. I would argue in our particular
field, nanobiotechnology, where we are trying to marriage two
distinct fields, we are way ahead of the game. We seem to have,
in the United States, this ability to sort of collaborate
across disciplines that is really kind of unique and almost
indifferent to the university structure.
Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Marty, talking about venture
capital.
Mr. Marty. Well, let me talk about governments first, just
a couple numbers, and these numbers have a big error band on
them, because they are--none of the governments do a
particularly good job at defining exactly what is
nanotechnology and what it isn't. But Japan, in '03, is looking
to spend a billion dollars of government money in
nanotechnology. The European Union, greater than one billion in
'03. South Korea, 145 million in '02. And a lot of this is
focused not on basic research, but on the commercialization
process. So I think most people would feel comfortable that the
U.S. has a good lead, maybe not as strong a lead as we have had
in past scientific endeavors, but I think we have got a good
lead in basic science.
I think the challenge for us is can we commercialize this
so that we can get the economic benefit, the jobs benefit out
of this nanotechnology revolution.
Chairman Boehlert. So you are comforted by the
Administration's Initiative and the response from the Congress
on a bipartisan basis?
Mr. Marty. I am absolutely comforted by it, and I think it
is very fundamental.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. Mr. Russell, do you want to
respond to that?
Mr. Russell. Yeah, I think the summary is a good one. I
think that this is clearly an area that there is a tremendous
interest across the globe in terms of research. I think we
still are in the leadership position, and I also think that it
is an area that we are going to continue to have to fund
aggressively.
Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Marty, what about the
commercialization part of the equation, ATP [Advanced
Technology Program], for example?
Mr. Marty. Well, ATP has been, you know, challenged here in
Washington, DC by many folks. I do think that ATP has a unique
role to play in commercialization. I mean, there are a lot of
start-ups, and that is where I spend my life, the world of
start-ups, who have a basic technology that they have been able
to prove once or maybe a dozen times in the laboratory. But
unfortunately, I have--you know, as I look at hundreds of
deals, I am not able to invest in any of those start-ups. And
that is generally true for all venture capital players, because
there is no--we have no intuition that they will have an
ability to produce that product at any sort of volume, at any
sort of an appropriate cost structure.
And the ATP, actually, is one of the unique funding
mechanisms that allows those kinds of start-ups to get funding
that can move them a little bit further down the path. And by
showing some reasonable progress, all of a sudden, the venture
funds become available to these companies. But without showing
some reasonable progress in that area, they, frankly, die and
go away.
Chairman Boehlert. Well, that is the very purpose of ATP,
as I see it. We don't need another agency to provide money for
what the private sector is willing to provide money for.
Mr. Marty. That is right.
Chairman Boehlert. We have got to be the investors. Dr.
Batt, I--you ought to take your show on the road, because you
can excite a lot of people, and you bring it down to everyday
real terms that people can understand. And I will tell you one
way to get a lot of people excited about this is not so much
through the technology, but the opportunities it presents for
America outside of our urban centers to develop new industries,
new job opportunities. That is a wonderful presentation you
have.
Dr. Batt. Well, thank you. I mean, one of the things that
we look at, and I started about five years ago a small company
in Ithaca basically to sort of bridge the academic sort of
commercial gap that I saw there. And I think it is very
important for us to sort of recognize the fact that this--these
sorts of industries will not be the giant chip manufacturers.
These are going to be small industries, and as you are well
aware in upstate New York, we would like to see a little bit
more of these sort of high-tech jobs come back there and be
able to sort of rejuvenate that area.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Cornell is leading
the way in that regard. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marty is--the Advanced
Technology Program has been controversial since its inception,
has it not?
Mr. Marty. It has.
Mr. Hall. And is not----
Mr. Marty. Not in the industry. I think it has been
controversial, you know, in Washington. I think in industry, it
has been----
Mr. Hall. I think----
Mr. Marty [continuing]. Appreciated.
Mr. Hall [continuing]. It is heading into doing away with
it.
Mr. Marty. Right.
Mr. Hall. And I think you probably have a problem with
that. And I might ask Mr. Russell, though, in all fairness,
what emphasis should the National Nanotechnology Initiative
base on the transition of research results to commercial
developments and to bridge the gap between basic research and
commercialization? What is your position? Or do you have a
position opposite to what Mr. Marty has?
Mr. Russell. Well, two separate issues I think here. One is
in terms of sort of the emphasis of NNI currently and over
time. Clearly, one of the things that has been emphasized by
NNI is basic research. And I suspect that that will continue
into the future. That being said, if you look at some of the
specific programs that are--that fall under NNI, including the
centers, for example, that DOE is structuring, there clearly is
a specific outreach effort to the commercial sector through
user facilities again, for example, at both DOE and NSF. NSF
has actually started those centers up.
In addition, I think when you start talking about
technology transfer, that is a major issue and consideration
not just for nanotechnology, but I think across the entire
federal research effort. It is something that we are taking
very seriously and something we are working hard on. An
example, the PCAST, which is now beginning to review NNI, has
just released an interim report on how we can improve our
mechanisms for technology transfer. They are going to continue
to do that review. They are sort of uniquely qualified to look
at that issue, in part because they are made up of both
university presidents and heads of major companies.
And so I think the issue of how we transfer technology is
an important one. It is embedded in the NNI program. There are
parts of the NNI program that are specifically oriented toward
interfacing with not just academia, but also industry. But I
also think that the primary focus, at least currently for NNI,
is going to be basic research.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Marty, your company thinks nanotechnology
advances are going to impact a lot of the sectors where we
already invest--and that seems to be something that you could
really--including biotechnology, energy, communications, and
semiconductors, in your opening speech.
Mr. Marty. Right.
Mr. Hall. What is your position on Mr. Russell's--I mean, I
think you to be wonderful, and you all are--all of you
obviously have two brains. And you can get around any questions
that we ask, but it would be wonderful in this, which is a
wonderful thrust, one of the greatest. And I really recognize
the Chairman and the other Members who introduced this
legislation. It is really one of the finest, the most pure. It
makes you feel clean when you are a part of it, this thrust.
How can you two continue to work together, because we want to
be successful in this? We want to be first. We don't want to be
third.
Mr. Marty. Well, first of all, I do feel strongly that, as
I said in my remarks, that nanotechnology will impact some of
the most basic industries in our country. And so the ability to
move forward with not only basic research, but also
commercialize it, is going to impact the semiconductor
industry. You know, it is a $136 billion industry. It is
growing at 10 percent. It will not continue in at the pace it
has been continuing if we do not have the advances in
nanotechnology. It is just fundamental.
The same is going to be true for the flat panel display
industry, an industry that the United States would like to take
a larger share of. It is a $25 billion industry. We have got
some very interesting basic research and basic intellectual
property that has been established here in the United States.
If we are not able to find a way to commercialize that and
bridge the gap to commercialization, then my expectation is
that that $25 billion industry, which is currently growing at
28 percent, will continue to be dominated by countries outside
of the United States.
So for me, the challenge for us is to take what we have as
fundamentally strong and compelling intellectual property in
the nanotechnology area and find a way to move that into, you
know, the industrial complex that we have within the United
States to create jobs and opportunity.
Mr. Hall. My time is up, and I thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Smith of Michigan [presiding]. Well, with the
prerogative of the Chair, I hope when we are talking about
``commercialization,'' we are talking about commercialization
in the United States. And when we are talking about ``taking
the lead,'' we are talking about taking the lead in adding to
not only health and our capacity to improve research, but also
the United States' economy. And with that, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. I note that the
legislation is suggesting about a 10 percent increase in our
spending level for this research. And of course, the panel has
unanimously forced this increase in spending levels,
considering that this is the technology of the future,
etcetera. Maybe you could tell us where we should decrease the
spending of research in order--what is the technology of the
past that we need to defund in order to come up with this
money?
Mr. Russell. Well, first let me be clear about my
statement. And I think in my written testimony it is clear. I
have been--I discussed the President's '04 budget, which
included a 10 percent increase. I think in that budget you will
find that we did, indeed, weigh pros and cons and, as current
discussion that you have heard indicates, there are some
programs that did not receive as much funding as other
programs. We think nanotechnology is one that----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You are being nebulous about that. You
might mention a few.
Mr. Russell. For example, the--a program that we were just
discussing, the ATP program, did not receive significant
amounts of funding in the President's budget, and again, NNI
and other priority basic research programs did receive
substantial increases. And I think that priority setting is
crucial in any budget exercise. And so we believe that
nanotechnology research is a priority. It is one of the few
priorities that we specifically outlined to the heads of all of
the various research agencies when the Director of OMB, Mitch
Daniels, and the head of OSTP, Dr. Marburger, sent out their
memo last summer indicating what the priorities are. So----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Anybody else want to take a shot at
knocking somebody else off his horse in order to get onto the
horse? I would have to say that in my 14 years in Congress, I
have always been able to find people who have something to
advocate spending more money on, but I have never been able to
find even those people willing to advocate spending less money
on something else. And until the scientific community gets its
act together and is able to do that, it is not going to be
taken as seriously as they would be. People who come up here to
testify should be able to very easily say, ``This research is
no longer as worthwhile. This research is, and that is why we
are advocating we spend it there.''
About some of the other things that we have heard today, is
this--are we going to be able to write an encyclopedia on the
head of a pin? Is that--are we going to be able to--with--take
information something on the size of the head of a pin and
retrieve it?
Dr. Theis. I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact,
the problem, of course, is not writing it, it is retrieving it.
But I think----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Theis [continuing]. That the exploratory research in
laboratories around the world certainly indicates that that
will happen, that and quite a bit more.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. But that hasn't happened yet, right?
We haven't----
Dr. Theis. Not--certainly not as a practical product.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. So this trillion dollars a
year, and I think as Mr. Marty has suggested, a trillion
dollars, within 10 years, we are going to have a billion-
dollar--this is going to be a trillion-dollar business?
Dr. Theis. Well, you know, I would like to continue with
that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
Dr. Theis. We--Mr. Russell and I did try and make the point
that this is about new materials. I don't know the exact
science of the material sector of the economy, but it is
certainly hundreds of billions of dollars. And there are--there
will be very few new materials developed and brought into the
marketplace in the future that are not nanostructured
materials. In other words, all new materials in the future, all
improved materials will be nanostructured materials. So that is
an enormous sector of the economy by itself. To get to the
trillion dollars, I think you also have to include the--you
know, the information technology hardware, which I alluded to,
which is already a nanotechnology. It is not a mature
nanotechnology, but it is already a nanotechnology. So those
are realistic kinds of numbers.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Are we going to have clothing that you
don't have to wash as much because it won't get as dirty?
Dr. Theis. Well, that is a--that sounds trivial, and I
may----
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, it is not trivial.
Dr. Theis. I don't know. But you know, there are--those
things are happening right now. There are nanoparticles being
incorporated into fibers for clothing for exactly those
applications. There are nanoparticles in paints, in cosmetics,
in all sorts of mundane, everyday things, but this--I--you
know, those are obviously not the spectacular applications of
material science, and they are not the spectacular
application----
Mr. Rohrabacher. But you do remember the man in the white
suit?
Dr. Theis. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. For those who don't--haven't seen that
film, I would recommend it. It is kind of an interesting film.
But thank you very much. Your remarks have been enlightening.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. And the new man in the white suit,
the suit stays white. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. For the last 21 years I have been
married, my dirty clothes simply appear clean and folded in my
chest of drawers, and up here in Washington, I find the only
way they become clean is if I go down to the coin-operated
laundry in my building. So having clothes that stay cleaner is
very attractive to me. It is not trivial at all.
I did want to follow up on the questions that Mr. Hall
asked earlier. Mr. Marty, Senator Allen testified earlier that
we were well behind in nanotechnology, behind other
industrialized countries, or even some that were not so
industrialized. He had listed Japan, Korea, the European Union,
China, I don't think he mentioned Israel, but I have read or
heard elsewhere that Israel is also probably ahead of us in
nanotechnology. Do you agree that we are behind them in
nanotechnology?
Mr. Marty. It is very hard to measure.
Mr. Miller. Um-hum.
Mr. Marty. And so as you read in literature, and as I talk
to people, I get a variety of different opinions. My own
opinion is that we are being outspent by Japan. We are being
outspent by the European Union right now. And on a per capita
basis, we are being outspent by a lot of people: Singapore,
Korea, etcetera.
But I also believe that we fundamentally have some
structures in the United States that give us some advantage and
that make it--make this a very attractive place for not only
developing technology with our university labs and our
universities, but also commercializing technology. So I think
the future is yet to be written. To me, an important thing to
realize is that we are not as far ahead as we have been in past
scientific endeavors. And so I think it is a closer race. And
if we don't keep our minds focused on some of the issues of
commercialization, we may find it is a race that we are yet to
lose.
Mr. Miller. When you say those other nations are
outspending us, are you--are they outspending us in basic
research or in commercialization efforts?
Mr. Marty. You know, I wish I could give you a good answer.
I think--I have not been able to find literature that is
compelling to answer that question. I think it is very fuzzy.
And to the extent that somebody within the Federal Government,
as envisioned in this bill, could give us better visibility as
to who is spending real money on what, I think that would
actually be significant value added.
Mr. Miller. In--Mr. Marty, in both your written testimony,
I think you also mentioned in your oral testimony, that JP
Morgan Partners have invested in five nanotechnology companies
in textiles, drug discoveries, electronics, flat panel. How
much have you invested and what do you--is your expected rate
of return on that over the next five or 10 years?
Mr. Marty. Well, the first four that we invested in were
small investments. We were still trying to understand what
nanotechnology was. We did make, as I mentioned in my notes, we
did lead a $30 million round just last November in a company
called Optiva. So given that we are an $8 billion fund, our
investments in nanotechnology to date are, you know, less than
$40 million. So it is a pretty over the last, you know, four
years or so. So it is actually a pretty small amount of our
investment. And I think this makes a very important point,
which is that we invest not because it is nanotechnology and
not because it is the future of, you know, economic development
for the country. We invest for return. And generally what we
find, if we take nanotechnology investments and we compare them
against investments in, you know, movie theaters or
pharmaceutical companies or, you know, oil drilling or
something like that, and we look at all of those different
possibilities, the nanotechnology often is too risky. It is not
sufficiently commercialized yet for us to be able to make a
good, wise investment.
And so that is okay. That is what venture capital is about,
but I think it points to the issue of making sure that we can,
in fact, engage the venture capital community in
commercializing this technology. And that means we need to
bring it along a little bit more.
Mr. Miller. Had the ATP program, the Advanced Technology
Program, in any way, helped take those products from basic
research to commercialization? Had they done anything in
packaging, integration, scaling to prepare those--make the
transition?
Mr. Marty. There are certainly good examples where ATP has
been helpful. I am sure there are also examples where ATP has
been ineffective. And so I am not trying to say exactly how the
legislation ought to be written. But I am advocating, having
spent a lot of time in other countries in the commercial world,
I do believe that the United States needs to continue to look
for ways that we can help small companies to make progress
toward commercialization, because otherwise, those companies
will seek funding outside of the United States.
Dr. Batt. If I may chime in for a second, just sort of
looking at the academic section of the investment there, I
think we are still the envy of the world. I think the
investments that are made by, for example, the National Science
Foundation to academic science, are--there are countries
looking to model what we are doing here. I think where the gap
exists is simply taking that basic research, taking that
knowledge and then sort of converting that into something that
is commercializable. And that is where you see a significant
investment in countries like Japan and Korea and in the EU.
But I think as far as the bringing together of academic
scientists to sort of cross disciplines, I know that our
particular center has been approached many, many times to sort
of ask us a question: ``How do we do that?'' And I still think
that the creativity in the academic sector is still there. It
is still a very powerful resource and worthy of investment.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. As Chairman of the Research
Subcommittee, we have held hearings on nanotechnology. And of
course, outside of medical, NSF is the largest basic research
effort in nano, as you know, Mr. Batt. And at $221 million,
we--NSF represents about 30 percent of the total NNI budget.
But in NSF, with our basic research and our requirements for
publication, and I am moving back into commercialization again,
I mean, we might lead the world in terms of our basic research,
but I guess a couple concerns, one is making sure that the
American taxpayers paying for that effort get some of the
rewards. And so the technology transfer in this area that
allows the economy in the United States to benefit has got to
be one effort.
And the other thing that I have been--that seems to be
apparent is other countries are coming to Cornell and looking
at our basic research and trying to utilize that basic
research, add to theirs that isn't always as available as ours,
to win the war in commercialization. So maybe start with you,
Dr. Batt, in your general comments, since you are the only one,
I guess, here that is conducting the--some of the NSF money in
the area.
Dr. Batt. Yeah, I mean, it is a great concern, because you
know, we try to be as global as we can in terms of one where
our students come from, and also trying to then, as I do to
sort of maximize the pool of students of U.S. citizens that
come into our educational system. And we try to sort of
encourage those sort of linkages with the private sector. The
problem in academia is largely that when we continue to operate
in sort of isolation, we build this widget, and then we go out
and try to sell it. And then we realize that that linkage
should have been made well before we really formulated all of
our research plans. And that is--a lot of what we try to do is
just sort of bring the private sector, not serving their needs
exclusively, but understanding what their needs are all about,
so that the transfer of that technology into the private sector
is a relatively smooth transition. We still have a lot to
learn. You know, academia sort of built this educational
institution. And it is probably only within the last, you know,
30 or 40 years we began to realize that it is, as you well
articulate, that we can't simply operate in a vacuum, that our
resources come from the taxpayers of the United States. And we
need to sort of give back to them something that is really
tangible, not a publication in Science.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. All right. Let us take it from there
with Mr. Theis and let Mr. Marty maybe in turn. So you know,
this is a Science Committee, but as Mr. Rohrabacher points out,
other countries can--are allowed to consider their investments
in the new machinery, the new investments--and depreciate it on
their tax bill the year that they purchase it. We have to let
the inflation sort of eat up some of our investment. So it
seems to me like not only do we need NNI for the research, we
need some of an effort within Congress to look at the different
aspects to help make sure that we commercialize it and take
advantage of it here. And I am talking about the depreciation
schedule that tends to--inflation eats up the value of that
depreciation. But in terms of the commercialization, Mr. Theis,
then you, Mr. Marty.
Dr. Theis. Well, I can't comment on what changes in the tax
laws or the accounting principles would help that effort. But I
distinguished between companies like IBM that are large and
established and are defending established markets and need to
incorporate a continuing stream of incremental improvements and
advances in the established technologies. And I think large
companies, established companies in the United States, at least
in information technology, are doing a good job of that. And we
will go to the national labs, and we will go to the
universities. And we develop the university relationships.
Different companies do it differently, but we all have strong
mechanisms in place to make sure that we are looking at what is
going on and collaborating and moving this stuff out of----
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Is there any way that you can think
of that we can encourage the private sector to be part of that
basic research investment? Any way we can have a win-win? Mr.
Marty, you go ahead.
Dr. Batt. I don't have a specific recommendation.
Mr. Marty. I have one specific one, which I would envision
that the whole panel here would be supportive of. I mean, the
U.S. Patent Office is challenged right now in the
nanotechnology area just because nano--I mean, we are all
challenged in the nanotechnology area. So that is not a
reflection particularly on the Office, but nanotechnology is
moving very quickly. It is very broad, and it is very
interdisciplinary, which means it is challenging to get your
hands around the science as well as what the commercial
ramifications are. To the extent that we are able to have
faster patent movement, more clear patent movement, that allows
the private sector to have something to invest in even before
the commercial product is, you know, within two years. And so I
would say one of the things that we could make sure that we
follow-up on as a National Nanotechnology Initiative, is to
assure that our patent office is the very best in the world
when it comes to handling patents in the nanotechnology----
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Give me Mr. Russell and Mr. Roberto
just very quickly. Do we--is there some kind of an effort that
should satisfy us that we are looking at the research that
countries like Japan and Germany or whoever that are leading or
challenging us in this area, do we know the kind of research
results that they have achieved? Or is that difficult with the
organizations?
Mr. Russell. Two quick things. One, first getting back to
your first question. There actually is one thing in the tax
code that I think would be helpful, which is making the tax
credit permanent, something the Administration supports and
something that I know a lot of the Members of this committee--
--
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Yeah, but you know, you can play so
many games with it that it is tough. But I would like to
encourage more basic research credit, actually. But go ahead.
Mr. Russell. Yes. The second thing is, on the patent issue,
that is also an important issue. And actually, the Patent and
Trademark Office has put forward a plan that is intended to
reformulate how it does business and hopefully will speed the
process. And that really is something that hopefully will be
helpful.
In terms of looking at what is happening overseas, one of
the big complicating features there is even just the definition
of nano. And I think you will find this with all of the numbers
that you see. Nano can be defined as everything, because
everything, obviously, is built on atoms. And so yes, it is
followed. We do look at it. There are some good studies, but a
lot of the numbers aren't apples to apples. And you have to
keep that in mind.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Just a comment, Mr. Roberto.
Dr. Roberto. Through the scientific community, we have a
very good interaction internationally, and I think we have a
good idea of what is going out there in basic science--going on
out there in basic science.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Do you have a good idea of what is
going on in military research complex?
Dr. Roberto. It would depend on whether that was classified
or not, and probably not.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Probably not. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really do
appreciate the testimony of our experts up here. A couple of
words that I have heard that sort of takes off some thinking is
I believe Dr. Batt had something about vacuum. And I think that
nature hates a vacuum, so it is going to be filled by
something. And so I really appreciated your approach and
instruct that you focus on what nanoscale technology is all
about. And we talk about youngsters. And I think that that is
where we have to really start mainly because in the past when
we talk about technology, we have always--the big battle was
about H1B Visas. If we do it right now and do it correctly now,
we can grow our own. But I don't think that we have to be
concerned about foreign competition or people coming from other
countries. Because they add a flavor and insight that we don't
have in this country that we found that, at least in Silicon
Valley, that the great amount of technology came from folks who
came overseas and stayed and created jobs. So I am not fearful
of that, either.
What I am concerned about is we talked about having people
at the table, presidents of universities and things like that.
My question to the group is who is not at the table now that
should be, because what I want to be able to do is anticipate
unintended consequences? The only way you are going to do that
is have folks like yourselves from different backgrounds ask
the question, ``What if?'' And I think the new one that came up
for me today that I haven't thought about were problems that
could be barriers in terms of the patent office. And you know,
how do we make that efficient? How do we make it fair so that
there is access to some sort of economic benefit to the
research and the creativity we have both in the private sector
and the university?
And I guess my other question would be, we need to find
ways to make new ideas more public so that those folks who are
not in that circle can also think why not this, so that we can
expand this whole mindset even further? And you are right, I
believe nanoscale is ubiquitous, and there isn't anywhere that
it wouldn't be applicable. So I am very curious of--to hear the
reaction of the panel.
Mr. Marty. I really appreciate your comments, Congressman
Honda. I do think that the engine of nanotechnology is the
scientific community. There is no doubt about it. But in order
to actually move the whole train forward, and in particular
with respect to this bill, when we talk about, you know, who is
going to be the outside advisory board that is going to talk
about nanotechnology. As I suggested in my comments, I really
think we need heavy research, no doubt about that. But we also
need some business people, some local government officials,
because a lot of this can be handled, you know, with regional
sorts of initiatives, economic development experts and
ethicists, I think, having that whole community. When you ask
who are the people at the table, I think these are the kinds of
people you should consider having at the table in order to
round out nanotechnology.
Dr. Batt. Back about two years ago with support from the
state of New York, we established what we call the Alliance for
Nanomedical Technologies. And when I set up my advisory panel,
I did just that. We brought in, you know, representatives from
the private sector at the beginning, so that we, again, were
not this sort of pure academic institution that was going to
sort of develop these things and then go out and shop them.
What we found was that there were significant issues, but they
could be addressed in terms of intellectual property, in terms
of who owned the technology, what did the people who came to
the table first get as an advantage. And what they got as an
advantage was a first look at the technology that was coming
out of this research effort.
We didn't really bring in the--sort of the societal ethical
issues, because I think what is not at the table right now and
what is missing in a lot of this is really just the general
public. I mean, the general public has no idea. We are
developing exhibits for the science center in Ithaca. We ask
kids, like, ``What is nano?'' And they have no idea. It is
probably not until maybe high school where people understand
what that scale is. And yet when you look at the general
public, they are terrified of things they can't see. You know,
you sort--you know, you see it in terms of bacteria and
biowarfare agents. And now nanotechnology is even worse,
because it is something that a bunch of guys in spooky suits
are making some place in the deserts in New Mexico. It is not
happening, but those are the kind of things that you get.
And that is why I think what we are trying to do in terms
of going out to the general public and just simply talking to
them, which is very hard for academics to do. I mean, we are
terrified talking to normal people. But it is something that we
have to do. We have to show them that we are kind of like
normal people. We just, you know, sort of sit in a lab all day,
but more or less, we are kind of just like the rest of them.
Mr. Honda. I--thank you for that response, but I think that
you are correct. And that is why I think the advisory group is
important so that we start addressing some of these questions
that--and the best example I can think of is stem cell
research, where all kinds of things come up in people's minds
where it bridges or sometimes becomes a barrier, you know, in
our beliefs and our value systems. And if we do it right at the
beginning, we can avoid a lot of that fear and really start
working with youngsters. Because when you go from the vacuum
tube and the size of computers back in the 50's, when I was
going to high school, to today, you would have never convinced
anybody that that was possible. And yet, we are past the Dick
Tracy era now. And I think that it can be wild and fun, but I
don't want it to be scary for folks. And we can really control
this kind of----
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. The gentleman's
time has expired. Mrs. Biggert.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, Mr.
Marty, you mentioned in your testimony that at the group of the
various countries that were together with their products, so to
speak, that so many of what they had presented was based on our
intellectual property. Did you mean that we had given that to
them or was this something that had become available by other
means?
Mr. Marty. No, I only reflected that a lot of this basic
research had been initiated here. I was not meaning to reflect
anything illegal. It is just within the world of basic science,
if things aren't patented, I mean, information flows pretty
broadly. So----
Mrs. Biggert. I just wanted to clarify that that it is--
having been in China recently and seen a lot of our goods over
there that were questionable. My question then for the panel is
how will the flat--or what I might call inadequate or disparate
funding levels for research in the physical sciences
adversely--will this adversely affect our ability to realize
the promise of nanotechnology? Whoever would like to answer
this----
Mr. Marty. Well, it certainly has an effect. I would say
that one of the good things about the NNI is that it has
resulted in some increases in funding for the physical
sciences. And it has resulted in a significant shift of
resources from areas that are a little less exciting and less
interesting to this area, which is very exciting and
interesting. So it has had a desirable effect.
Of course, the history, as I believe you know, is that
funding in the physical sciences has been flat as a fraction
of--or actually trending downward for a very--as a fraction of
total funding for quite a long time. And it is certainly not
something we want to continue, because if you look at all of
the basic science that supports, you know, silicon
microelectronics, our existing information technology, that
basic science was done in the 1930's and the 1940's. And so
there is this long lead time between doing the basic research
and getting the tremendous economic benefits that we know flow
from basic research. So we need to make the investments now for
the next 20 years.
Mrs. Biggert. Well, what we have seen is with NIH. We have
doubled the funding in five years for that with NSF. The same
as that we are proceeding to do that, so that it seems to me
that we are, you know, losing parity with the physical sciences
to keep up with those other two.
Mr. Marty. Well, I could amplify that by saying that there
is a tremendous role for the physical sciences to play in
health science and in life sciences. And that is all the
instrumentation and all of the mechanisms by which the studies
of biology, the human body, and so forth are done and by--and
the instruments, which support medicine. And that does come
from the physical sciences. So we don't want to get this--and
in fact, NIH has now, because they have a good funding
situation, they have directed some of that funding in the
direction of instrumentation, and some of it is in the
direction of nanotechnology. So some of that funding is going
into the overall thrust.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell. Yeah. No, on those two points, I think that
they are being made well. Two things. One is with respect to
NNI, one of the strengths of the program is that it is an
interagency program that captures not just the leading physical
science funders, such as NSF, but also NIH, also DOD. As a
matter of fact, one of the recommendations of the NRC report is
to actually have NIH even participate more in the program. And
that is something that we are very supportive of. And so I
think it is a great model of how we can take a basic science
and rope in all of the relevant agencies, because as was
pointed out, NIH relies on the physical sciences. And actually,
it also funds the physical sciences, if you look over time. I
think the last time I looked at it, about a billion dollars of
NIH's money was going to chemistry and physics-related
research. But I think clearly that NNI is a great example, and
I think that is one of the reasons why it not only has so much
support, it is also receiving substantial increases in budget.
Mrs. Biggert. And we are talking about so much--well,
really for nanotechnology to flourish, we are going to need new
skills in this field and in engineering. And are we going to
have the next generation of scientists and engineers to be
educated and trained in this field? Probably Dr. Batt or Dr.
Theis.
Dr. Theis. Well, let me just say that it is my hope. I
mean, you know, science, as a profession, is not looked at very
favorably by the vast majority of young people. They don't
understand what we do. They don't understand what the benefits
are. They can turn on cable TV and see basketball players and
all of these rock stars and all of this other stuff. I am not
advocating a cable channel devoted to science, because I don't
think that is appropriate. But I think we have to sort of have
these kids understand that there are exciting opportunities
there and hopefully give them that sort of peek of what it is
all about in a very sort of fun way.
Everything we do is fun. That is what we try to go out
there and convince these kids that it is kind of fun. And yes,
there is some hard work behind that, but it is not just hard
work, that there are really some interesting things.
To go back to what you were talking about as far as, you
know, the sort of physical sciences, one of the things that we
discovered that--in developing the center is that the really
intriguing questions in science are in biology. And yet the
really intriguing tools to answer those probably lie in the
physical sciences. And it is only in--probably in the last
couple of years that the physical sciences have developed
enough instrumentation to really probe these very complex
biological questions. And how you sort of bring those groups
together is a very interesting problem.
Chairman Boehlert. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
Bell.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to
thank all of you for your presentations here today. I would
agree with those who believe that nanotechnology is the present
as well as the future, and it is extraordinarily important in
my district. Dr. Batt, you probably know that we have an NSF-
funded nanotechnology center in my district, Rice University,
that is working very hard, so I certainly realize the
invaluable work that folks, such as yourselves, are doing. And
I also appreciate Dr. Russell including in his statement the
cutting edge work of Dr. Richard Smalley, who I have had a
chance to visit with here recently. And for those of you who
don't know, Dr. Smalley is the Rice Nobel Laureate, who, for
those with a less scientific background, is also known as ``the
Buckey Ball guy.''
And I--we have--Dr. Batt, you pointed out what--in your
presentation, what nanotechnology is not, but I guess what is
also sort of fascinating about it that it is so many things.
And whether medicine, engineering, computing, it can have a
huge impact on all of those areas, but one area we really
haven't touched on very much here today is energy. And you
know, when Dr. Smalley gives talks about this subject, he talks
about how nanotechnology could really change the world in which
we live when it comes to energy. And I am curious as to whether
you all think this legislation takes into account the
importance of nanotechnology's energy applications. And Dr.
Batt, I will just start with you.
Dr. Batt. Well, first of all, I am well aware of the
program at Rice. They do a lot of things very, very well. And
Smalley there, is a pioneer. There is absolutely no doubt. And
I am really surprised how small Rice really is as a university.
It is really not large, and yet they have made a very large
impact in a very small field.
As far as energy is concerned, we look at energy in two
forms. One is that there are a lot of interest in how do you
power these devices. You know, we can sort of look at these and
design these very small-scale things that move, and yet when it
comes to them powering these things, it is an intangible
problem. A colleague of mine, Amit Lal at Cornell University,
is developing very, very small batteries that take advantage of
the properties of radioactive material. And these are very low-
level energy radioactive materials, and he is actually
developing batteries that are on the size scale of the types of
devices that we are trying to develop.
The only area that is really intriguing is biological
energy. Obviously, we are full of billions of cells that all
fuel themselves and all have energy, and yet we don't walk
around with 50-pound batteries on our backs that, integrated
into biological systems, is really not only a system to sort of
utilize energy, but also to generate them. And yet we
understand a little bit about that, but again, we don't
understand it as a fundamental basis. And we don't understand
how we then take that fundamental knowledge in biology and
really convert that into something which we can practically
harness in terms of developing these sort of nanoscopic
materials.
Dr. Roberto. I would like to add that looking more broadly
at energy, there are tremendous impacts of nanoscience that--
you can think of fuel cell materials. You can think of
catalysis for the hydrogen economy or for other applications.
That is a $30 billion or more industry. You can talk about
advances in using photosynthesis. You can talk about high-
temperature materials, and there are a number of applications
where you can improve the properties of materials and make them
perform better at the high temperatures that you need to get
energy efficiency, also lightweight materials for vehicles. And
so there are tremendous opportunities that we see in energy and
energy independence that can come from nanoscience.
Mr. Bell. Does anyone else have any thoughts on how the
legislation addresses the energy application? Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell. Yeah, I was going to say I had the pleasure,
actually, of participating with Dr. Smalley on a panel that
briefed PCAST before it took on the assignment of looking at
nanotechnology and the NNI program. And actually, PCAST has set
up one of the three areas it is going to look at. It is
actually segmenting itself into three sort of task forces. One
of them is energy and environment. And that is going to be co-
chaired by Charles Vest. And so as this relates to the advisory
functions that are recommended by the legislation, I think that
is going to be an important component. It is one of the reasons
why we are so gung ho on having PCAST perform those advisory
functions is because they, I think, have targeted the right
issues, and energy is one of them.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Mr. Bell. We are going to
have the folks from Rice up in our early April hearing, so we
very much look forward to that. Dr. Gingrey.
Dr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not to be outdone by
my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, I would like to put in
a plug for the outstanding work that is being done at my Alma
Mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology in regard to
nanotechnology as well.
I wanted to ask--I am going to direct this question, Dr.
Batt, to you and also to Mr. Marty. In light of the recent bill
that we passed in the House banning human cloning for both
reproductive--reproduction and research, some individuals in
groups have suggested that nanotechnology developments may
raise societal and ethical concerns. Is any part of your
center's activity at Cornell devoted to addressing such
concerns? And then I will ask Mr. Marty the same question in
regard to your investment choices.
Dr. Batt. To--as I said, we haven't addressed that issue
sort of head-on. We get a lot of interest from people who I
would argue on the fringes of their knowledge of
nanotechnology. I was interviewed by a high school student who
basically asked the question, ``Was nanotechnology going to
lead to the demise of civilization as we know it?'' And I said,
``No, it is not.'' Until we sort of really sort of broaden the
sort of education base of the general public, then the
arguments are simply between sort of academic scientists on one
end and sort of the--what I again would call the fringe element
at the other end. And that is really not a very productive
discussion at this point in time, because it sort of argues
what their knowledge of nanotechnology is, which is the sort of
black helicopter sort of floating through your bloodstream and
sort of changing your personality versus what we know to be as
the very core fundamental limitations and what we can do right
now. And what lies in between is sometimes not a very
productive discussion, because I will try to tell them that I
can't imagine why you would want to do that. And they will say,
well, because of these unknown elements out there that really
want to promote that. What is lying in between is the general
public that we have to sort of really embrace and begin to have
them understand what is nanotechnology, what are things they
can't see, what is this area all about, how is this going to
benefit me at a really very early stage.
I mean, the classic error that was made was with, as we now
know as being in error, with genetically modified organisms.
The industries that were involved in it really didn't think it
was important for them to sort of articulate what they were
doing to the general public. Then what happens is there is this
backlash, and now you have to sort of go back, deal with the
backlash, and then deal with what is people's fundamental
misconceptions about what is going on.
So we, as a center, haven't really done that probably as
much as we should, but largely because those discussions tend
to be very, again, on two ends of the spectrum without the
great middle being involved in that. And the great middle is
really what we try to do, which is to educate the general
public as to what nanotechnology is all about.
Dr. Gingrey. And Mr. Marty.
Mr. Marty. Yeah. Great comments. You know, as VC investors,
you know, I guess speaking for myself in particular, I mean,
what we try to do is understand, you know, what is--if you can
paint a scenario that says, ``This is possible that this could
happen,'' then you think about it. And you think about what the
ramifications are, both as an investment--investor and as a
citizen. And so for a lot of the things that we work on and
everything we have invested in to date, you know, textiles and
displays and, you know, computers, I mean, there is really no
ethical ramifications that we can even come up with. Now as
we--as you look down the road and we hear about some of the
scenarios that, you know, I labeled kind of well-read fiction,
my challenge with dealing with those intellectually is I can
not come up with a scenario where that can become real. And so
I kind of don't spend much time thinking about those things,
although I get those comments from people: ``Well, aren't you
worried about this? Aren't you worried about that?'' Unless I
can scientifically come up with a scenario where that could, in
fact, become reality, I really don't know how to deal with it.
I don't know how to think about that scenario.
So I do think it is important in this bill that we continue
anything that is new is going to have some impact on society.
And it is going to have some impact--you know, we want to have
society kind of involved in the conversation, and we want to be
thinking about these things proactively. But most of what has
hit the press and most of the ethical things that have kind of
come to me to date, I haven't been able to paint a scenario
where they can scientifically become real. So they have not
gotten my mind share to date.
Dr. Gingrey. There is so much misinformation out there on
the Internet, as you all know. And of course, I think the
educational program, Dr. Batt, that you are taking on the road,
is exactly the way to approach it so that knowledge is
understanding of this technology. Thank you.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. And I want to thank
all of our witnesses for being resources for the Committee. We
really appreciate you sharing your time and your thoughts and
your expertise with us. We are working together in common cause
for something that is very important to our future. So thank
you very much. Now we may have some additional questions that
we would submit in writing, and we would ask, if we do that,
that you try to be timely in your response to give us the
benefit of your thinking. Thank you so much. The meeting is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Richard M. Russell, Associate Director for Technology,
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Question submitted by Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
Q1. You mention in your testimony that the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) is part of the interagency nanotechnology initiative.
Can you tell us how much of the DHS budget is being devoted to that and
what the nature of DHS participation will be?
A1. The President's FY 2004 Budget identified $2 million for
nanotechnology efforts at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
These efforts represent ongoing investments within the Transportation
Security Administration for technologies to assist in explosives
detection and other advanced transportation security systems.
Questions submitted by Ranking Member Ralph M. Hall
Q1. The National Research Council committee that reviewed the National
Nanotechnology Initiative criticized the initiative for too little
information sharing among the agencies during program planning and
execution and for a lack of willingness by the participating agencies
to co-fund large research programs. What is your response to these
criticisms? Since OSTP has broad responsibility for coordinating the
major interagency research initiatives, how do you intend to address
these findings of the NRC committee?
A1. OSTP is keenly interested in ensuring that the NNI represents a
highly coordinated interagency activity. Towards this end, OSTP has
initiated activities aimed at increasing the degree of coordination
between the agencies that participate in the program. These include a
principals-level meeting convened by OSTP Director John Marburger,
which has resulted in an increased commitment to significant
interagency coordination between the Department of Energy's (DOE'S)
Office of Science, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the
National Institutes of Health (NIH). In addition, the restructuring of
the current National Science and Technology Council's Nanoscale
Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) subcommittee into an
interagency working group, with a reconstituted subcommittee made up of
higher level agency officials, will enable enhanced coordination and
priority setting. Similarly, the role of the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office (NNCO), which assists NSET-participating agencies
in their activities and serves as the secretariat for the NNI, has been
strengthened by the hiring of a full-time director to run that office.
All of these efforts are aimed at increasing the extent of interagency
coordination within the NNI.
In addition, the NRC committee's report, in addressing the issue of
interdisciplinary, cross-agency research, suggested the creation of a
nanotechnology advisory panel that ``would be capable of identifying
research opportunities that do not fit within any single agency's
mission,'' and ``should be composed of leaders from a broad
representation of industry and academia. . .leaders with scientific,
technical, social science, or research management credentials relevant
to advances in nanoscale science and technology.'' The President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), whose members
encompass this range of experience and backgrounds, has begun a review
of the NNI and, in particular, will help identify new Grand Challenges
that will help guide the program. Issues related to interagency
coordination surfaced at PCAST's March 3 meeting, at which the
nanotechnology review was discussed, and are likely to be an area of
further examination.
Q2. The budget justification for the President's FY 2004 budget
request for the National Nanotechnology Initiative states, ``This
research could lead to. . .accelerated biotechnical applications in
medicine, health care, and agriculture.'' Similarly, the National
Research Council committee that reviewed the National Nanotechnology
Initiative suggests that the impact of nanotechnology on medicine and
health care will be great and that, consequently, NIH should be a major
player in the initiative. Yet, despite all the promise of
nanotechnology for applications related to disease diagnosis and drug
delivery, NIH is proposing to allocate only $70 million to the $850
million nanotechnology initiative out of the agency's $28 billion FY
2004 budget request. Can you explain why NIH has such relatively little
interest and commitment to the initiative, particularly in light of the
tasking memo from OMB and OSTP to the agencies that identified
nanoscale science and technology as one of the highest R&D priorities
of the Administration?
A2. NIH's commitment to biomedical research and development at the
nanoscale, and to related interagency collaboration, is very strong. In
fact, NIH's investment in nanotechnology research has tripled over the
last four years, and NIH Director Elias Zerhouni stated in a recent
letter to members of the Senate, ``I have made nanoscale biomedical
research at the NIH a personal priority, my staff have included the
area in our `roadmapping' efforts to plan future research directions,
and we plan to proactively pursue opportunities in nanoscale biomedical
research in support of our mission and national health care
priorities.''
NIH's organization comprises 27 institutes, each of which
administers its own research and grant programs based on its unique
mission, presents challenges for funding research in a
multidisciplinary field such as nanotechnology. To address these
challenges, NIH has created a mechanism for dealing with cross-cutting
issues, the Bioengineering Consortium (BECON), which consists of
senior-level representatives from all of the NIH institutes, centers,
and divisions plus representatives of other federal agencies concerned
with biomedical research and development. BECON is able to facilitate
requests for and reviews of grant proposals for research areas that cut
across different institutes at NIH. BECON recently issued a Program
Announcement specifically aimed at enhancing nanoscience and
nanotechnology research approaches that have the potential to make
valuable contributions to biology and medicine. In addition, NIH
started the Bioengineering Nanotechnology Initiative to partner with
the small business community.
NIH's most recent call for projects, ``Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology in Biology and Medicine'' is targeted at high risk, high
impact exploratory and developmental projects based upon
nanotechnology. Recent solicitations from several institutes have
focused on using nanotechnology to develop improved imaging contrast
agents for the diagnosis of disease, systems for targeted drug delivery
and tissue replacement, tools for studying the basic functioning of
living cells and their constituent proteins, and completely novel ways
to sequence DNA.
NIH representatives, through the Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Technology (NSET) interagency working group, are preparing a workshop
aimed at identifying future research directions for nano-biotechnology.
This workshop will communicate the concepts and recent discoveries from
the physical science and engineering communities to members of the
biomedical community, identifying key areas for the formation of new
interdisciplinary research partnerships.
Q3. What portion of the proposed FY 2004 funding for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative will be directed to instrumentation
development, and will the responsibility for such activities be across
several agencies or concentrated at DOE?
A3. Research and development of instrumentation and metrology form one
of the nine grand challenges currently identified by the NSET. Roughly
three percent of the FY 2003 request was allocated to instrumentation
and metrology, with the bulk of the research effort focused at NIST.
The investment in scientific instruments and tools will increase in FY
2004 and expand to several agencies, including NSF, the Department of
Defense, and DOE. In addition, NIH also funds the development of new
tools to measure various cellular and sub-cellular functions.
Q4. Does the National Nanotechnology Initiative place sufficient
emphasis on the transition of research results to commercial
developments? You noted in your testimony that the initiative is ``a
critical link between high-risk, novel research concepts and new
technologies that can be developed by industry.'' Please describe how
the initiative provides this linkage and explain what kinds of
mechanisms under federally sponsor research programs are appropriate
for encouraging and supporting technology transfer to industry?
A4. Issues of technology transfer are not unique to nanotechnology.
Ensuring that research and development activities funded by the Federal
Government are effectively transferred to the private sector is an
issue that is relevant to virtually all areas of science and
technology. Recognizing this, PCAST recently completed a study on
technology transfer. Their report is currently in the final stages of
preparation and will be released shortly.
The NNI continues to invest in the construction of central user
facilities that serve as a nexus for innovation and outreach. Over the
past five years NSF has developed a National Nanofabrication Users
Network (NNUN), which provides centralized user facilities for
academia, industry and national laboratories. These centers provide
nanofabrication and characterization facilities for a fee much smaller
than the cost of developing and maintaining unique facilities. To
complement and expand the user center network, DOE is constructing five
new centralized facilities associated with particular DOE Laboratories.
The DOE centers will also offer peer-reviewed access to fabrication,
testing and characterization facilities, and will do so at no charge to
users doing non-proprietary research. These user facilities allow
companies to experiment with high-risk, high-payoff nanotechnologies
without the burden of sometimes significant capital investments and
will foster industrial collaborations with academic and national
laboratory researchers.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Alan Marty, Executive-in-Residence, JP Morgan Partners
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. You cited the Bayh-Dole Act in your testimony as being a well-
written piece of legislation, but indicate that its implementation is
stalling the technology transfer process. Could you give us some
examples of what you mean, and suggest how we could improve the
implementation process?
A1. The Bayh-Dole Act is a well written piece of legislation.
Unfortunately its implementation has been lacking. The Harvard Business
Review noted that more than $1 trillion annually is wasted in patent
assets--when one considers both corporate and university operations. An
entire pillar of the economy goes wasted every year.
According to the Association of University Technology Managers,
North American universities last year spent approximately $29.5 billion
on research which resulted in approximately 13,032 new invention
disclosures. Approximately 75 percent of these new technologies go
unlicensed. Of the more than 3,000 universities actively involved in
tech transfer less than 10 make a profit. That is a painful statistic
indeed.
While universities can argue that their impact on the economy
through research is a well trained workforce, this is still no excuse
for the lack of commercialization. The NanoBusiness Alliance from
speaking to numerous corporate and university members have found a
range of problems.
1. The Home Run: Most universities make the majority of their
income from a single transferred patent, hence they are always
trying to find the next big one instead of managing and
effectively marketing a layered portfolio. Also this quest for
a home run creates a great deal of fear--fear of not
negotiating a high enough percentage of a transfer deal that
will lead to scrutiny later. Hence they often transfer nothing
for fear of being called to the mat for cutting a bad deal.
2. Business Dynamics: Universities for all of our calls to act
more like a business do have some reasonable restraints on
acting like a corporation. Businesses fail to notice this and
hence negotiate as if they are dealing with someone in the same
industry. Hence there is a failure to communicate the business
dynamics properly.
3. Limitations on Collaboration: Many U.S. government grants
to universities provide no benefit for corporations to
collaborate with universities in terms of tech transfer
creating a disincentive to work with U.S. schools.
4. Marketing Budgets: Universities fail to understand they
need to aggressively market their technology portfolios. The
U.S. government labs have been far more aggressive at attending
trade shows, providing information on their websites and in
helping their researchers and staff understand business
dynamics.
5. Skill Set: University employees are often not equipped or
incentivized to be entrepreneurial and fundamentally don't
understand the dynamics of business. Many schools would be
better served contracting out managing their efforts to private
firms.
This failing must be corrected soon. I have heard one leading U.S.
corporation note they would rather work with the less expensive and
easier to negotiate schools in China, India, Russia, and EU than U.S.
schools.
To improve the system what is needed is not so much a major
rewriting of Bayh-Dole, but a framework for more successfully
implementing it and a network to share best practices. In addition:
We need to ensure labs have the resources and motivations to
prioritize tech transfer. Despite mission statements that tout
tech transfer as a priority, many labs fail to direct
resources--either capital or people with industry expertise or
both--to fund effective collaborative efforts.
We need to better understand the impact of licensing activity
on University research. Bayh-Dole has clearly had enormous
benefits for our universities, facilitating commercialization
of innovations and encouraging partnership outside the ivy
towers. It has helped research universities emerge as real
drivers of regional economic growth. We need to better
understand the impact of increased university emphasis on
licensing opportunities--on the mix of basic and applied
research, on dissemination and sharing of knowledge, and on
industries' willingness to partner with universities.
We need to train and create entrepreneurial and business savvy
professors, graduate students and tech transfer staff and
provide a system to rate and incentivize their performance.
Q2. You called in your testimony for development of the real numbers
and benchmarks for the size and projected growth of the nanotechnology
field and its economic benefits. What would be some of the difficulties
to developing these benchmarks and who should be responsible for this
carrying out of this work?
A2. Real Numbers: The greatest difficulty in developing real numbers
for the nanotech field has much to do with the size and scope of the
field.
Nanotechnology will have an effect on nearly every industry in much
the same way that the internal combustion engine, harnessed electricity
and the transistor did on existing industries. Determining the value of
``nano'' developments prove incredibly difficult and accurately
arriving at numbers is indeed the stuff of leading economists.
Current estimates on the size of today's nanotech field range from
$1 billion to $350 billion depending on the criteria.
Long-term estimates of industry size as developed by NSF ($1
trillion market in 13 years) are not based on accepted economic
methodology. Industry leaders--mostly the R&D professionals of
companies--were polled and the numbers were simply added up at the end.
It could be correct, but it would have more to do with luck than
science.
Not having simple numbers and agreed upon criteria make it
difficult to gauge growth and performance. It also makes the ability to
judge competitive threats and the value of investments abroad all the
more difficult. Before starting studies on using nanotech as a means of
economic development or putting in place surveys on sector growth or
gauging foreign competition, we need accepted and agreed upon numbers
and baselines.
The Department of Commerce Office of Technology Policy would likely
be the most capable office at developing accurate and timely numbers,
drawing on the resources of industry and the other agencies involved in
the NNI.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
NANOTECHNOLOGY WORK PLAN
March 3, 2003
PCAST's nanotechnology efforts will be conducted at the full
committee level as an ongoing, long-term activity. Task forces will be
formed as needed to investigate particular topic areas.
Initial Primary Objectives
PCAST will conduct a comprehensive review of the federal
nanotechnology effort including the extent to which it successfully
links to the needs of the private sector, its importance to economic
competitiveness, and what results can fairly be expected (short-term
and long-term). The Administration's management objectives, as well as
the National Research Council's (NRC's) recommendations, suggest two
primary objectives for PCAST to achieve. While additional goals and
objectives exist and PCAST will address other NRC concerns over time,
PCAST can initially assist in:
1. Developing a compelling set of ``Grand Challenges'' to
focus the research effort on key scientific/technological
challenges (including a review of the NNI program's existing
grand challenges); and
2. Developing a crisp, compelling overarching Strategic Plan
to set the general direction of the Federal Government program
and to guide the development of detailed research plans.
In order to achieve these objectives, PCAST will work with the
National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC's) Nanoscale Science,
Engineering and Technology INSET) Subcommittee, as well as the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office.
Initial PCAST Task Forces
PCAST will initially form three Task Forces among its members to
explore particular topic areas:
Technical Expertise
PCAST will form a ``Technical Task Force'' of outside (non-
government) technical experts to assist PCAST in its review of the NNI
program. The Technical Task Force will be comprised of scientists who
are on the forefront of the various fields of nanotechnology research.
The types of expertise represented might include: materials science;
bio/life sciences; energy; electronics/photonics; and molecular motors.
Additional Outreach
PCAST will also outreach and consult with Congress, interested
businesses, scientists, institutions (e.g., universities), trade
associations, state and local government representatives, and other
parties with an interest or relevant experience (such as the Director
of the National Coordination Office for the NSTC's Networking and
Information Technology R&D program).
Additional Topics
After addressing the two primary objectives listed above, and in
addition to its ongoing review of the federal nanotechnology effort,
PCAST will explore a wide variety of topics relating to nanotechnology
and its potential benefits to the American public and the U.S. economy.
Such topics may include the identification of metrics for measuring
progress (and applying these metrics to continually assess program
progress); social and ethical considerations of nanotechnology;
technology transfer issues and mechanisms; and comparisons of the U.S.
program with international programs (in terms of both effort and
results).
Initial Timelines
Late Summer 2003--Primary Objectives--a set of
recommendations on Grand Challenges and Strategic Goals to
inform the formation of the FY 2005 budget for NNI (not
budgetary levels but how the money is spent).
Early 2004--NNI Program Review--a presentation from
NNI on its FY 2005 budget and the achievement of the
recommended objectives.
Summer 2004--Report on Metrics, and decide on new
topic area(s).
When warranted, issue additional recommendations and
follow-up reports.
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 766
To provide for a National Nanotechnology Research and Development
Program, and for other purposes.
__________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2003
Mr. Boehlert (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Hall, Mr. Smith
of Michigan, Mr. Gordon, Mrs. Biggert, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Gutknecht, and
Mr. Bishop of New York) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on Science
__________
A BILL
To provide for a National Nanotechnology Research and Development
Program, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``advanced technology user facility'' means a
nanotechnology research and development facility supported, in
whole or in part, by Federal funds that is open to all United
States researchers on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis;
(2) the term ``Advisory Committee'' means the advisory
committee established under section 5;
(3) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office
of Science and Technology Policy;
(4) the term ``Interagency Committee'' means the
interagency committee established under section 3(c);
(5) the term ``nanotechnology'' means science and
engineering aimed at creating materials, devices, and systems
at the atomic and molecular level;
(6) the term ``Program'' means the National Nanotechnology
Research and Development Program described in section 3; and
(7) the term ``program component area'' means a major
subject area established under section 3(c)(2) under which is
grouped related individual projects and activities carried out
under the Program.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The President shall implement a National
Nanotechnology Research and Development Program to promote Federal
nanotechnology research, development, demonstration, education,
technology transfer, and commercial application activities as necessary
to ensure continued United States leadership in nanotechnology research
and development and to ensure effective coordination of nanotechnology
research and development across Federal agencies and across scientific
and engineering disciplines.
(b) Program Activities.--The activities of the Program shall be
designed to--
(1) provide sustained support for nanotechnology research
and development through--
(A) grants to individual investigators and
interdisciplinary teams of investigators; and
(B) establishment of interdisciplinary research
centers and advanced technology user facilities;
(2) ensure that solicitation and evaluation of proposals
under the Program encourage interdisciplinary research;
(3) expand education and training of undergraduate and
graduate students in interdisciplinary nanotechnology science
and engineering;
(4) accelerate the commercial application of nanotechnology
innovations in the private sector; and
(5) ensure that societal and ethical concerns will be
addressed as the technology is developed by--
(A) establishing a research program to identify
societal and ethical concerns related to
nanotechnology, and ensuring that the results of such
research are widely disseminated; and
(B) integrating, insofar as possible, research on
societal and ethical concerns with nanotechnology
research and development.
(c) Interagency Committee.--The President shall establish or
designate an interagency committee on nanotechnology research and
development, chaired by the Director, which shall include
representatives from the National Science Foundation, the Department of
Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and any other agency that the President may designate. The
Interagency Committee, which shall also include a representative from
the Office of Management and Budget, shall oversee the planning,
management, and coordination of the Program. The Interagency Committee
shall--
(1) establish goals and priorities for the Program;
(2) establish program component areas, with specific
priorities and technical goals, that reflect the goals and
priorities established for the Program;
(3) develop, within 6 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, and update annually, a strategic plan to meet the
goals and priorities established under paragraph (1) and to
guide the activities of the program component areas established
under paragraph (2);
(4) consult with academic, State, industry, and other
appropriate groups conducting research on and using
nanotechnology, and the Advisory Committee; and
(5) propose a coordinated interagency budget for the
Program that will ensure the maintenance of a balanced
nanotechnology research portfolio and ensure that each agency
and each program component area is allocated the level of
funding required to meet the goals and priorities established
for the Program.
SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORT.
The Director shall prepare an annual report, to be submitted to the
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate at the time of
the President's budget request to Congress, that includes--
(1) the Program budget, for the current fiscal year, for
each agency that participates in the Program and for each
program component area;
(2) the proposed Program budget, for the next fiscal year,
for each agency that participates in the Program and for each
program component area;
(3) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the
goals and priorities established for the Program; and
(4) an analysis of the extent to which the Program has
incorporated the recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) In General.--The President shall establish an advisory
committee on nanotechnology consisting of non-Federal members,
including representatives of research and academic institutions and
industry, who are qualified to provide advice and information on
nanotechnology research, development, demonstration, education,
technology transfer, commercial application, and societal and ethical
concerns. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be
considered by Federal agencies in implementing the Program.
(b) Assessment.--The Advisory Committee shall assess--
(1) trends and developments in nanotechnology science and
engineering;
(2) progress made in implementing the Program;
(3) the need to revise the Program;
(4) the balance among the components of the Program,
including funding levels for the program component areas;
(5) whether the program component areas, priorities, and
technical goals developed by the Interagency Committee are
helping to maintain United States leadership in nanotechnology;
(6) the management, coordination, implementation, and
activities of the Program; and
(7) whether societal and ethical concerns are adequately
addressed by the Program.
(c) Reports.--The Advisory Committee shall report not less
frequently than once every 2 fiscal years to the President and to the
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on its findings
of the assessment carried out under subsection (b), its recommendations
for ways to improve the Program, and the concerns assessed under
subsection (b)(7). The first report shall be due within 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Federal Advisory Committee Act Application.--Section 14 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the Advisory
Committee.
SEC. 6. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY COORDINATION OFFICE.
The President shall establish a National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office, with full-time staff, which shall--
(1) provide technical and administrative support to the
Interagency Committee and the Advisory Committee;
(2) serve as a point of contact on Federal nanotechnology
activities for government organizations, academia, industry,
professional societies, and others to exchange technical and
programmatic information; and
(3) conduct public outreach, including dissemination of
findings and recommendations of the Interagency Committee and
the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) National Science Foundation.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this
Act--
(1) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $385,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(3) $424,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(b) Department of Energy.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary of Energy for carrying out this Act--
(1) $197,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $217,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(3) $239,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(c) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for carrying out this Act--
(1) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(3) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards
and Technology for carrying out this Act--
(1) $62,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $68,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(3) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(e) Environmental Protection Agency.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency for carrying out
this Act--
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(3) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
SEC. 8. EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Director shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct periodic reviews of the Program. The reviews shall
be conducted once every 3 years during the 10-year period following the
enactment of this Act. The reviews shall include--
(1) an evaluation of the technical achievements of the
Program;
(2) recommendations for changes in the Program;
(3) an evaluation of the relative position of the United
States with respect to other nations in nanotechnology research
and development;
(4) an evaluation of the Program's success in transferring
technology to the private sector;
(5) an evaluation of whether the Program has been
successful in fostering interdisciplinary research and
development; and
(6) an evaluation of the extent to which the Program has
adequately considered societal and ethical concerns.