[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT: THE BIGGEST
LITTLE THING IN TEXAS
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 5, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
90-675 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
C O N T E N T S
December 5, 2003
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Michael C. Burgess, Member, Committee
on Science, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Dr. Richard F. Reidy, Professor, Department of Materials Science,
University of North Texas
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 22
Financial Disclosure......................................... 23
Dr. Da Hsuan Feng, Vice President for Research and Graduate
Education, University of Texas, Dallas
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 27
Biography.................................................... 30
Financial Disclosure......................................... 32
Dr. Ronald L. Elsenbaumer, Vice President for Research,
University of Texas, Arlington
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
Biography.................................................... 36
Financial Disclosure......................................... 38
Mr. Christopher J. Gintz, CEO, NanoHoldings, LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 42
Financial Disclosure......................................... 45
Dr. John Randall, Chief Technology Officer, Vice President of
Research, Zyvex Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 46
Written Statement of Mr. James R. Von Ehr II, Chairman and
CEO, Zyvex Corporation..................................... 49
Biography.................................................... 51
Financial Disclosure......................................... 52
Discussion....................................................... 53
NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: THE BIGGEST LITTLE THING IN
TEXAS
----------
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in the
reception area of Research Park, University of North Texas
Research Park, 3940 Elm Street North, Denton, Texas, Hon.
Michael C. Burgess [acting Chairman of the Committee]
presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Nanotechnology Research and
Development: The Biggest
Little Thing in Texas
friday, december 5, 2003
9:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m.
university of north texas research park
3940 elm street n., denton, texas 76203
1. Purpose
On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., the House Science
Committee will hold a hearing to examine the emerging nanotechnology
industry and the value of research and development programs to job
creation and economic development within the U.S. nanotechnology
sector.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Rick Reidy, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering,
University of North Texas. Dr. Reidy has a Ph.D. in Metals Science and
Engineering from Penn State University and B.A. in Chemistry/
Biochemistry from Rice University. Before joining the University of
North Texas, he worked on nanoporous films for chemical weapons
detection at the U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command,
Aberdeen, MD. He is currently developing nanostructured materials and
processing methods for semiconductor applications supported by the
National Science Foundation, Texas Instruments, and International
Sematech.
Dr. Da Hsuan Feng, Vice President for Research and Graduate Education,
University of Texas, Dallas. Dr. Feng has a doctorate degree in
Theoretical Physics from the University of Minnesota. Since coming to
UTD, he has worked to rapidly build the research breadth and depth of
the University to make it a major international research university.
Dr. Feng is responsible for recruiting much of UTD's nanoscience
researchers.
Dr. Ron Elsenbaumer, Vice President for Research, University of Texas,
Arlington. Dr. Elsenbaumer has a Ph.D. from Stanford University and a
B.S. from Purdue University. His primary research interests include
developing new conductive polymer compositions and developing
quantitative group additivity principles for constructing conjugating
conductive polymers with predictable optical, electrical, and
electrochemical properties.
Mr. Chris Gintz, CEO, NanoHoldings, LLC. Mr. Gintz is a well-known
designer, marketer and executive in the computer industry, whose
experience spans the semiconductor, software and hardware businesses.
He is the inventor of the Compaq LTE notebook computer concept and,
since 1995, he has been a force behind the incorporation of software
technology into school curriculums across the United States.
Dr. John Randall, Chief Technology Officer, Vice President of Research,
Zyvex Corporation. Dr. Randall has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering
from the University of Houston. He has over twenty years of experience
in micro- and nanofabrication. He joined Zyvex in March of 2001 after
fifteen years at Texas Instruments where he worked in high resolution
processing for integrated circuits, MEMS, and quantum effect devices.
Prior to working at TI, Dr. Randall worked at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory
on ion beam and x-ray lithography.
3. Overarching Questions
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
1. LWhat is the state of nanotechnology science and
engineering? What is the potential for nanotechnology
advancements to contribute to future economic growth across
various industries, and what challenges exist that may slow or
limit this growth?
2. LWhat is the status of private sector investment in
nanotechnology research and development? How can the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and university-industry
research partnerships best accelerate commercial applications
of nanotechnology by industry?
3. LIs the U.S. education system currently producing an
adequate number of people with the skills needed to conduct
research in nanotechnology and to work in industry on the
commercialization of nanotechnology applications? What is the
long-term outlook for the nanotechnology workforce, and what
types of policies will help the U.S. education system to
produce a workforce that meets these demands?
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 impact that nanotechnology is currently having on
new and existing industries is significant, but the potential
for the future is enormous. The National Science Foundation
estimates 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'', are likely to see their product lines and the
way they manufacture them influenced by our growing knowledge
in nanotechnology.
At a hearing before the House Science Committee in
March 2003, witnesses testified that just five years ago, there
was very little private interest in the nanotechnology research
and development (R&D). Today, private investment is in the
billions of dollars, with most Fortune 500 companies now
funding at least some nanotechnology R&D, and venture
capitalists providing almost $500 million to nanotechnology
start-up companies in 2002 alone.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is an
$849 million research initiative (fiscal year 2004 request)
involving 10 federal agencies--and one of the President's most
significant new commitments to continued U.S. leadership in
science and technology. The Science Committee has made
nanotechnology R&D among its top priorities for 2003, working
to strengthen the focus and funding of the NNI.
On February 13, 2003, Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-
NY) and Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) introduced H.R. 766,
the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, which
authorizes a federal nanotechnology R&D program, 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, was introduced in the
Senate by Senator George Allen (R-VA) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-
OR). A final compromise of the two versions, the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, passed both
chambers of Congress and is expected to be signed by the
President very soon.
The legislation supports the President's initiative
and adds review and oversight mechanisms to assure that new
funds are used in the most effective manner possible. It also
addresses a number of the recommendations that were raised in a
comprehensive report by the National Academy of Sciences and
other outside experts.
7. Background
A recent National Academy of Sciences report 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, the 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 of 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.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
This legislation, a House-Senate compromise of H.R. 766 and S. 189,
would cement U.S. economic and technical leadership in nanotechnology
by assuring stable, long-term support for nanotechnology research and
facilitating the commercialization of nanotechnology applications. The
bill establishes an interagency research and development (R&D) program
to promote and coordinate federal support of nanotechnology R&D,
including grants to researchers and the establishment of
interdisciplinary research centers and advanced technology user
facilities. The bill also emphasizes the need to perform research into
the ethical, legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal
concerns related to nanotechnology, to educate the public about
nanotechnology, and to involve the public in the debate. The bill aims
to protect taxpayers by adding oversight mechanisms--an interagency
committee to coordinate the program across multiple agencies, an annual
report to Congress, a strategic plan for the program, an advisory
panel, and external reviews--to assure funds are spent wisely. The bill
authorizes approximately $3.7 billion of funding at five agencies over
four years.
8. Witness Questions
Questions for university witnesses:
How significant of an impact will nanotechnology have
on U.S. economic growth and job creation in the coming decades?
In what industry areas will the impact be most dramatic? What
challenges exist that may slow or limit the growth and
influence of nanotechnology?
What in your experience are the best practices to
help facilitate the transfer of basic research results to
industry? To what extent has your university partnered with
industry on nanotechnology research and development challenges,
and how can such collaborations be made more effective?
Has federal support for your research been effective
at helping your university achieve its goals? How might
Congress strengthen the structure, funding levels, and focus of
the National Nanotechnology Initiative?
Is the U.S. education system currently producing an
adequate number of people with the skills needed to conduct
research in nanotechnology and to work in industry on the
commercialization of nanotechnology applications? What is the
longer-term outlook for the nanotechnology workforce, and what
changes, if any, should be made to the current education system
to ensure these workforce needs are met?
Questions for industry witnesses:
How significant of an impact will nanotechnology have
on U.S. economic growth and job creation in the coming decades?
How will nanotechnology influence the industry areas in which
your company is most active? What challenges exist that may
slow or limit the growth and influence of nanotechnology?
What is the appropriate federal role in fostering and
accelerating the deployment and application of basic
nanotechnology research and development by the private sector?
How might Congress strengthen the structure, funding levels,
and focus of the National Nanotechnology Initiative?
To what extent is your company involved in research
collaborations with universities, and how can such
collaborations be made more effective?
Is the U.S. education system currently producing an
adequate number of people with the skills needed to conduct
research in nanotechnology and to work in industry on the
commercialization of nanotechnology applications? What is the
longer-term outlook for the nanotechnology workforce, and what
changes, if any, should be made to the current education system
to ensure these workforce needs are met?
Chairman Burgess [presiding]. All right. We do want to be
respectful of everyone's time, so we'll try to start on time.
Mr. Hall, we'll have you out of here by 11 a.m. Probably during
the course of this meeting we will not take--since we are so
brief, we probably won't take recesses. So anyone who needs to
excuse themselves for a moment or two, that's certainly
understandable.
This is the House Science Field Hearing on Nanotechnology.
I want to first start off today's hearing by thanking all of
those in attendance on our panel's witness list and taking time
out of their busy schedules to be here today. I'd also like to
thank in absentia Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the
Chairman of the House Science Committee, and Representative
Nick Smith, who's the Chairman of the House Committee on
Science--Nick Smith, who is the Chairman of the Research
Subcommittee on Science, for helping making this hearing
happen.
Our title for today's hearing is ``Nanotechnology R&D: The
Biggest Little Thing in Texas,'' and it's especially
appropriate as we sit here in this wonderful facility devoted
to research of applied technology based on nanotechnology. The
President signed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act into law just two days ago, so our field
hearing today is perfectly timed to show how North Texas is and
will continue to be the leader in this field.
Here at the Center for Advanced Research and Technology,
the University of North Texas, along with federal agencies and
private businesses, is working to establish a world class
research park that satisfies the growing technological and
engineering needs of the North Texas region. This center may
well serve as a national nanotechnology shrine acting as an
epicenter for the ground breaking developments in materials,
computer and the engineering science fields.
One of the most exciting developments here at the Center
for Advanced Research and Technology has been the work of
several different partners in establishing nanometrology. The
University of North Texas continues to invest millions of
dollars into this facility. The University funds are on top of
future Department of Defense appropriations recently awarded at
over $3 million. The funding will provide facility upgrades and
equipment purchases. Corporate partnerships, such as the one
with Texas Instruments, have also been critical to the Center's
success. The University of North Texas is not the only
institution of higher education working to develop similar
scientific capabilities here in North Texas. The University of
Texas at Arlington and the University of Texas at Dallas have
helped to firmly establish the North Texas area as the leading
area in nanotechnology research and development.
More and more professionals in this field, and indeed those
like myself that hold elected office, are coming to understand
the vital need to fully integrate government, business and
academic nanotechnology R&D activities. Just recently the
United States Congress approved legislation that will chart a
path for future developments in this field.
This bill, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act, will give policy makers, scientists and the
business community a framework to identify the grand challenges
of nanoscience. The bill will provide a scientific and ethical
compass for those in the field. The new National Nanotechnology
Research Program authorized by this bill will help foster
interdisciplinary research in this exciting new science.
The overarching questions that the hearing wants to address
today: What is the state of nanotechnology science and
engineering? What is the potential for nanotechnology
advancements to contribute to the future economic growth across
various industries? And what challenges exist that may slow or
limit this growth?
Secondly, what is the status of the private sector
investment in nanotechnology research and development? How can
the National Nanotechnology Initiative and the university/
industry research partnerships best accelerate commercial
applications of nanotechnology by industry? And, thirdly, is
the United States educational system currently producing an
adequate number of people with the skills needed to conduct
research in nanotechnology and to work in the industry of
commercialization of those applications? What is the long-term
outlook for the nanotechnology work force and what types of
policies will help the United States education system to
produce a work force that must meet these demands?
Being here this morning we are reminded of how critical
interdisciplinary research can be, especially in the small
science. Just recently we can point to an example where the
intersection of mechanical engineering, bioengineering,
pharmacology, medicine and surgery quietly and completely
joined together to give two young children a chance at a much
brighter future. Ahmed and Mohamed Ibrahim are two formerly
conjoined twins that underwent a remarkable separation
procedure at Children's Medical Center of Dallas not too far
from here. Everyone at Children's was involved in the effort,
from the doctors, the nurses, the technicians, to theoretical
and practical professionals who developed the specialized
operating room table, their monitors and the medicines. Perhaps
most importantly were individuals from both private and public
sector entities who pushed the research and development of
these incredible new devices, devices that are smaller and much
more precise. Without them the miracle at Dallas Children's
Hospital may not have been possible.
Examples such as these are reminders of how important it is
to continue pushing the envelope when it comes to nanoscience.
This is a field that will impact all of our lives in profound
yet unknown ways. Today I'm proud to introduce a very
distinguished panel of nanotechnology experts from right here
at home.
Dr. Rick Reidy, Professor of Materials Science and
Engineering here at the University of North Texas. Dr. Reidy
has a Ph.D. in Metals Science and Engineering from Penn State
University and a Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry and
Biochemistry from Rice University. Before joining the
University of North Texas, he worked on nanoporous films for
chemical weapons detection at the U.S. Army Chemical and
Biological Defense Command in Aberdeen, Maryland. He is
currently developing nanostructured materials and processing
methods for semiconductor applications supported by the
National Science Foundation, Texas Instruments and
International Sematech.
Dr. Feng, Vice President for Research and Graduate
Education at the University of Texas at Dallas. Dr. Feng has a
doctorate degree in Theoretical Physics from the University of
Minnesota and I understand an honorary degree from the
University of Peking in China. Since coming to the University
of Texas at Dallas, he has worked rapidly to build the research
breadth and depth of the University to make an international
research facility. Dr. Feng is responsible for recruiting much
of UTD's nanoscience researchers.
Dr. Ron Elsenbaumer, Vice President for Research at the
University of Texas at Arlington. Dr. Elsenbaumer has a Ph.D.
from Stanford University and a B.S. from Purdue. His primary
research interests include developing new conductive polymer
compositions and developing quantitative group additivity
principles for constructing conjugating conductive polymers
with predictable optical, electrical and electrochemical
properties.
Mr. Chris Gintz, Chief Executive Officer of NanoHoldings,
LLC. Mr. Gintz is a well-known designer, marketer and executive
in the computer industry whose experience spans the
semiconductor, software and hardware businesses. He is the
inventor of the Compaq LTE notebook computer concept, and since
1995 he's been a force behind the incorporation of software
technology into school curricula across the United States.
Dr. John Randall, Chief Technology Officer and Vice
President of Research, Zyvex Corporation. Dr. Randall has a
Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Houston.
He has over 20 years of experience in micro- and
nanofabrication. He joined Zyvex in March of 2001 after 15
years at Texas Instruments where he worked in high resolution
processing for integrated circuits and quantum effect devices.
Prior to working at Texas Instruments, Dr. Randall worked at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory
on ion beam and x-ray lithography.
And then of course the red light's on. I need to turn the
microphone over to my distinguished colleague, the Ranking
Member on the Science Committee, Mr. Ralph Hall, for his
opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Michael C. Burgess
I want to first start off by thanking all those in attendance and
our panel of witnesses for being here today. I'd also like to thank
Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman for the Full Science Committee, and Nick
Smith, Chairman of the Research Subcommittee for helping make this
hearing happen. Our title for today's hearing, ``Nanotechnology R&D:
The Biggest Little Thing in Texas'' is especially appropriate as we sit
here in this premier facility devoted to the research of applied
technology based on nanotechnology.
Here at the Center for Advanced Research and Technology, the
University of North Texas, along with federal agencies and private
businesses, are working to establish a world-premier research park that
will satisfy the growing technological and engineering needs of the
North Texas region. This center will serve a national goal as well,
acting as an epicenter for ground-breaking developments in materials,
computer, and engineering scientific fields. One of the most exciting
developments here at CART has been the work by several different
partners to establish a Nanometrology Laboratory. The University of
North Texas has already and will continue to invest millions of dollars
into this facility, along with a future Department of Defense grant of
over $3 million to continue facility upgrades and equipment purchases.
Corporate partnerships, such as the one with Texas Instruments, Inc.
have also been critical to the Center's success.
UNT is not the only institution of higher education working to
develop similar scientific capabilities here in North Texas. The
University of Texas at Arlington and the University of Texas at Dallas
have helped firmly establish North Texas as a leading area for
nanotechnology research and development.
More and more professionals in this field, and indeed those like
myself that hold elected office, are coming to understand the vital
need to fully integrate government, business, and academic
nanotechnology R&D activities. Just recently, the U.S. Congress
approved legislation that will chart a path for future developments in
this field. This bill, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act, will give policy-makers, scientists, and the business
community a framework to identify the grand challenges of nanoscience,
and provide a scientific and ethical compass for those in the field.
The new National Nanotechnology Research Program authorized by this
bill will help foster interdisciplinary research in this exciting new
science.
Being here today, we are reminded how critical interdisciplinary
research can be, especially in the ``small science.'' Just recently, we
can point to an example where the intersection of mechanical
engineering, bioengineering, pharmacology, medicine and surgery quietly
and completely joined together to give two young children a chance at a
much brighter future. Ahmed and Mohamed Ibrahim are two formerly
conjoined twins that underwent a remarkable separation procedure at
Children's Medical Center of Dallas, not too far from here. Everyone at
Children's Medical Center was involved in the effort--from doctors,
nurses and technicians, to the theoretical and practical professionals
who developed the specialized O.R. table, monitors and medicines.
Perhaps most importantly were the individuals from both the private and
public sector entities who pushed the research and development of the
incredible new devices--devices that are smaller and much more precise.
Without them, the miracle at Dallas' Children's Hospital may not have
been possible.
Examples such as these are reminders of how important it to
continue pushing the envelope when it comes to nanoscience. This is a
field that will impact all of our lives in profound and yet unknown
ways. Today I'm proud to introduce a very distinguished panel of
nanotechnology experts from right here in Texas. . .
Dr. Rick Reidy, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering,
University of North Texas. Dr. Reidy has a Ph.D. in Metals Science and
Engineering from Penn State University and B.A. in Chemistry/
Biochemistry from Rice University. Before joining the University of
North Texas, he worked on nanoporous films for chemical weapons
detection at the U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command,
Aberdeen, MD. He is currently developing nanostructured materials and
processing methods for semiconductor applications supported by the
National Science Foundation, Texas Instruments, and International
Sematech.
Also joining us is Dr. Da Hsuan Feng, Vice President for Research
and Graduate Education, University of Texas, Dallas. Dr. Feng has a
doctorate degree in Theoretical Physics from the University of
Minnesota. Since coming to UTD, he has worked to rapidly build the
research breath and depth of the University to make it a major
international research university. Dr. Feng is responsible for
recruiting much of UTD's nanoscience researchers.
Dr. Ron Elsenbaumer is the Vice President for Research at the
University of Texas, Arlington. Dr. Elsenbaumer has a Ph.D. from
Stanford University and a B.S. from Purdue University. His primary
research interests include developing new conductive polymer
compositions and developing quantitative group additivity principles
for constructing conjugating conductive polymers with predictable
optical, electrical, and electrochemical properties.
We also have Mr. Chris Gintz, CEO of NanoHoldings, LLC. Mr. Gintz
is a well-known designer, marketer and executive in the computer
industry, whose experience spans the semiconductor, software and
hardware businesses. He is the inventor of the Compaq LTE notebook
computer concept and, and since 1995, he has been a force behind the
incorporation of software technology into school curriculums across the
United States.
And finally, we have Dr. John Randall, Chief Technology Officer and
Vice President of Research at Zyvex Corporation. Dr. Randall has a
Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Houston. He has
over twenty years of experience in micro- and nanofabrication. He
joined Zyvex in March of 2001 after fifteen years at Texas Instruments
where he worked in high resolution processing for integrated circuits,
MEMS, and quantum effect devices. Prior to working at TI, Dr. Randall
worked at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory on ion beam and x-ray lithography.
I look forward to hearing your testimony and entertaining our
questions toward the conclusion of the hearing.
Thank you and now I'll turn over the microphone to my distinguished
colleague, Ralph Hall, for his opening remarks. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mike. appreciate it, and I'm honored
to be here, and I'll be brief. You've covered the waterfront as
usual. We have a distinguished panel here. I would respect all
of them. I would not have liked any of them because it's guys
like you, and women like you, that ruined the curve for me when
I was at SMU and University of Texas.
[Laughter.]
We're honored to have your time because we know you're not
only giving this time today but it took some time to get here,
it took some time to prepare for this, and you're generous to
let the Chairman here have the benefit of your knowledge and
answer some questions that we will have, that will be part of
the record, that will be submitted to each Member of our
Committee. Mike will see that the Republicans have it, and I'll
see that the Democrats have it, and for any of the Republicans
that can't read it, I'll have some of my Democrats read it to
them.
[Laughter.]
Seriously, it's an honor to be here with the doctor. He's
not only a good guy, he's a great doctor, he's a fine Member of
Congress and one that we all admire and respect. But that
doesn't mean anything because I even like Dick Armey.
Let me just be very brief with my statement because I know
we need to hear the testimony. Of course I'm pleased to be
here, and we're at a threshold of an age of materials that can
be fashioned, as they say, atom by atom. As a result of the
growing capability, the new materials can be designed with
specified and often very novel characteristics to satisfy
specific purposes. There are really huge consequences for this
pursuit for industry, for manufacturers, for medicine and for
health. A lot of you are aware that the Science Committee's
been working to develop some bipartisan legislation, and that's
the way the Science Committee operates. Just as Mike and I are
working together here today and support one another, we work
together up there, believe it or not, Republicans and
Democrats. We had very few split votes up there.
We work things out and Sherry Boehlert is the Chairman and
I'm Ranking Democrat. We sit right side by side and we're an
unusual pair because I represent the Democratic side of it and
Sherry represents the Republican side, but I can get more votes
off the Republican side than Sherry can, and he can get more
votes off the Democratic side than I can, because Sherry is
kind of a liberal Republican and I'm a conservative Democrat.
The book on us is that I keep him from spending all the money
on saving the whales, and he keeps me from drilling on cemetery
lots.
[Laughter.]
There's good offset there for all of us, and the Doc
referees up there usually. But it's an interesting committee,
but Boehlert is a very intelligent and a probing-type Chairman
and a fair Chairman that gives us input.
I'm glad to see Dr. Feng. I've worked on many situations
with him, and I've admired him from afar and from up close.
I've seen him in testimony before committees in Washington,
I've seen him working with various industries to promote what
Jeremy Bethum called the greatest good for the greatest number,
and that's after all what we're here to do today.
As a lot of you are aware, the Science Committee did work
that as a bipartisan piece of legislation. I think it passed
overwhelmingly. It may have even passed by a voice vote when we
passed out of the House and out of our subcommittees. But it
passed both Houses of Congress, and this week it was signed
into law by the President. Did you go up and see him sign it? I
didn't either. He called my house early the morning that he was
to sign it, and that's giving me an awful lot of notice.
Chairman Burgess. At least you got a call.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. I didn't get to go up there. Well, he called me
one time before he signed the trade bill, and he called me that
time because that trade bill passed the first time, and the
most important vote we had on it was a 215 to 214 vote, and you
can imagine how many of us claimed we were that 215th vote, but
I certainly laid claim to that and I made him believe that
maybe I was the one that passed it. So he called me to come
watch him sign it. I asked him then--I didn't ask him, I asked
Andrew Card who was with him, ``Well, when's he going to
sign,'' and he said, ``This afternoon at 2 o'clock.'' I had on
jeans and boots that weren't clean boots and I was about an
hour and 15 minutes from the airport and he was going to sign
at 2 o'clock, and I said, ``Well, I just can't come,'' and the
President said, ``Well, if you'll come, I'll give you a ride
back.'' Well, not being accustomed to riding on Air Force One I
decided that I'd try to make it.
I broke and ran with the boots and jeans and the dirty
shirt and old jacket I had on thinking that I'd get to my
apartment and change clothes and get over there in time for the
signing. Well, I got there in time, I got to my apartment, and
my son, one of my sons had been there the week before in my
apartment, driving my car and had taken the keys off that go to
the apartment and left them inside the apartment. I couldn't
get in to change clothes and I couldn't go to the White House
with the way my boots looked. First, they wouldn't have let me
track in there.
Anyway, I didn't go and see the signing but I did meet him
out at the airport to ride home. And, Mike, first thing he
asked me--I had him for about an hour and a half or two hours
there just to pound him with every kind of question, suggestion
I wanted to. I've known him since he was 11. I didn't think
then he'd ever be President. And I knew him when he was 21, and
I was positive then he wasn't going to be President. But I
think we have a good President, and I think it's high time that
Republicans and Democrats, liberals, conservatives unite behind
him, support him. We're a nation at war with people who hate
us. We have a good Commander-in-Chief. I know he's a Godly man.
I know he's intelligent. I know he's ours. I don't understand
why Republicans and Democrats both 100 percent don't support
him. Maybe we'll go back after having been home here for two,
three, four weeks with a different attitude, because we need to
get behind him. He's the only Commander-in-Chief we have, and
he not only needs our support, he needs our prayers.
Mike, thank you for allowing me to be a part of this today.
I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
I am pleased to be here in Denton this morning to join the Chairman
in welcoming our witnesses to this hearing on nanotechnology--which the
hearing title characterizes as the ``biggest little thing in Texas.''
We are at the threshold of an age in which materials can be
fashioned atom-by-atom. As a result of this growing capability, new
materials can be designed with specified, and often novel,
characteristics to satisfy specific purposes.
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.
As many of you are aware, the Science Committee has been working to
develop bipartisan legislation to authorize a federal, interagency
initiative on nanotechnology research and development. This legislation
recently passed both houses of Congress and, this week, was signed into
law by the President.
In addition to setting funding goals, the new statute puts in place
mechanisms for planning and coordinating the interagency research
program. It also includes provision for outside, expert advice to help
guide the research program and ensure its relevance to emerging
technological opportunities and to industry.
One major goal of the legislation is to forge research
relationships between academic institutions and industry in order to
accelerate progress and facilitate technology transfer in areas with
high potential for useful applications of commercial value. Therefore,
I am pleased that we have the opportunity today to hear from both
academic researchers and industry representatives.
I hope to learn more about R&D activities on nanotechnology here in
Texas and to explore how university/industry research partnerships can
be developed and strengthened. I also encourage our witnesses to share
their views on how federal efforts to advance nanotechnology could be
made more effective.
I want to thank the Chairman for organizing a hearing on this
emerging technology, which will be of increasing importance for our
economic growth and for national security. I am pleased to be able to
join him here today in Denton, and I appreciate the attendance of our
witnesses and look forward to our discussion.
Chairman Burgess. Well, I'll be glad to yield the gentleman
some more time if he wants to continue.
Mr. Hall. Well, if you have plenty of time, I will; I'll
just go on.
[Laughter.]
The President asked me when I got in there after we ate
some Texas barbecue flying back, he said, ``Well, all right,
Hall, what all do you want?'' And I said, ``Well, first, I'd
like for you to let all my wife's folks out of the federal
penitentiary.''
[Laughter.]
It went on from there. But I thought he needed a little
levity. The guy is uptight, he's working about 22 hours a day,
and I didn't want him to let any of them out because they just
work on their cars out in front of my house.
[Laughter.]
Let's get to work. You ready? You have any more time for
me?
Chairman Burgess. No, sir.
Mr. Hall. All right.
Chairman Burgess. We'll go first to Dr. Rick Reidy, the
Research Professor at the University of North Texas.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD F. REIDY, PROFESSOR OF MATERIALS
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
Dr. Reidy. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hall, and you are a
tough act to follow, sir. I wish to thank you and Chairman
Boehlert for the invitation to speak here today. It is most
gratifying to hear of Wednesday's signing of the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. In the decades to
come, this commitment to nanotechnology research will
dramatically impact our daily lives, our economy and our place
in the world.
It is clear today that nanotechnology advancements will
continue in electronics, biotechnology, sensors and
nanoparticles. I believe that we should continue to see faster,
smarter and smaller microchips despite some material limits
looming in the forefront. We shall have new weapons to fight
and study disease and means to rapidly detect and detoxify
dangerous chemicals. Beyond our current horizons we can
speculate that advancements in nanotechnology will change our
lives as dramatically as PCs and cell phones.
Effective growth in nanotechnology can be managed by--must
be managed by balancing support of basic, applied and
engineering research. While basic research will likely remain
the province of universities and national laboratories, more
applied efforts must involve contributions from industry.
Universities must be open to non-traditional collaborations to
encourage the infusion of industry-specialized knowledge and to
ease technology transfer. As industry continues to lower the
prominence of the R in research and development, it is
incumbent on government and industrial consortia to support
universities as R&D representatives and to fund university
purchases of equipment in user facilities to expand the
capabilities of local industry. It is critical to develop and
maintain a talented and trained work force. If demand for
researchers and technologists exceeds our supply, then growth
will slow and industry will seek talent from beyond the
borders. Neither alternative is in the best interest of the
United States. We should prepare for this coming need as our
nation did in the late '60's and early '70's during the space
race.
Some universities have very well staffed--sorry, I'm trying
to coordinate these two things. I'm not as good as I--some
universities have well staffed industrial liaison organizations
to market the intellectual wares of their faculty. This model
has led to many valuable patent licensing agreements and start-
up companies. For universities without such infrastructure,
this business model may not be practical. Integrated joint
research ventures in which basic and applied research are
conducted at the university and product development remains
with industrial partners may be more suitable for many
universities.
My colleagues, Dennis Mueller, here at UNT, Dr. Moon Kim is
in the audience, at UT, Dallas, and Dr. Phil Matz, Texas
Instruments, and I have settled on a collaboration that we
believe is a win-win scenario for both industry and university.
This work focuses--our work focuses on nanoscale properties of
integrated circuit insulators and the development of new
insulator properties--new insulator materials with controlled
nanometer-size structures. This research is supported by the
Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry, short
GOALI, Program. In addition to getting funding from the
National Science Foundation, Texas Instruments has agreed to
provide substantial in-kind support, including access to
instrumentation and wafers. As both co-investigator and Texas
Instrument liaison, Dr. Matz meets with both students and
faculty regularly to collaborate on research topics and
facilitate experiments at Texas Instruments facilities.
All investigators have been granted access to the relevant
facilities at Texas Instruments; in fact, TI has actually
allowed me to have an office where I can coordinate experiments
and discuss research topics with TI personnel. This arrangement
efficiently integrates the need of both Texas Instruments to
conduct long-term research and provides UNT students and
faculty the opportunity to work on very practical problems and
to directly interface with industry.
Federal support of University of North Texas spans many
areas. Specifically, in Fiscal Year 2003, UNT has received over
$760,000 in federal nanotechnology research funds, and thanks
to Congressman Burgess will receive $3.1 million from the
Department of Defense to work on this facility here and buy a
high resolution electron microscope. It is a goal of our
university to play a major role in the development of
nanotechnology and subsequent job creation in the North Texas
region. The formation of CART and the purchase of equipment
will permit UNT to study materials on the atomic scale,
collaborate with local industry, and incubate new technology
companies.
It is critical that we examine issues of outreach. Current
budget constraints at state and local levels require that
changes in curriculum be at a minimum of revenue neutral. We
can simply not ask local schools to pay for any of the new
technology we want to introduce or any new curricula we want to
introduce. It's something that has to come from the federal
level. We must also make it worth the teachers' time to spend
time to learn all these things. Teachers, as we are aware, are
hard-working enough.
One of the other issues I think that's relevant to discuss
today is that a large fraction of math and science teachers
countrywide do not actually have degrees in their subject area,
and those that have them have an average of about 15 years
experience, so we must consider the fact that many of them are
trained as of 1988, and any new curricula that we try to share
with them must go back on that information. These are hard-
working people and very learned and very interested in teaching
our children, but we must include the fact that they need to be
brought up to speed in a lot of these programs.
I'd like to speak kind of personally. One of the programs
that got cut in the 1980's was the High School National Science
Foundation Summer Science Program. I can attest to its value
because I wouldn't be here today if it were not for that
program. Summer Science Program for High School Juniors similar
to the current National Science Foundation Research Experience
for Undergraduate Program I believe should be instituted at
universities across the country.
I believe one of the other issues regarding outreach is
that there are simply not enough national technology centers,
centers of excellence, to actually spread the outreach across
the country. I believe this is the responsibility of all
nanotechnologists and all people working in nanotechnology to
share this information at local schools. I don't think it
should be something that spreads from specific locuses, I
believe it's all our responsibility.
I believe regarding our potential work forces, there are
current shortages in state budgets that are massively affecting
our local school districts. For example, several school
districts in North Texas are considering cutting back on
advanced placement courses. While the pressure on local school
boards are immense, such cutbacks are shortsighted and could
have long-term effects on math and science education. A longer-
term suggestion is to increase the number and improve the
quality of science and engineering students for our future. I
believe that we are in desperate need of funding to increase
the number of trained middle and high school math and science
teachers. I believe that science curriculum coordination should
include input from industry personnel who are trained in
research. I believe that university state and engineering
programs should be expanded to include some of the new areas of
research. We need to introduce curriculum that actually follows
along with that research.
I believe also an interesting point is that we also need to
look--and if I may speak off the cuff for just a moment--the
university research and engineering programs should also be
looking at K through 20. We need to be looking at people beyond
school systems. I think it's important that as educators we
educate the public because people are not going to vote, people
are not going to support technology unless they understand it.
If you look at some of the movements in Europe involving
genetically modified foods, there is a groundswell against a
lot of technology. And I'm not saying that they're right, I'm
not saying that they're wrong. As Congressman Hall pointed out,
this is a non-partisan sort of discussion, but I think it's
critical that we educate the public so the information is
available.
So I thank you, Congressman Burgess, for inviting us today,
and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Dr. Reidy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard F. Reidy
Introduction
Nanotechnology will remain an extremely fertile research arena for
the foreseeable future. It is the eventual progression of man's quest
to control the basic building blocks of our world. The Apollo program
expressed our desire to journey beyond Earth; nanotechnology evinces
our curiosity preceding the microscopic. Like the space program, the
world of the ultra-small can spur the imagination and vocations of
budding scientists. Fostering this resource is critical to the future
advancement of nanotechnology. Creating the ``destiny of discovery''
that the Lunar Landing evoked must be a parallel mission of the
National Nanotechnology lnitiative as we can ill-afford to make this a
race for the select few. The National Science Foundation has long held
that K-12 outreach was a critical element of academic research.
Programs to cultivate youth interest should be as creative and fresh as
our research. Directing new talent into science and engineering will
provide the researchers necessary to meet the ever-expanding challenges
in nanotechnology.
What new advances should we expect from nanotechnology? The:
``possible'' of a few years ago has now become reality. I believe that
the history of integrated circuits points to an amazing future. The
semiconductor industry has repeatedly met the lofty expectations of
Moore's Law (i.e., the number of transistors in a chip double every 1-2
years) despite facing extremely difficult issues with each generation
of microchip. The power of personal computers exemplify this
advancement; the Intel 486, the premier PC chip just over a decade ago,
contained approximately 1.2 million transistors while the current
Pentium 4 has over 42 million. I have been fortunate to be a member of
the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (the
organization that plots development and expectations of future
technology requirements), and I marvel at the planning and knowledge
breadth that created this record of success. While many issues loom
within the next decade as potential ``show stoppers'' to the progress
of continued microchip development, past performance and sheer mass of
talent will likely overcome these issues.
The discovery and development of carbon nanotubes offer an
additional hopeful scenario for the progression of nanotechnology. In
less than a decade, these nanometer scaled structures have been studied
for a wide range of applications crossing many disciplines: high
strength composite materials, nanowires, artificial kidneys, chemical
weapons sensing, solar energy, and non-volatile memory. The breadth of
this research highlights the need for cross-disciplinary nanotechnology
research teams and the cooperative efforts of industry, government, and
universities.
University-based research programs differ somewhat from industry
due to the graduation of researchers and funding cycles of 1-4 years.
These aspects necessitate a critical need for initial kickoff funding.
The next section describes this process.
Summary of University Research Requirements and Output Dependencies
The schematic below is an abbreviated outline of nanotechnology
research requirements and potential outcomes. All research of merit
must have some initial funding to pay students, buy materials and
maintain equipment. Excellent ideas are ``grounded'' without student
researchers, appropriate equipment and instrumentation, and working
materials. In the past, most federal agencies required some threshold
of previous work to consider a program for funding. Because much of the
nanoworld is unexplored, this burden of proof has lessened
considerably. This ``lower bar'' permits rapid testing of ideas, but
increases the risk of these ventures. To account for this risk, many
nanotechnology proposals are funded as one-year exploratory grants.
While exploratory grants will support many strong research ideas, many
more will scramble for internal or other sources of funding to initiate
research. Research institutions should be encouraged to provide
sufficient funding for researchers to overcome the ``proof or concept''
burden necessary to garner external funding.
Funding for equipment and instrumentation presents another issue.
The study of the very small requites specialized and often expensive
instrumentation. While some large well-funded institutions can often
support purchases of six and seven figure capital equipment, smaller
institutions must rely on federal and State outlays to support these
purchases. The recent work by Rep. Burgess to support the purchase of a
high-resolution transmission electron microscope here at UNT is an
example of such an outlay. Major research instrument funding from the
National Science Foundation is highly competitive, and strong proposals
have often gone unfunded. It is critical that financial support of
major equipment purchases be accessible to all institutions with a
proven need. Without accessibility to specialized instrumentation,
nanotechnology will become the province of only a few universities. To
summarize, issues of concern are:
initial funding to ``kickoff'' research and prove
basic concepts
accessibility of instruments necessary to develop
nanoscaled materials and systems.
Responses to Questions
How significant of an impact will nanotechnology have on U.S. economic
growth and job creation in the coming decades? In what industry areas
will the impact be most dramatic? What challenges exist that may slow
or limit the growth and influence of nanotechnology?
Advancements in nanoscience will permit faster, smarter, and more
selective techniques to overcome both mundane and exotic problems.
Powders that rapidly detoxify chemical weapons, frictionless surfaces,
cancer drugs that repair defected gene sequences, and clothing that
regulates skin temperature are all topics of research interest. From
process control to smaller and smarter computers, few automated
industries will not benefit from nanotechnology advancements. However,
the industries most likely to see dramatic improvements are electronics
and biotechnology.
Recent estimates suggest that one million jobs will result from
applications of nanotechnology. Over the last four years, venture
capitalists have invested over $900 million in nanotechnology--$386
million in 2002. The current environment is ripe for the creation of
nanotechnology startup ventures. In addition to its focus on
nanotechnology research, the newly formed Center for Advanced Research
and Technology (CART) can become an incubator for small technology
companies. In this role, CART can foster technology development and job
growth in the North Texas region.
Limits to Nanotechnology Growth
Effective growth can be managed by balancing support of basic,
applied, and engineering research. While basic research will likely
remain the province of universities and national laboratories, more
applied efforts must involve active contributions from industry.
Universities must be open to non-traditional collaborations to
encourage the infusion of industry-specialized knowledge and to ease
technology transfer. As industry continues to lower the prominence of
the ``r'' in research and development, it is incumbent on government
and industrial consortia to support universities as R and D
alternatives and to fund university purchases of ``dual use'' equipment
to expand the capabilities of local industries.
It is critical to develop and maintain a trained workforce. If
demand for researchers and technologists exceeds our supply, then
growth will slow or industry will seek talent from outside the U.S.
Neither alternative is in the best interest of the U.S. We should
prepare for this coming need as the Nation did in the late 1950's and
early 1960's during the space race.
What, in your experience, are the best practices to help facilitate the
transfer of basic research results to industry? To what extent has UNT
partnered with industry on nanotechnology research and development
challenges, and how can such collaborations be made more effective?
Transfer of Basic Research to Industry
Some universities have well-staffed industrial liaison
organizations to market the intellectual wares of their faculty. This
model has led to many valuable patent licensing agreements and startup
companies. For universities without such infrastructure, this business
model may not be practical. Integrated joint research ventures in which
basic and applied research are conducted at the university and product
development remains with the industrial partner may be more suitable
for many universities. Contracts detailing confidentiality,
intellectual property rights, and licensing agreements permit sharing
of information and experience that will greatly assist the university
researchers. Planning and status meetings should include as many
participants as possible, including graduate researchers. These same
practices would be effective in business incubators.
UNT Partnerships With Industry
UNT has initiated nanotechnology collaborations with a range of
industrial partners: Carbon Nanotechnologies Incorporated, Kraft Foods,
Clarisay, Texas Instruments, as well as industrial consortia such as
Semiconductor Research Corporation and International Sematech.
My work with colleagues Dr. Dennis Mueller of UNT, Dr. Moon Kim of
UT-Dallas, and Dr. Phil Matz of Texas Instruments focuses on the
nanoscale properties of integrated circuit insulators and the
development of new insulator materials with controlled nanometer-sized
structures. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation
``Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry'' (GOALI)
program. In addition to funding from NSF, Texas Instruments (TI) has
agreed to provide substantial in-kind support including access to
instrumentation and processed wafers. As both a co-investigator and TI
liaison, Dr. Matz meets with both students and faculty regularly to
collaborate on research topics and facilitate experiments at TI
facilities. All of the investigators have been granted access to
relevant facilities, and TI has provided me with an office to stage and
coordinate experiments. This arrangement efficiently integrates the
need of Texas Instruments to conduct long-term research and provides
UNT students the opportunity to work on very practical problems and to
directly interface with industry.
Has federal support for your research been effective at helping UNT
achieve its goals? How might Congress strengthen the structure, funding
levels, and focus of the National Nanotechnology Initiative?
Federal Support to Achieve UNT Goals
In FY 2003, UNT received over $760,000 in federal nanotechnology
research funding and $3.1 million from the Department of Defense for
the establishment of the Center of Advanced Research and Technology.
These funds produced very interesting results and have leveraged
additional support from other agencies. It is the goal of our
university to play a major role in the development of nanotechnology
and the subsequent creation of jobs in the North Texas region. The
formation of CART and the purchase of a high-resolution transmission
electron microscope will permit UNT to study materials on the atomic
scale, collaborate with local industry, and incubate new technology
companies.
Congressional Strengthening of Structure, Funding Levels and Focus of
NNI
Funding for nanotechnology will need to increase as new promising
avenues of research are revealed. Periodic assessment of how budgets
are meeting needs, especially in the areas of outreach, will be
necessary. While the NNI has included workforce preparation as part of
its mission, there exist several key issues that affect the integration
of nanotechnology course material into current K-I2 curriculum:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Many of these discussion points are described in ``Extending
Outreach Success for the National Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Centers--A Handbook for Universities,'' James G. Batterson of the
National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office, January 2, 2002.
Current budget constraints at State and local levels
require that changes in curriculum would inflict cost increases
on those who are already facing funding cutbacks. Such changes
should be at a minimum revenue neutral; therefore, funding of
new materials or teacher education should be absorbed by NNI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(under the auspices of Centers of Excellence or NIRT grants).
Likewise, compensation to teachers for their
involvement in nanotechnology summer workshops should reflect
these recent restrictions in funding. Simply put, we must make
it financially worth their time to participate. Teachers are
often seriously underpaid, and these programs need incentives
to induce the necessary levels of participation.
A large fraction of math and science teachers does
not have degrees in their subject area. The average teacher has
15 years experience; therefore, most teachers have not had
formal science training since 1988. It is critical that teacher
outreach programs involve language and context commensurate
with these issues. These are experienced professionals who are
willing to learn, but, in many cases, may need some leveling
materials in the initial stages. Being cognizant of our
outreach audience's background is critical to effectively
convey the possibilities of nanotechnology research. It is our
goal to infuse an enthusiasm to teachers that will carry over
to their students.
One of the best ways to influence career choices of
young people is through summer job experiences. As a product of
NSF summer science program, I can attest to the value of my
first real experience with research. Summer science programs
similar to the NSF REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates)
should be instituted at universities across the Nation.
Programs will have specialties based on their research.
Students will be responsible for room and board although
financial aid should be available.
I believe that there are simply not enough Nanotechnology Centers
of Excellence to conduct nationwide outreach programs. Extending this
responsibility to other nanotechnology grant holders would expand the
scope of the program. To avoid conflicting motivations, additional
funds should be available for outreach for non-center grant holders.
The funding of these education programs should be evaluated separately
from the research aspects of the grants and could be funded after the
research grants expire. Outreach programs are difficult to set up and
critical to development of a trained workforce; therefore, existing
programs should be nurtured and supported without interruptions if
possible.
Is the U.S. education system currently producing an adequate number of
people with the skills needed to conduct research in nanotechnology and
to work in industry on the commercialization of nanotechnology
applications? What is the longer-term outlook for the nanotechnology
workforce, and what changes, if any, should be made to the current
education system to ensure these workforce needs are met?
Capabilities of U.S. Educational Institutions to Meet Future Needs
At present, elementary, secondary, community college and university
systems are not producing graduates with the skill sets to meet
nanotechnology challenges. In part this failure is a hangover from the
1990's--business degrees and computer science were preferred over
natural science and engineering degrees as means to rapid wealth. The
pendulum will no doubt swing back toward engineering and natural
sciences; however, we lack the teachers at all levels to meet our
growing need.
The current shortages in State budgets are impacting local school
districts. For example, several school districts in North Texas are
considering cutting back on advanced placement courses. While the
pressures on local school boards are immense, such cutbacks are
shortsighted and could have long-term effects on math and science
education. Some longer-term suggestions to increase the number and
improve the quality of science and engineering students:
Federal, State, and local funding outlays are
necessary to increase middle and high school math and science
teachers.
Science curriculum coordination should include
personnel with research experience.
Science and engineering doctoral students should be
encouraged to teach at the secondary levels.
University science and engineering programs should be
expanded to include new areas of research.
K through 20+ pedagogy should encourage cross-
disciplinary problem-solving and collaboration.
Summary
Nanotechnology will no doubt change our world, but it presents new
challenges to our educational system, our industries, and our Federal,
State and local governments. Many important issues regarding the
funding and value of nanotechnology must be decided by an educated and
informed populace. It is the responsibility of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative and its supported researchers to make new and
exciting discoveries and to prepare our nation to meet the challenges
of this new world.
Biography for Richard F. Reidy
Dr. Richard F. Reidy is Assistant Professor of Materials Science
and Engineering at the University of North Texas. Dr. Reidy has a Ph.D.
in Metals Science and Engineering from Penn State University and BA in
Chemistry/Biochemistry from Rice University. Before joining the
University of North Texas, he worked on nanoporous films for chemical
weapons detection at the U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense
Command, Aberdeen, MD. He is currently developing nanostructured
materials and processing methods for semiconductor applications
supported by the National Science Foundation, Texas Instruments, and
International Sematech.
Chairman Burgess. Thank you, Dr. Reidy.
We'll now hear from Dr. Da Hsuan Feng, Vice President for
Research and Graduate Education at the University of Texas at
Dallas.
STATEMENT OF DR. DA HSUAN FENG, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND
GRADUATE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, DALLAS
Dr. Feng. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Hall, it is indeed
an honor and privilege for me to be here today to deliver this
testimony. We in the Metroplex in particular, and the United
States in general, are very fortunate to have Congressional
Members and leaders--and other leaders of the Nation, such as
yourselves, who have led in promoting nanotechnology in the
region and the Nation. Countries around the world have followed
the lead of our nation in making investment in nanotechnology a
national priority.
In human history, whenever a fundamentally new type of
material emerged a new economy was born. This certainly
happened during the stone, iron, bronze and plastic ages.
Instead of pertaining to a single material, nanotechnology
provides the opportunity to so fundamentally change virtually
any material that a groundswell of new businesses will arise.
Those countries and companies that do not lead in the
development and application of nanotechnology are at great risk
of becoming non-competitive. Recent avalanching advances in the
ability to manipulate materials at the sub-microscopic scale
mean that the materials of the future can have properties that
were only imagined in the past. The vision of taking nations'
nanosized building blocks to create manmade materials first
proposed by the legendary Richard Feynman some 44 years ago is
the fundamental guiding principle of this now exploding field
of nanotechnology.
The Nanotechnology Institute of the University of Texas at
Dallas is a new one. It was founded only two years ago. We did
this at the university by strategically hiring some of the best
people in the Nation or in the world to propel our activities
in this arena. The institute is led by its Director Ray
Baughman, the Deputy Director Anvar Zakhidov and Dr. Alan
MacDiarmid, a Nobel laureate in Chemistry in 2000 and holder of
the James Von Ehr Distinguished Chair in Science and
Technology. I'm extremely pleased to say that by working as a
team, which includes our senior management of UTD, the various
schools within the university and the technological and
economic planning communities of North Texas, the institute has
grown rapidly to include some 60 people from all over the world
now. We are inspiring and educating students of all ages of the
work force and creating knowledge and technologies that will
generate new businesses and job growth. Physicists, chemists,
biologists, ceramicists, metallurgists and mathematicians are
teaming with engineers to solve problems. We're eliminating
boundaries that interfere with the transition from science to
technology and from technology to product. The Nanotech
Institute has an atmosphere of excitement, fun and creativity
that inspires researchers from 8th graders to senior citizens
working in our laboratories in the quest of new basic
understanding and new technologies.
Finding and effectively utilizing new energy sources
without damaging the environment is one of the primary
challenges of our nation and the world. For this reason, the
Nanotech Institute has identified nanoenergetics as an area of
focus, and there are four of them. While every category
deserves a full and detailed description, within the time
constraint, I will merely underscore that one important aspect
is the assembly of nanofibers into high performance fibers that
can be used in building devices. All known bulk synthesis
methods produce carbon single-walled nanotubes as impure soot.
An important challenge is to develop practical technologies for
transforming this soot into continuous fibers that can have
useful properties for important applications, such as
converting waste thermal and mechanical energy to electrical
mechanical energy absorption in safe harnesses and energy
storage in textiles for the soldier. By using a novel spinning
apparatus, spinning solutions and spinning coagulants, the
scientists at UTD's NanoTech Institute have spun nanotube
fibers with record lengths, tensile strengths and energy-to-
break. No known fibers of any type are nearly as tough. The
landmark importance of the advances published in the
prestigious journal called Nature was indicated by news
coverage from all over the world, from here to Europe to Asia.
Mr. Chairman, in the late '70's, I was privileged to spend
a year as a visiting professor at the Niels Bohr Institute at
the University of Copenhagen, then one of the world centers for
nuclear science research. At the NBI, led by two Nobel
laureates, there was great scientific excitement, great works
and discoveries were made routinely by scientists all over the
world. It was quite an intellectual atmosphere. I am therefore
extremely pleased to observe a similar intensity of
intellectual excitement about a new and fast-paced field of
science and technology permeating in UTD's NanoTech Institute.
Mr. Chairman, in the long run I believe that most products
will depend upon nanotechnology, from products for detecting
and treating cancer, to smaller and faster computers, to
improved sensors for homeland security and to the skins of our
most advanced aircraft. Anytime fundamentally new materials and
exciting properties are created new business can result.
Nanotechnology is generic. Avalanching abilities and
manipulating of self-assembling on the nanoscale are creating
fundamentally new materials of all kinds, from metals,
semiconductors, superconductors to even plastics. An economic
base of new materials and devices can simply offer the ability
to carry out our traditional tasks more efficiently and, more
often than not, to carry out tasks that were previously
impossible. Also, it can mean having materials that are
multifunctional like the nanotube fibers at UTD, which might
eventually be used in the soldiers' uniform as both a power
source and for antiballistic protection.
Material producers are wary, on the other hand, of risking
money on improving and upscaling material production until
customers are clearly identified, and users are wary of
investing money on evaluating the materials in the products
until they can be guaranteed low material costs. Cradle-grave
assurance of material and product safety is another important
issue for nanotechnology-based materials but probably no more
than for other materials and chemicals.
The evolution of nanotechnology advances into new economics
is still in its early phase, but there are already noteworthy
successes. Overcoming the barriers between early technology
breakthroughs and products is always challenging, and targeted
government funding can make the difference between shelf
technology and a commercial success. Two years ago at a
nanotechnology conference in Richardson, Jack Kilby, one of the
scientific giants of the 20th century from Texas Instruments
and the year 2000 Nobel laureate for discovering the integrated
circuit, said, and I paraphrase, ``If it was not for the
military, the integrated circuit may still be on the shelf
today.'' In a sense, the discoveries of nanotechnology are
similar to IC discoveries in the early days. Achieving
commercial applications may or may not be straightforward
depending on the technology. The best practice is for
universities to partner early on with the most appropriate
companies. Throwing early technology results over the fence to
industry generally doesn't work, so finding ways to facilitate
the partnering of industry and universities is critical. We are
doing that at the moment and sometimes with great difficulty
but we are working very hard in that direction.
The successes achieved by UTD's Nanotech Institute research
programs would not have existed were it not for the support of
various federal agencies as well as the visionary leadership of
statesmen such as you. The same is true for virtually all the
major nanotechnology efforts in universities that are ongoing
in our country today. Continuation and strengthening of this
support is absolutely critical for our nation's maintaining and
increasing its leadership role. Industrial managers, especially
in large companies, are often forced to focus on next year's
product so that research commitment to revolutionary products
is severely weakened.
Targeted funding, such as that of NIST ATP Program, can
help industry take risks that are in the longer-term interests
of our economy and the companies and facilitate partnering
between industries and universities. Programs for small
business like the SBIR Program are critical, and increases in
Phase I funding levels could provide the industrial focus that
enables success.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that I am exaggerating to
say that many of our research universities are among the best
in the world. However, the number of Americans obtaining Ph.D.s
has not grown with our population and with the increasing needs
of our industry. Indeed, our nation's intellectual and economic
growth has long been closely linked to our ability to absorb
the best and the brightest from all corners of the globe.
Innovations carried out in American university laboratories are
powered by students, postdocs and faculty members from across
the United States and from all regions on Earth, and many of
these individuals join American industry to forge the products
of the future.
At the Nanotech Institute of UTD, it is just a microcosm of
this trend. For example, at our laboratories, you may find
nearly around the clock, in fact around the clock, American
students, postdocs, faculty members, community members working
hand in hand with their colleagues from Russia, Uzbekistan,
China, Korea, Philippines, Brazil, India, Germany, Ireland,
Spain, Australia and many other countries.
Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the war on terror, a situation
has arisen because of the serious limitation of visas issued to
countries that are becoming the world's technical powers. At
the most obvious level, the ability of international scientists
to attend scientific conferences in the United States has
become problematic. Often even invited speakers are unable to
receive a visa in time. Unless this visa problem is corrected,
I fear that many international conferences will rarely be held
in this country so that our students, technologists and
industrialists will lose rapid access to information. The
world's brain drains of the past have served to enrich the
United States, and I fear that the present visa crisis is now
closing our borders to much of the intellectual powers around
the world. We are in danger of no longer being a technology
melting pot.
At the same time as we are seriously restricting visas for
other countries, American companies are creating major research
laboratories elsewhere. Business is usually done with those you
know, often face-to-face interactions, and I further fear that
the visa problem will eventually decrease our ability to
conduct commercial interactions with rapidly developing
economies of the world. Mr. Chairman, the visa issue----
Chairman Burgess. Let me just--I'll stop you there if I
could, and we can certainly get that in the record, but I want
to be respectful of everyone's time.
Dr. Feng. Sure. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Feng follows:]
Prepared Statement of Da Hsuan Feng
This testimony by Da Hsuan Feng (Vice President of Research at the
University of Texas at Dallas) comprises (A) Overview of the Research
and Development Activities of the NanoTech Institute and (B) Responses
to Addressed Questions.
Dear Congressional Members: It is indeed an honor and privilege for
me to be here today to deliver this testimony. As you know, my
colleague, Professor Ray Baughman, UTD's NanoTech Institute director
was invited to be here, but had the prior obligation of serving on a
National Science Foundation panel today.
We in the Metroplex are very fortunate to have Congressional
Members, such as yourselves, who have led in promoting nanotechnology
in the region and the Nation. Countries around the world have followed
the lead of our nation in making investment in nanotechnology a
national priority.
In human history, whenever a fundamentally new type of material
emerged, a new economy was born. This certainly happened during the
Stone, Iron, Bronze, and Plastic Ages. Instead of pertaining to a
single material, nanotechnology provides the opportunity to so
fundamentally change virtually any material that a groundswell of new
businesses will arise. Those countries and companies that do not lead
in the development and application of nanotechnology are at great risk
of becoming noncompetitive. Recent avalanching advances in the ability
to manipulate materials at the sub-microscopic scale mean that the
materials of the future can have properties that were only imagined in
the past. Taking an example from biology, nature has long been
manipulating virus and cells at the submicroscopic level. This ability
of nature to operate at a very small scale eventually cascaded to the
diverse functionality of higher organisms. However, it took
approximately 600 million years after the formation of the Earth for
nature to achieve the single cell, and less than a million years
afterwards to develop the first organism. Materials made possible by
nanotechnology will include those having some of the capabilities of
biological systems, like the ability to appropriately change properties
in response to the environment and to self-repair. This vision of
taking nature's nanosize building blocks to create manmade materials,
first proposed by the legendary Richard Feynman some 44 years ago, is
the fundamental guiding principle of this now exploding field of
nanotechnology.
A. Overview of the NanoTech Institute at the University of Texas at
Dallas
The NanoTech Institute of the University of Texas at Dallas was
founded merely two years ago. We did this by strategically hiring some
of the best people in the world to propel our activities in this arena.
The Institute is led by its Director, Dr. Ray Baughman, its Deputy
Director, Dr. Anvar Zakhidov, and Dr. Alan MacDiarmid, a Nobel laureate
in Chemistry in 2000 and holder of the James Von Ehr Distinguished
Chair in Science and Technology. I am extremely pleased to say that by
working as a team, which includes senior management of UTD, the various
Schools within the university, and the technological and economic
planning communities in North Texas, the Institute has grown rapidly to
include more than 60 people from all over the world. We are inspiring
and educating students of all ages for the work force and creating
knowledge and technologies that will generate new businesses and job
growth. Physicists, chemists, biologists, ceramicists, metallurgists,
and mathematicians are teaming with engineers to solve problems. We are
eliminating boundaries that interfere with the transition from science
to technology, and from technology to product. The NanoTech Institute
has an atmosphere of excitement, fun, and creativity that inspires--
researchers from 8th graders to senior citizens work in our
laboratories in the quest for new basic understanding and new
technologies.
Finding and effectively utilizing new energy sources without
damaging the environment is one of the primary challenges of our nation
and the world. For this reason, the Nanotech Institute has identified
NanoEnergetics as an area of focus. We are using carbon nanotube fibers
for the:
(a) transformation of electrical energy to mechanical energy
in nanotube artificial muscles,
(b) reversible transformation of electrical energy to chemical
energy in supercapacitor and battery fibers that can be woven
into electronic textiles,
(c) transformation of mechanical energy to elastic energy and
thermal energy in super-tough carbon nanotube composite fibers,
and
(d) transformation of waste thermal energy into electrical
energy in electrochemical thermal energy harvesting devices.
While every category deserves a full and detailed description,
within the time constraint, I will merely underscore that one important
aspect is the assembly of nanofibers into high performance fibers that
can be used in building devices. All known bulk synthesis methods
produce carbon single walled nanotubes as impure soot. An important
challenge is to develop practical technologies for transforming this
soot into continuous fibers that have useful properties for important
applications, such as converting waste thermal and mechanical energy to
electricity, mechanical energy absorption in safety harnesses, and
energy storage in textiles for the soldier. By using a novel spinning
apparatus, spinning solutions, and spinning coagulants, the scientists
in UTD's NanoTech Institute have spun nanotube fibers with record
lengths, tensile strengths, and energy-to-break (toughness). No known
fibers of any type are nearly as tough. The landmark importance of the
advance (published in Nature and reported in Science) was indicated by
news coverage from around the world (Wall Street Journal, New York
Times, U.S. Today, China Peoples Daily, Discover Magazine, NBC and ABC
television, Voice of America, Science, Physics Today, C&E News, etc.).
Mr. Chairman, in the late seventies, I was privileged to spend a
year as a visiting professor in the Niels Bohr Institute in University
of Copenhagen, then one of the world centers of nuclear science
research. At the NBI, led by the two Nobel laureates, there was great
scientific excitement there, and great works and discoveries were made
routinely by scientists from all over the world. It was quite an
intellectual atmosphere. I am therefore extremely pleased to observe a
similar intensity of intellectual excitement about a new and fast paced
field of science and technology, permeating in UTD's NanoTech
Institute.
B. Questions and Responses
How significant of an impact will nanotechnology have
on U.S. economic growth and job creation in the coming decades?
In what industry areas will the impact be most dramatic? What
challenges exist that may slow or limit the growth and
influence of nanotechnology?
Mr. Chairman, in the long-term, I believe that most products will
depend upon nanotechnology, from products for detecting and treating
cancer, to smaller and faster computers, to improved sensors for home
land security, and to the skins of our most advanced aircraft. Anytime
fundamentally new materials with exciting properties are created, new
businesses can result. Nanotechnology is generic, avalanching abilities
in manipulating and self-assembling on the nanoscale are creating
fundamentally new materials of all kinds--from metals, semiconductors
and superconductors to plastics. An economic base of new materials and
devices can simply offer the ability to carry out traditional tasks
more efficiently, or more often then not, to carry out tasks which were
previously impossible. Also, it can mean having materials that are
multifunctional, like nanotube fibers fabricated at UTD's NanoTech
Institute, which might eventually be used in a soldier's uniform as
both a power source and for antiballistic protection. Nanotechnology
also can provide intelligent materials, like the NanoTech Institutes
nanotube sheets, which can detect the composition of the fuel mixture
in an engine and automatically open or close a valve--all without the
need for an external power source. Mr. Chairman, advances in
nanotechnology will likely impact virtually all industries, from
materials, clothing, aerospace, communications, biotechnology, and
computing industries to industries that have not yet been conceived. As
for any new area, there are a host of challenges that must be solved.
One is the high cost of producing materials on laboratory scales.
Materials producers are wary of risking money on improving and up-
scaling material production until customers are clearly identified, and
users are wary of investing money on evaluating the materials in their
products until they can be guaranteed low material cost. Cradle-grave
assurance of material and product safety is another important issue for
nanotechnology-based materials, but probably no more than for other
materials and chemicals.
What in your experience are the best practices to
help facilitate the transfer of basic research results to
industry? To what extent has the Institute partnered with
industry on nanotechnology research and development challenges,
and how can such collaborations be made more effective?
The evolution of nanotechnology advances into new economies is
still at the early phase, but there are already noteworthy successes,
like the commercialization of remarkable biomedical test kits,
multiwalled nanotubes as conducting additives for plastics, and
nanofiber coated textiles for ordinary clothing (jeans). Overcoming the
barriers between early technological breakthroughs and products is
always challenging, and targeted governmental funding can make the
difference between a shelved technology and a commercial success. Two
years ago, at a nanotechnology conference in Richardson, Texas, Jack
Kilby, one of the scientific giants of the 20th century from Texas
Instruments and the year 2000 Nobel laureate for discovering the
integrated circuit (IC) said that, and I paraphrase, ``if it was not
for the military, the IC may still be on the shelf today.'' In a sense,
the discoveries of nanotechnology are similar to the IC discoveries in
the early days. Achieving commercial application may or may not be
straightforward, depending upon the technology. The best practice is
for universities to partner early on with the most appropriate
companies. Throwing early technology results over a fence to industry
generally doesn't work, so finding ways to facilitate the partnering of
industry and universities is critical. UTD is partnering with a host of
companies in the area of flexible light-emitting displays, and is
partnering with industry on federally funded work in the nanotube area.
Has federal support for your research been effective
at helping the Institute achieve its goals? How might Congress
strengthen the structure, funding levels, and focus of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative?
The successes achieved by UTD's NanoTech Institute research
programs would not have existed were it not for the support of various
federal agencies as well as the visionary leadership of statesmen such
as you. The same is true for virtually all of the major nanotechnology
efforts in universities that are ongoing in our country today.
Continuation and strengthening of this support is critical for our
nation's maintaining and increasing its leadership position. Industrial
managers, especially in large companies, are often forced to focus on
next year's product, so that the research commitment to revolutionary
products is severely weakened. Targeted funding like that of the NIST
ATP program can help industry take risks that are in the longer-term
interest of our economy and the companies, and facilitate partnering
between industry and universities. Programs for small businesses, like
the SBIR program, are critical, and increases in phase I funding levels
could provide the industrial focus that enables success.
Is the U.S. education system currently producing an
adequate number of people with the skills needed to conduct
research in nanotechnology and to work in industry on the
commercialization of nanotechnology applications? What is the
longer-term outlook for the nanotechnology workforce, and what
changes, if any, should be made to the current education system
to ensure these workforce needs are met?
Mr. Chairman, I do not think I am exaggerating to say that many of
our research universities are among the best in the world. However, the
number of Americans obtaining Ph.D.s has not grown with our population
and with the increasing needs of our industry. Indeed, our nation's
intellectual and economic growth has long been closely linked to our
ability to absorb the best and the brightest from all corners of the
globe. Innovations carried out in American university laboratories are
powered by students, postdocs, and faculty members from across the
United States and from all regions of the Earth, and many of these
individuals join American industry to forge the products of the future.
The NanoTech Institute of UTD is but a microcosm of this trend. For
example, in the NanoTech Institute's laboratories, you will find nearly
around the clock, American students, postdocs and faculty members
working hand-in-hand with their colleagues from Russia, Uzbekistan,
China, Korea, Philippines, Brazil, India, Germany, Ireland, Spain,
Australia, and other countries. Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the War on
Terror, a situation has arisen because of the serious limitation of
visas issued in countries that are becoming the world's technical
powers. At the most obvious level, the ability of international
scientists to attend scientific conferences in the United States has
become problematic. Often even invited speakers are unable to receive a
visa in time. Unless this visa problem is corrected, I fear that major
international conferences will be rarely held in our country, so our
students, technologists, and industries will lose rapid access to
information. The world's brain drain of the past has served to enrich
America, and I fear that present visa crisis is now closing our borders
to much of the intellectual power around the word. We are in danger of
no longer being a ``technology'' melting pot. (See Nature 426, 5 (2003)
). At the same time as we are seriously restricting visas for these
countries, important American companies are creating major research
laboratories in China and India. Business is usually done with those
you know, often through face-to-face interactions, and I further fear
that the visa problem will eventually decrease our ability to conduct
commercial interactions with rapidly developing economies around the
world. Mr. Chairman, the visa issue is beginning to effectively isolate
American science and technology and decrease our ability to attract the
brightest and most productive scientists to our shores. Unless,
solutions are found we could be jeopardizing both our economic progress
and security built on leadership in nanotechnology and many other
fields.
In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, the chronic shortage of
scientists and engineers facing our nation requires a long-term and
sustainable solution by the Federal Government. The best solution is to
truly excite our students in the K-12 levels in science and
mathematics, and the only way we can achieve that is to greatly enhance
the number of skilled teachers at those levels.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, nanotechnology is a quickly changing
field. I think everyone would agree with me that not so long ago, North
Texas was not known for its nanotechnology efforts. Now, we are on the
national and international radar screen. Your assistance and
understanding of all the issues surrounding the region's ability to
maintain a healthy scientific and economic landscape will be critical
to our future.
Biography for Da Hsuan Feng
Dr. Feng is an expert in mathematical physics, nuclear physics,
nuclear astrophysics, quantum optics, fundamental issues of quantum
mechanics, network architecture and computational physics. He has been
a consultant to the theoretical physics groups of Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Brookhaven National
Laboratory and United Kingdom's Daresbury Laboratory.
Dr. Feng is responsible for successfully recruiting and securing
the funds for the James Von Ehr Distinguished Chair in Science and
Technology for Dr. Alan MacDiarmid, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in
Chemistry. He also painstakingly recruited the nanotechnology research
team of Honeywell Corporation in New Jersey. This team is now the
backbone of UTD's rapidly growing nanoscience program. In addition, Dr.
Feng also initiated a SPRING (Strategic Partnership of Research in
Nanotechnology) project, which linked together, besides UTD, Rice
University, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of
Texas at Arlington. For FY03 and FY04, Dr. Feng worked closely with the
Congressional delegation of Texas to secure $6 million and $10 million,
respectively, for SPRING funding. He also founded the Medical Device
Action Group, a regional effort to promote interdisciplinary research
in this technological arena. Research funding for UTD has increased
from $16 million to $28 million during the past three years.
On December 9, 2000, Dr. Feng assumed the position of Vice
President for Research and Graduate Education and Professor of Physics
at the University of Texas at Dallas. Dr. Feng's objective at the
University of Texas at Dallas, as designated by the President and the
Provost, is to rapidly build the research breath and depth of the
University. The goal is to drive the University to be a major
international research University. To that end, he has articulated
three concentrations of excellence for UTD in this decade: digital
communications, advanced materials and instrumentations and last but
not least, disease centric post genomic research.
Dr. Feng received his undergraduate education from Drew University
in New Jersey and doctorate in Theoretical Physics from the University
of Minnesota. Prior to joining the Physics Department of Drexel
University in 1976, where he eventually became the M. Russell Wehr
Chair Professor of Physics, he was a United Kingdom Science Research
Council fellow at the Department of Theoretical Physics of the
University of Manchester (1972-74) and a Senior Scientist at the Center
for Nuclear Studies of the University of Texas at Austin (1974-76).
During his tenure at Drexel University, he served for two years as
Program Director of Theoretical Physics at the National Science
Foundation (1983-85) and visiting Professor of the Niels Bohr Institute
of the University of Copenhagen (1979-80).
Dr. Feng has published more than 190 scientific papers, edited more
than 20 books, and served as editor of four scientific journals. In
recognition of his contribution to the field of physics, Dr. Feng
received the accolade ``Fellow of the American Physical Society.'' Each
year, no more than one-half of one percent of the current membership of
the Society is recognized by their peers for election to the status of
Fellow. He also is the Honorary Professor/Senior Research Fellow of six
universities/academy of sciences in China and the honorary member of
the Board of Trustees of one of China's top universities, Nanjing
University.
Chairman Burgess. So we probably then should move on to Dr.
Ron Elsenbaumer, the Vice President for Research at the
University of Texas at Arlington.
STATEMENT OF DR. RONALD L. ELSENBAUMER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, ARLINGTON
Dr. Elsenbaumer. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hall,
it's my pleasure to be here today to offer my testimony on the
impacts of nanotechnology on economic growth and job creation
in the future. Nanotechnology will be the driving force for
developing smaller, lighter, more energy efficient, less costly
and stronger materials, devices and processes by fostering the
creation of new functional materials and devices that exhibit
novel phenomena and properties at the nanometer length scale.
As this is realized, nanotechnology will be pervasive in our
future and will be a major factor in U.S. economic growth and
job creation in the technology sector for decades to come.
Based on current trends, it appears as though the impact
will be most dramatic in the electronics industries, medical
industries and in the energy sector. For example, work ongoing
at UT-Arlington and our nanofab research and teaching facility
and our College of Engineering and in our Center for
Nanostructured materials and our College of Science is directed
at nanotechnology development for these industries.
Specifically, in our nanofab facility, we are developing
nanostructured interfaces for semiconductor device
interconnects as well as nanoporous materials for use as low
dielectric separating copper-connected nanoscale transistor
devices.
These research projects will help realize the next
generation of high performance computer chips. Nanocontact
printing techniques being developed at other academic
institutions could revolutionize the way semiconductor devices
are manufactured and drastically reduce manufacturing costs.
Together, these new technologies will generate inexpensive,
very powerful computing devices that will be incorporated into
nearly every aspect of our daily lives, even more so than what
they are already are, leading to continued changes in our
quality and way of life.
In medical applications, we are already seeing that
nanoscopic materials can readily travel throughout the body.
Thus, nanomagnetic materials being developed at UT-Arlington
and our Center for Nanostructured Material might be used in
conjunction with drug therapies to direct drug delivery to
targeted areas of the body. Likewise, these materials, as well
as other nanostructured materials being developed elsewhere,
could be used for developing very powerful imaging technologies
for medical diagnoses. And nanotechnology will undoubtedly play
a major role in the development of renewable, cost effective,
clean sources of energy, such as hydrogen. Nanotechnology will
also lead the way to developing more efficient lighting,
transportation and electromechanical devices, all of which will
result in significant reductions in fossil fuel consumption.
But with these opportunities come formidable challenges.
New materials require new processes for making them, and many
of these processes have not yet been developed or are not yet
cost effective for commercialization. The situation is similar
for device fabrication and assembly. How can we control
fabrication processes at these incredibly small dimensions.
Paradigm shifts in manufacturing technologies will have to
occur and new processes are generally slow to be accepted by
industry. Similarly, concerns that the general public might
have with perceived dangers associated with nanotechnology,
such as environmental, bioethical and yet unrecognized societal
impacts could slow acceptance of certain nanotechnology or even
prevent them from being developed.
Overcoming these challenges and potential limitations will
take considerable effort, and here it is imperative that the
Federal Government take the long view and fund longer-term and
in some cases wider-ranging research projects, as, generally,
the private sector will not. I believe this concept needs to be
seriously considered as the Federal Government shapes its
funding and research policy issues across its various agencies.
The best approaches I have seen for facilitating the
transfer of basis research results to industry are two-fold.
One is through development of industry, university and
government partnerships early on in the process. Integrating
basic research approaches with industry development needs at
the onset, and with continued adjustment throughout the
process, ensures compatibility between the research outcomes
and industry's acceptance and willingness to integrate them
into their products and processes.
Another is through the creation of small businesses that
are facilitated through technology incubators, such as the
Arlington Technology Incubator. The Arlington Technology
Incubator was created through a partnership between UT-
Arlington and the Arlington Chamber of Commerce to help foster
new technology and new technology-led development in the
Arlington-Dallas-Ft. Worth region. It provides a mechanism by
which faculty can take their research discoveries made at the
university and develop commercial enterprises to capitalize on
them. UT-Arlington is engaged in both approaches. Joint
industry-university research partnerships are ongoing in
multiple electronic device and materials areas with several
electronics companies, and several of our faculty members are
beginning to move technology developed at the university into
small start-up companies.
Federal research support plays an important role in both of
these approaches, and I would encourage funding agencies to be
more aggressive in supporting these types of activities.
Specifically relating to the National Nanotechnology
Initiatives, policies that support and encourage government,
academia and industry partnerships and fund these activities
for longer periods of time could be given--should be given more
consideration. Consider that the average time for a Ph.D.
student to graduate is now more than five years, yet typical
research funding periods are for only three years. Likewise,
levels of financial support for graduate students as well as
their earning power upon graduation are generally not adequate
to attract U.S. citizens into pursuing science or engineering
professions. This is perhaps a particular concern for security-
sensitive industries and professions where the number of
skilled workers in nanotechnology will clearly not be adequate
to meet demand. Also, as nanotechnology becomes more integrated
into industrial practices, the demand for more highly trained
workers will outpace supply. And, of course, this will occur
faster as the economy gets stronger, further widening the gap.
To help meet these future work force needs, several changes
in our educational process will need to take place. Perhaps a
high priority one should be directed at strengthening the math
and science skills of K to 12 students and subsequently
improving the preparedness of U.S. students entering college.
Another is glorifying nanoscience and technology to students at
an early age, and these two activities will go a long way to
significantly help increase the pipeline of students seeking
and ultimately being trained for professions in research and
development in nanotechnology. Thank you.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Dr. Elsenbaumer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald L. Elsenbaumer
Nanotechnology will be the driving force for developing smaller,
lighter, more energy efficient, less costly, and stronger materials,
devices and processes by fostering the creation of new functional
materials and devices that exhibit novel phenomena and properties at
the nanometer length scale. As this is realized, ``nanotechnology''
will be pervasive in our future and will be a major factor in U.S.
economic growth and job creation in the technology sector for decades
to come. Based on current trends, it appears as though the impact will
be most dramatic in the electronics industries, medical industries, and
in the energy sector. For example, work ongoing at UT-Arlington on
developing nanostructured interfaces for semiconductor device
interconnects and nanostructured porous materials as low dielectrics
separating copper connected nanoscale transistor devices are helping to
realize the next generation of high performance computer chips. Nano-
contact printing techniques being developed at other institutions could
revolutionize the way semiconductor devices are manufactured and
drastically reduce manufacturing costs. Together, these new
technologies will generate inexpensive, very powerful computing devices
that would be incorporated into nearly every aspect of our daily
lives--even more so than what they already are--leading to continued
changes in our quality and way of life.
In medical applications, we are already seeing that nanoscopic
materials can readily travel throughout the body. Thus, nanomagnetic
materials being developed at UT-Arlington could be used in conjunction
with drug therapies to direct drug delivery to targeted areas of the
body. Likewise, these materials, as well as others being developed
elsewhere, could be used for developing very powerful imagining
techniques for medial diagnoses.
And, nanotechnology will undoubtedly play a major role in the
development of renewable, cost effective, clean sources of energy, such
as hydrogen. Nanotechnology will also lead the way to developing more
efficient lighting, transportation, and electromechanical devices; all
of which will result in significant reductions in fossil fuel
consumption.
But, with these great opportunities come formidable challenges. New
materials require new processes for making them--and many of these
processes have not been developed yet, or are not yet cost effective
for commercialization. The situation is similar for device fabrication
and assembly. How can we control fabrication processes at these
incredibly small dimensions? Paradigm shifts in manufacturing
technologies will have to occur, and new processes are generally slow
to be accepted by industry.
Similarly, concerns that the general public might have with
perceived dangers associated with nanotechnology, such as
environmental, bio-ethical, and unrecognized societal impacts, could
slow acceptance of certain nanotechnologies or prevent them from being
developed.
Overcoming these challenges and potential limitations will take
considerable effort. And here, it is imperative that the Federal
Government take the long view and fund longer-term, and in some cases
wider ranging research projects, as generally, the private sector will
not. I believe this concept needs to be seriously considered as the
Federal Government shapes its funding and research policy issues across
its various agencies.
The best approaches I have seen for facilitating the transfer of
basic research results to industry are two-fold. One is through
development of industry, university, and government partnerships early
on in the process. Integrating basic research approaches with industry
development needs at the outset, and with continued adjustment
throughout the process, ensures compatibility between the research
outcomes and industry's acceptance and willingness to integrate them
into their products and processes. Another is through the creation of
new small businesses that are facilitated through technology
incubators, such as the Arlington Technology Incubator. The Arlington
Technology Incubator was created through a partnership between UT-
Arlington and the Arlington Chamber of Commerce to help foster new
technology led economic development in the Arlington, Dallas-Fort Worth
region. It provides a mechanism by which faculty can take their
research discoveries made at the University and develop commercial
enterprises to capitalize on them. UT-Arlington is engaged in both
approaches. Joint industry/university research partnerships are ongoing
in multiple electronic device and materials areas with several
electronics companies. And, several of our faculty members are
beginning to move technology developed at the university into small
start-up companies. Federal research support plays an important role in
both of these approaches. And, I would encourage funding agencies to be
more aggressive in supporting these activities. Specifically, relating
to the National Nanotechnology Initiative, policies that support and
encourage government, academia, and industry partnerships, and fund
these activities for longer periods of time should be given more
consideration. Consider that the average time for Ph.D. students to
graduate is more than five years, yet typical research funding periods
are for only three years. Likewise, levels of financial support for
graduate students, as well as their earning power upon graduation, are
generally not adequate to attract U.S. citizens into pursuing science
or engineering professions. This is perhaps of particular concern for
security sensitive industries and professions, where the number of
skilled workers in nanotechnology will clearly not be adequate to meet
demands. Also, as nanotechnology becomes more integrated into
industrial practices, the demand for more highly trained workers will
out-pace supply. Of course, this will occur faster as the economy gets
stronger, further widening the gap. To help meet these future workforce
needs, several changes in our educational process will need to take
place. Perhaps a high priority one should be directed at strengthening
the math and science skills of K-12 students, and subsequently
improving the preparedness of U.S. students entering college. Another
is glorifying nanoscience and technology to students at an early age.
These two activities will go a long way to significantly help increase
the pipeline of students seeking and ultimately being trained for
professions in research and development in nanotechnology.
Biography for Ronald L. Elsenbaumer
Education:
B.S. With Honors in Chemistry, Purdue University, 1973
Ph.D. Chemistry, Stanford University, 1978
Employment:
The University of Texas at Arlington, 1991 to present
Interim Vice President for Research, November 2003-
Associate Vice President for Research, 2003-
Director, Nano-Fabrication Research and Teaching Facility,
2003
Interim Director, Nano-Fabrication Research and Teaching
Facility, 2002-2003
Chair, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, January 1996-
2003
Chair/Director, Materials Science and Engineering Program,
1991-2003
Professor of Chemistry and Polymer Chemistry, 1991-present
AlliedSignal, Inc. (Allied Chemical) Dec. 1977 to Oct. 1991
Corporate Research, Morristown, NJ 07962
Senior Research Associate, 1989-1991
Research Associate and Group Leader, 1982-1989
Senior Research Chemist, 1980-1982
Research Chemist III, 1977-1980
Publications:
Authored or co-authored 85 publications
Awarded 30 U.S. Patents
Research Thrust Areas:
Electrically Conductive Polymers
Flame Retardants for Polymers
Enhanced Lubricant Technologies
Chairman Burgess. Thank you.
Next we'll go to Mr. Chris Gintz, NanoHoldings, LLC.
STATEMENT OF MR. CHRISTOPHER J. GINTZ, CEO, NANOHOLDINGS, LLC
Mr. Gintz. Congressman Burgess, Congressman Hall, ladies
and gentlemen, I'm happy to report to you on behalf of all the
little companies out there that innovation in nanotechnology is
alive and well here in Texas. Approximately 80 percent of our
time is spent with researchers, both here in north and south
Texas, at University of North Texas, at the University of Texas
at Dallas and also at Rice University in Houston.
We're an investment company that builds early-stage
nanotechnology companies around exclusive licenses from leading
universities for their most promising nanotechnology
discoveries. We focus exclusively on core technologies that can
have a major impact on existing multibillion dollar markets. In
doing so, we anticipate being able to catalyze significant
research and development into breakthrough products and
processes that can improve our national industrial competitive
position and also enhance the effectiveness of our military.
We started over 18 months ago by extending our reach to
research universities that have reported promising developments
in the fields of electronics, energy and advanced materials and
process fields at the nanoscale. An example of our research and
our reach is found here today. We believe, for example, that
Dr. Timothy Imholt, a graduate student here at the University
of North Texas, has made an important discovery, and we have
been working with him to enhance his discoveries. We provided
direct financial support for his research and we've formed a
company called NanoStar to commercialize a portion of his
discovery, and we're in the process of concluding an exclusive
license with the University of North Texas, and we've been
invited by them to locate NanoStar as one of the first
commercial companies in the incubator. I believe it's in this
facility.
Our scope is long-term. While we want to solve very big and
complex national problems, we're extremely disciplined in our
business approach. We target very specific short-term
milestones that validate the science, we seek out only the best
management teams to add to each nanodevelopment company that we
form, we're relentless in our drive to ensure that our
development company delivers its first commercial products
within three years from its entry into the incubator.
I believe a drive to commercialization is critical to be
able to successfully leverage the major government investment
in this exceptional field of science. When I was the Director
of Technology Planning and Development at Compaq Computer I
focused on the creation of technological solutions leading to
the formation of major industrial partnerships with a variety
of companies. At their zenith they had annual sales of over $50
billion a year. Some of these investments were with Conner
Peripherals, with Nexgen Microsystems, with In Focus Systems,
Sanyo Electric Battery and Citizen Watch. As the inventor of
the first notebook computer concept, which became the Compaq LT
Notebook family, this product had a first year sales success of
$1.5 billion. So when I say I'm focused on commercialization, I
say so with a history of having done so successfully with a
burning desire to do so again. I also know how critical it is
to be able to allocate private capital sensibly to each
promising innovation, and I'm lucky to have an experienced
venture capitalist, Justin Hall-Tipping, as my partner.
The potential economic impact of the commercialization of
nanotech discoveries, like Dr. Imholt's, is fueling a global
foot race between developed nations whose governments clearly
understand that leadership in this field may be critical to
their future economies. The National Science Foundation
predicts that in the United States alone nanotechnology
innovation may have a trillion dollar impact within the next 15
years, but that will only occur if we have a good working
relationship between private capital sources and government.
Clearly, the recent approval of the nanotechnology bill is
evidence of the United States government's commitment to the
science. We are delighted that much of the funding is targeted
at academia. We have seen firsthand because of our
relationships with two very good research universities here in
North Texas that they're ideally structured to acquire the
grant funding process and to foster the out-of-the-box thinking
and global collaboration that will be vital for breakthroughs
in this field. This was a major determinant in NanoHoldings'
decision to invest early in partnerships with universities here
in Texas and their scientists to develop the core technologies
that we feel will form the bedrock of new industries to come.
We hope that the promise of these scientific developments
will also facilitate the local economy by providing many good
paying skilled jobs. But it most certainly cannot occur without
a sizable investment in the science and research nor in the
development of the local infrastructure. Only by working with
the university can we expect to mobilize our efforts along with
the public sector. All of the ingredients for success are here.
Progressive, forward-thinking university administrators work
hand in hand with local development officials and are creating
the environment for a small company like ours to succeed. Close
cooperation between the government at all levels of the private
sector is a fundamental requirement to create the scale of
investment that is a basic requirement for successful
entrepreneurial activity at the nanoscale. Our competition is
international and intense.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to have a voice
today. We look forward to working with you as a partner, and we
hope to ensure that we can bring these innovations to the
market. Good morning.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gintz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher J. Gintz
Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen. I am Christopher J. Gintz,
Managing Partner of NanoHoldings, LLC.
NanoHoldings is an investment company that builds early stage
nanotechnology companies around exclusive licenses from leading
universities for their most promising nanotechnology discoveries. We
focus exclusively on core technologies that can have a major impact on
existing multi-billion dollar markets. In doing so, we anticipate being
able to catalyze significant research and development into breakthrough
products and processes that could improve our national industrial
competitive position and also enhance the effectiveness of our
military.
We started over eighteen months ago by extending our reach to
research universities that had reported promising developments in
electronics, energy, and advanced materials and process fields at the
nanoscale. An example of our reach is found here today. We believe that
Mr. Timothy Imholt made an important discovery last year at the
University of North Texas. We have provided direct financial support
for his research and have formed a Company, NanoStar, to commercialize
a portion of his discovery. We are in the process of concluding our
exclusive licensing agreement with the University and have been invited
by them to locate NanoStar as the first commercial company in their new
incubator.
Our scope is long-term. While we want to solve very big and complex
national problems, we are extremely disciplined in our business
approach. We target very specific short-term milestones that validate
the science. We seek out only the best management teams to add to each
nano-development company we form. We are relentless in our drive to
ensure each development company delivers its first commercial products
within three years from its entry into the incubator.
I believe a drive to commercialization is critical to be able to
successfully leverage major government investment in this exceptional
field of science. When I was the Director of Technology, Planning and
Development for Compaq Computer, I focused on the creation of
technological solutions leading to the formation of major industrial
partnerships with Conner Peripherals, Nexgen Microsystems, In Focus
Systems, Sanyo Electric Battery, and Citizen Watch. I was also the
inventor of the first notebook computer concept, (U.S. Design Patent
#317,442), which became the Compaq LTE Notebook Compute family. That
product had first year sales in excess of $1.5 billion. So when I say I
am focused on commercialization, I say so with a history of having done
so successfully, and a burning desire to do so again. I also know how
critical it is to be able to allocate capital sensibly to each
promising innovation, and I am lucky to have an experienced venture
capitalist, Justin Hall-Tipping, as my partner.
The potential economic impact of the commercialization of nanotech
discoveries like Timothy Imholt's is fueling a global ``foot race''
between developed nations whose governments clearly understand that
leadership in this field may be critical to their future economies. The
National Science Foundation predicts that in the United States alone,
nanotechnology innovation may have a $1 trillion impact within the next
15 years. Clearly, the recent approval of the Nanotechnology bill is
evidence of the United States' commitment to this science.
We are delighted that much of this funding is targeted at academia.
We have seen first hand that university centers like the University of
North Texas are ideally structured to acquire the grant funding and
foster the out-of-the-box thinking and global collaboration that will
be vital for breakthroughs in this field. This was a major determinant
in NanoHoldings' decision to invest early in partnership with
universities and their scientists to develop the core technologies that
will form the bedrock of new industries to come.
We hope that the promise of these scientific developments will also
facilitate the local economy by providing many good paying skilled
jobs. But it most certainly cannot occur without a sizable investment
in the science and research nor in the development of the local
infrastructure.
Only by working with the University can we expect to mobilize our
efforts along with the public sector. All of the ingredients for
success are here. Progressive, forward-thinking university
administrators working hand-in-hand with local development officials
are creating the environment for us to succeed. Close cooperation
between the government at all levels and the private sector is a
fundamental requirement to create the scale of investment that is a
basic requirement for successful entrepreneurial activity at the
nanoscale. Our competition is international and intense.
Thank you for giving NanoHoldings the opportunity to have a voice
today. We look forward to working with you as a partner to create some
of the breakthrough innovations that will ensure that America maintains
a strong leadership position in this emerging global economy. Good
Morning.
Biography for Christopher J. Gintz
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Married, two children aged 8 and 11
SUMMARY:
Christopher J. Gintz, 50, is a well-known designer, marketer and
executive in the computer industry. He led the product and technology
teams in start-ups and established companies. His experience spans the
semiconductor, software and hardware businesses. As a life-long
inventor and entrepreneur, he defined technologies into end-user
products that are market based. As an early employee at Compaq
Computer, he focused on the creation of technology partnerships and the
formation of joint ventures with Conner Peripherals, Nexgen
Microsystems, In Focus Systems, and Citizen Watch. He is the inventor
of the Compaq LTE notebook computer concept and holds U.S. and foreign
patents on the design, U.S. Patent #317,442. Since 1995, he is a force
behind the incorporation of software technology into school curriculums
across the United States.
EXPERIENCE:
September 1995-Present: Optimum Resource, Inc., Hilton Head Island,
South Carolina
Chief Operating Officer, Director
Responsible for the day-to-day management of a leading educational
software publisher's operations including product definition, sales and
marketing, engineering, finance, fulfillment, personnel, and legal
functions. The company, under his guidance, created over 60 products
and broadened its brands to include a comprehensive set of curriculum-
based pre-K-grade 12 solutions that are cross-platform compatible.
Company is profitable the past four years despite a rapid consolidation
in the industry.
January 1995-September 1995: Summary Corporation, Houston, Texas
Chief Operating Officer, Director
Responsible for arranging the first round of public financing and
redirecting product development efforts.
August 1992-December 1994: The Bardehle Law Firm, Houston, Texas
Technology and Licensing Consultant to International Companies
Managed the firm's worldwide electronic technology licensing
practice. Produced major engineering analyses in the disciplines of
cellular telephone, semiconductor manufacturing and computer hardware
and software technology in preparation for complex licensing and patent
litigation. Developed strategies for technology licensing clients in
the United States, Japan, and Europe. Cross-trained in the copyright
and trademark practices in the global electronics industry.
August 1991-August 1992: Compaq Computer Corporation, Houston, Texas
Director, Corporate Development; reported to the new President and
Chairman of the Board
Appointed by the new President in management reorganization to
identify, form, and manage cross-functional teams to restructure the
Company's business processes. Developed a plan, in conjunction with a
20-person McKinsey consulting team, to develop a strategy to broaden
the company's distribution and product line accelerating the company's
growth from 5.5 billion to 10 billion dollars. Reduced payroll by $25
million dollars, operating expenses by $200 million annually and
product development and manufacturing costs by 30 percent.
August 1985-August 1991: Compaq Computer Corporation, Houston, Texas
Director, Technology, Planning and Development; reported to the
Founders of the Company
Managed the worldwide technology diligence process for all semi-
conductor, computer hardware and software technologies fitting into the
company's product planning and business processes. Completed over $50
million in early stage investments in relevant technologies. Company
earned over a billion dollars on these investments either by selling
shares when the companies went public or when technologies were
leveraged into products that enabled the company to command higher
gross profit margins for its products.
Developed the notebook computer product concept and put together a
joint venture with Citizen Watch Company, Japan to manufacture a family
of products. Over 2,000,000 LTE Family computers sold over a seven-year
period, generating annual revenue in excess of $1.5 billion dollars.
Managed the standards making process as the company's designated
CBEMA, ECMA, ANSI and CSPP technology policy-making representative
worldwide.
July 1984-August 1985: CTI Data Corporation, Raleigh, North Carolina
Director, Marketing and Product Planning; reported to the lead investor
and Board
Initial start-up team member recruited by the investors to develop
a marketing and product strategy for a development stage venture
capital start-up designing remote switches for data networks.
Engineering team could not cost effectively engineer the product and
the company sold for its net loss carry-forward.
April, 1983-July 1984: Compaq Computer Corporation, Houston, Texas
Manager, Product Planning; reported to Company Founder
Planned all of the initial portable computer products and developed
business plan for the entry into the desktop computer business.
Products generated over $1.5 billion in sales during a three-year
period.
November 1980-April 1983: Texas Instruments, Inc., Houston, Texas
Manager, Data Communications and Storage Products Semi-conductor
Business
Developed business plans and managed a group that was responsible
for implementing products utilizing the token ring chip set and hard
disk interfacing chips in digital device applications.
August 1979-November 1980: Bunker Ramo Information Systems, Trumbull,
Connecticut
Software Project Engineer
Developed software for complex international funds transfer systems
in Iran, the Philippines, and Europe.
May 1978-August 1979: Incoterm Corporation, Boston, and Massachusetts
Software Engineer and Technical Writer
Developed computer programs and software documentation for the
first airlines reservation system for United, Delta, TWA, Eastern, and
Braniff Airlines.
May 1974-July 1978: State of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
Designed computer information systems for manpower, planning,
administration, and scientific computer applications in a large IBM
mainframe environment.
EDUCATION:
Graduate, Cathedral Preparatory School for Boys, Erie, Pennsylvania,
1969
Bachelor of Arts, English, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 1972
Bachelor of Science, Computer Science, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, 1979
Master of Education, Research and Statistics, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, 1974
PATENTS:
Design Patent Number 317,442, June 11, 1991; Notebook Computer
assigned to Compaq Computer Corporation, Houston, Texas
REFERENCES:
Available on Request.
Chairman Burgess. Thank you.
And then Dr. John Randall, Chief Technology Officer and
Vice President of Research at the Zyvex Corporation.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN RANDALL, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, VICE
PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH, ZYVEX CORPORATION
Dr. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am John Randall,
Chief Technology Officer of Zyvex Corporation. Unfortunately,
Zyvex's Chairman, CEO and my friend, Jim Von Ehr, was unable to
be here this morning, so he has given me the honor of reading
his testimony before this Committee.
Many of us here today believe that the future impact of
nanotechnology on our lives will be profound. We owe a great
deal of thanks to people such as Jim Von Ehr who have donated
$4 million to universities, another $200,000 to fund the Texas
Nanotechnology Initiative, and to date has expended $34 million
of his own personal money to nanotechnology, more than any
other single person on Earth. He's not only a great
businessman, he's a great American, and as a member of Zyvex,
one of the first nanotechnology businesses, I'm proud to share
his thoughts with you today. So this is the testimony of James
Von Ehr, Chairman and CEO of Zyvex Corporation.
First of all, I would like to thank President Bush,
Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, Representative Mike Honda, Senator
George Allen, Senator Ron Wyden, all of the Members of the
Science Committee who have taken the time to confront the
challenges of ensuring our nation's future well being. We would
not be gathered here today if it had not been for their
efforts.
It was just three days ago that I stood behind the
President in the Oval Office as he signed the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. It was both a
humbling and an expiring moment. We have taken the first steps
to bring the promise of nanotechnology to the American people,
but the Members of the Science Committee know that although
we've made great strides in passing this bill, much work still
needs to be done to ensure that it is the United States who
continues to be the world leader in science, technology and
business. We need to commercialize university research, create
more opportunities and competition for small businesses to
perform innovative nanotechnology R&D and issue grand
challenges that the American public can understand and embrace.
This needs to happen if we're going to bring the vision of
nanotechnology to fruition.
Thanks to my previous business success, I've been able to
fund Zyvex to become one of the leading nanotechnology
companies in the world. I've also given money to a number of
universities to help them enter this field. With this
experience I feel entitled to comment on technology transfer
and commercialization. International competitors are
aggressively developing their own nanotechnology industries,
often based on discoveries first made in university labs here
in the United States. When universities protect their
intellectual property it ultimately benefits the Nation but
only if there's a successful technology transfer to a U.S.
company that is able to develop it into applications and
services. Yet we know the technology transfer programs at our
nation's leading universities have produced dismal results.
The barriers for small and large industry to commercialize
this long-term research under federal dollars have brought very
little economic benefit to the American public. Right now there
are breakthrough technologies sitting on the shelves in
academia. In the hands of the right businesses, these
technologies could be develop cures for diseases, conserve
energy or streamline manufacturing with the additional benefits
of creating thousands of jobs for Americans.
Stockholders' gauge a business performance to decide if
it's a worthy investment. A similar measurement component needs
to be in place when awarding universities federal R&D dollars.
The award decision should be based on the university's track
record as well as their plan for successfully transferring
their technology to American businesses. The measurement system
would encourage universities to be more discerning about which
intellectual property they decide to protect and more flexible
about licensing terms.
I used to be opposed to government funding for any
industry. I have always believed, and still do, that the
private sector makes the best investment decisions. Yet some
important investments are too long-term or risky for private
capital. It is reasonable for government to encourage economic
competitiveness for national security reasons. As a
businessman, I am concerned about the industrial policy
implications. As an American citizen, I'm even more concerned
about losing nanotechnology to foreign countries with investors
willing to invest beyond two to three years. On a trip to
Taiwan last year, I witnesses ITRI, a government-industry
partnership, staffed with 6,000 researchers, developing an
advanced technology base and focusing on industrial
competitiveness. Other countries such as Singapore, Japan and
China are setting up similar programs. They understand that
creating programs that leverage government, university and
business partnerships will position them to be leaders in a new
global economy. Private funding today is short-term oriented,
but taking research from the lab to the marketplace is a long-
term endeavor. The gap between lab and market leads to a valley
of death funding crisis, and it is rare to find investors
willing to take the risk of investment lasting more than five
years.
It is estimated that 95 percent of the $3.7 billion
authorized for this act will go to scientific research and
development, about 60 percent to academia and 35 percent to
government labs. Additionally, it will be used to fund big
government and university programs. We should inject private
sector competition and businesses into our nanotechnology
program. The result would be smaller programs that through the
nature of competition will achieve better results.
We need an R&D technology program that engages small
businesses. The Commerce Department has the NIST Advance
Technology Program, which has been instrumental to Zyvex in
overcoming this funding gap. It helps fund high-risk, high-
reward projects and evaluating commercialization plans as a
venture capitalist would. The NIST ATP Program requires in many
cases, including ours, cost-sharing by the company. The ATP
helps put small companies on a more even research and
development footing with large companies. The program wisely
recognizes that small businesses are unable to afford the kind
of R&D of an IBM or a Lucent yet are responsible for the
majority of our nation's innovations and technical
achievements. Thanks to our ATP we have hired 15 new employees
in 2003, and we support researchers at Universities in Texas,
Virginia and New York. We are developing new manufacturing
technology that will drive innovation in the silicon
micromachine domain. The impact of parallel microassembly on
the broader economy will be in the billions of dollars and
ultimately create thousands of jobs here in America.
In order for the United States to be competitive in the
future global market, our U.S. industries are going to need the
best and the brightest engineers, scientists and business
people. However, the increased immigration restrictions are
making it more and more difficult for American universities to
attract foreign students. Many countries such as Korea and
China have upgraded their university facilities to keep their
best students at home, and student applications here are
declining as a result. We need to welcome students to our
American universities and yet find ways to balance our security
concerns.
In order to encourage more Americans to study science and
engineering, we need to inspire and motivate them. A Grand
Challenge would do that. We need government, universities and
industry to work in a partnership to achieve the great promises
of nanotechnology through a program similar to the Man on the
Moon Challenge. The National Nanotechnology Initiative has
worked very hard to find nine grand challenges, yet many
Americans have a difficult time embracing these. What if we had
one or two grand challenges that solved serious problems of our
nation, problems like reducing our dependence on imported
energy and regaining our position as the world leader in
manufacturing? Every American would embrace and stand behind
these challenges.
In conclusion, we have a great responsibility to the
American people to ensure that nanotechnology provides the
benefits that we claim. We must create ways to make technology
transfer successful. We must create ways for small businesses
to compete with one another to sell the best innovations and
applications in the global marketplace. We must help our
universities thrive. And, most importantly, we must come
together as a nation to solve some of our toughest problems,
energy independence and manufacturing. Once again, I commend
President Bush, Senator George Allen, Senator Ron Wyden,
Representative Mike Honda, the House Science Committee Chairman
Sherwood Boehlert, the Congressmen at this hearing and our
other leaders who have created the legacy through the passage
of this bill. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank
you for your time and for this great honor.
[Applause.]
Mr. James Von Ehr II was unable to attend the hearing and
was represented by Dr. John Randall. Mr. Von Ehr did submit
written testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Von Ehr follows:]
Prepared Statement of James R. Von Ehr II
Chairman and CEO, Zyvex Corporation
INTRODUCTION
First, I would like to thank President Bush, Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert, Representative Mike Honda, Senator George Allen, Senator Ron
Wyden and all the Members of the Science Committee who have taken the
time to confront the challenges of ensuring our nation's future well
being. We would not be gathered here today, if it had not been for
their efforts.
It was just three days ago that I stood behind the President in the
Oval Office as he signed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act. It was a humbling and yet inspiring moment.
We have taken the first steps to bring the promise of
nanotechnology to the American people. Our nation has accomplished so
much. But Members of the Science Committee know that although we have
made great strides by the passage of this bill, much work still needs
to be done. We now have to build and strengthen the infrastructure to
ensure that it will be the United States who continues to be the world
leader in science, technology, and business.
We need to commercialize university research, create more
opportunities and competition for small businesses to perform
innovative nanotechnology R&D, and issue Grand Challenges that the
American public can understand and embrace. This needs to happen if we
are to bring the vision of nanotechnology to fruition.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Thanks to my previous, significant business success, I've been able
to generously fund Zyvex to become one of the leading nanotechnology
companies in the world. I've also given money to a number of
universities to help them enter this field. With this experience, I
feel entitled to comment on technology transfer and commercialization.
International competitors are aggressively developing their own
nanotechnology industry, quite often based on discoveries first made in
our own university labs here in the United States. When Universities
protect their intellectual property, it ultimately benefits the Nation.
But only if there is a successful technology transfer to a U.S. company
that is able to develop it into applications and services.
Yet we all know the technology transfer programs at our nation's
leading universities have produced dismal results. The barriers for
small and large industry to commercialize this ``long-term'' research
performed under federal dollars have brought very little economic
benefit to the American public. Right now, there are breakthrough
technologies sitting on the shelves of academia. In the hands of the
right business, these technologies could be used to develop cures for
rare diseases, conserve energy, or streamline manufacturing--with the
additional benefit of creating thousands of jobs for Americans.
Stockholders gauge a business's performance to decide if it is
worthy of an investment. A similar measurement component needs to be in
place when awarding universities federal R&D dollars. The award
decision should be based on the universities' track record, as well as
their plan for successfully transferring their technology to American
businesses. This measurement system would encourage universities to be
more discerning about which intellectual property they decide to
protect and more flexible about licensing terms. We are spending a lot
of money filing patents that are not being used, and we should ask for
a return on that patent investment.
COMPETITION
I used to oppose government funding for any industry. I have always
believed, and still do, that the private sector makes the best
investment decisions. Yet, some important investments are too long-
term, or risky, for private capital. It is reasonable for the
government to encourage economic competitiveness for national security
reasons.
As a businessman, I am concerned about the ``industrial policy''
implications. As an American citizen, I am even more concerned about
losing nanotechnology to foreign countries with investors willing to
invest beyond two to three years. On a trip to Taiwan last year, I
witnessed ITRI, a government/industry partnership staffed with 6,000
researchers developing an advanced technology base and focused on
industrial competitiveness. Other countries, such as Singapore, Japan,
and China, are setting up similar programs. They understand that
creating programs that leverage government, university, and business
partnerships will position them to be the leaders in the new global
economy.
Private equity funding today is short-term oriented. But taking
research from the lab into the marketplace is a long-term endeavor. The
gap between lab and market leads to the ``valley of death'' funding
crisis--and it is rare to find investors willing to take the risk of an
investment lasting five years or more.
It is estimated that 95 percent of the $3.7 billion authorized from
this Act will go to scientific research and development--about 60
percent for academia and 35 percent for government labs. Additionally,
it will be used to fund ``big'' government and university programs. We
should inject private sector competition and businesses into our R&D
nanotechnology program. The result will be ``smaller'' programs that
through the nature of competition achieve better results.
We need a nanotechnology R&D program that engages small businesses.
Our small businesses employ 39 percent of high tech workers and are
responsible for 45 percent of the jobs in our nation. Small businesses
produce 13-14 times more patents per employee than large firms. These
patents are also twice as likely to be among the one percent most
cited.
Of course, we have SBIR programs aimed at small businesses, but the
amount of paperwork involved for the relatively small amount of money,
$100K maximum, makes this program marginal in today's fast-paced
environment.
The Commerce Department has the NIST Advanced Technology Program,
which has been instrumental to Zyvex in overcoming this funding gap. It
helps fund high-risk, high-reward projects, evaluating
commercialization plans as a venture capitalist would. The NIST-ATP
program requires, in many cases, including ours, cost sharing by the
company. The ATP helps put small companies on a more even research and
development footing with large companies. The program wisely recognizes
that small businesses are unable to afford the kind of R&D of an IBM or
Lucent, yet are responsible for a majority of our nation's innovations
and technical advancements.
Thanks to our ATP, we will have hired fifteen new employees in
2003; we also support researchers at universities in Texas, Virginia,
and New York. We are developing a new manufacturing technology that
will drive innovation in the silicon micro-machine domain. The impact
of parallel micro-assembly on the broader economy will be in the
billions of dollars and will ultimately create thousands of jobs here
in America.
EDUCATION AND OUR FUTURE WORK FORCE
In order for the U.S. to be competitive in this future global
market, our U.S. industries are going to need the best and brightest,
engineers, scientists, and business people.
However, increased immigration restrictions are making it more and
more difficult for American universities to attract foreign students.
Many countries such as Korea and China have upgraded their university
facilities to keep their best students at home, and we're starting to
see declines in student applications as a result. We need to welcome
students into our American universities and find ways to balance
security concerns.
We have an international workforce at Zyvex. While we try to hire
American citizens whenever possible, with the decline in American
science and technology students, sometimes we have to look offshore. We
should find a way to continue to import highly skilled employees to the
USA, rather than export the job to another country, or even worse,
export the company.
GRAND CHALLENGE
In order to encourage more Americans to study science and
engineering, we need to inspire and motivate them. A Grand Challenge
would do that. We need government, universities, and industry to work
in partnership to achieve the great promises of nanotechnology through
a Grand Challenge program similar to the ``man on the moon'' challenge.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative has worked very hard to define
nine ``grand challenges,'' but it is difficult to focus on nine things
with undefined outcomes. Many Americans have a difficult time embracing
these challenges. What if we had one or two Grand Challenges that
solved serious problems for our nation? Problems like reducing our
dependence on imported energy and regaining our position as the world
leader in manufacturing.
Every American would embrace and stand behind these challenges.
CONCLUSION
We have a great responsibility to the American people to assure
that nanotechnology provides the benefits we claim it will. We must
create ways to make technology transfer successful. We must create ways
for small businesses to compete with one another to sell the best
innovations and applications in a global marketplace. We must help our
universities thrive. And, most importantly, we must come together as a
nation to solve some of our toughest problems--energy independence and
manufacturing.
Once again, I commend President Bush, Senator George Allen, Senator
Ron Wyden, U.S. House Representative Mike Honda, House Science
Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, the Congressmen at this hearing,
and our other leaders who have created a legacy through the passage of
this bill.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this committee--thank you for your time
and for this honor.
Biography for John Randall
Chief Technology Officer, Zyvex Corporation
Dr. Randall has over twenty years of experience in micro- and
nanofabrication. He joined Zyvex in March of 2001 after fifteen years
at Texas Instruments where he worked in high resolution processing for
integrated circuits, MEMS, and quantum effect devices. Prior to working
at TI, Dr. Randall worked at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory on ion beam and
x-ray lithography. Dr. Randall has a Ph.D., M.S., and B.S. in
Electrical Engineering, all from the University of Houston.
Discussion
Chairman Burgess. The format for the questioning will be
Mr. Hall and I will alternate. I'll begin and we'll try to
restrict our question and answer periods to five minutes each
so we get to more material. The fist question actually goes to
the entire panel. The information technology [IT] revolution
that led to unprecedented productivity gains has been the real
driving force behind the economy in the last 15 to 20 years,
helping in some ways to offset the gradual decline in some
areas of the manufacturing sector. Many believe the impact of
future nanotechnology advancements on productivity and the
economy will dwarf that of the information technology
revolution by comparison, so I would ask the panel what is your
opinion of this, and is the State of Texas or the North Texas
particularly, are we adequately poised to become a leader in
this area? And we'll start with Dr. Reidy and move down.
Dr. Reidy. Congressman, I think that the issue can be
broken into two ways. First of all, the information technology
revolution spawned many businesses which were effectively trial
and error. They were not building anything, and one of the
great complaints in many cases was that people were using the
Internet as a means of kind of testing the facility out, see
what they can do with it. There was a great deal of money made
and lost, as some of us are aware with our 401Ks, during this
revolution. I think that the difference between the IT
revolution and the nanotechnology revolution basically goes
down to I believe what former Secretary Reich once said is pie-
building rather than pie-dividing. The fact is that we will
increase manufacturing and manufacturing probably will maintain
long-term markets. Things like, as have been discussed by
various panel members, anything involving electronics,
biotechnology, energy, all those things are not going away
anytime soon. And I think--so on the long haul, I don't think
that we should be as concerned about losing, as some people
fear, with the IT. I don't think this is a fad. I think the
ability to build things from the very small is going to be the
way we do things from now on. So I think that is the key
difference in describing the two.
Chairman Burgess. Dr. Feng.
Dr. Feng. Mr. Chairman, the IT revolution or bubble of the
'90's really was built on a concept that was not built on a
good business plan concept. People, especially venture
capitalists, for example, were literally throwing money into
the IT sector. Many, many infrastructure was created on a
promise that it will have investment return much, much greater
than it showed. And, of course, eventually since it was not
based on good business plan, it faltered and collapsed.
Nanotechnology, on the other hand, requires information--it
requires a knowledge barrier which is a lot higher than the IT
knowledge barrier. It requires people to really try to
understand the science behind it, it requires people to
understand the manufacturing behind it, it requires people to
understand the business behind it, and they are still
struggling at the moment in all that. So I think that it has a
much longer period of maturation than the IT did. The IT
literally grew overnight and became billions and billions of
dollars of activity that nanotechnology is slowly growing into.
I therefore believe that the fact that, as was mentioned
earlier, nanotechnology will have impact in the health
sciences, will have impact in the military strength of our
nation, will have business implications and all that. It will
be a much more robust and healthy industry in the years to come
for our nation.
Chairman Burgess. Dr. Elsenbaumer.
Dr. Elsenbaumer. Yes. What I'd like to add to the comments
that have already been made is that nanotechnology as it
develops is going to obviously take a much slower time frame.
It's going to be a little slower to develop, a much longer term
time frame than what we recognized in the information
technology era. A lot of these technologies are going to be
directed at real needs in nanotech, and there will be continual
feedback from the marketplace into the development process, and
for that reason I think you'll see a much longer and much more
robust sustained development of this technology for many, many
years and decades to come.
Chairman Burgess. Mr. Gintz.
Mr. Gintz. I'd like to offer an alternative opinion. If you
look at the history of industrialization in this country in the
past 100 years, it took about 75 years for the car companies to
become commodities. It took the radio and television industry
about 35 years to become commodities, and it's taken the IT
industry about 20 years to become a commodity. So I think it's
all about velocity, and velocity is predicated on the kind of
people that we have working in the field, and the more people
that we have from other cultures that come here to learn about
our processes, the faster they're going to be able to take
those processes that they've learned to other countries. We've
certainly seen this in North Texas in the semiconductor
industry, specifically in Taiwan and Korea. So I think it's all
becoming very interconnected, and we run the risk of having to
stake out some territory that will enable us to defend from an
economic and from a jobs perspective specific areas of the
technology that we're going to want to own in this country.
I think in the past 25 years economic development has kind
of been the story of O. We started out with the info era, which
was predicated primarily in the Northeast because you had a
very good collection of economic and educational resources
working on it. Then the next wave was the bio revolution and
that was also predicated on the same kind of ingredients. With
nano, we really are not closed to where that technology can
develop, and so I think in those parts of the country, and in
fact those parts of the world, where you take private and
government capital, you take a very viable educational process,
people who are open to technology transfer, that's going to be
fertile ground for the development of the technology, and so I
think that unlike maybe what other people believe with regards
to the velocity of how quickly nanotechnology could transfer,
it could transfer very quickly given that mix.
Chairman Burgess. Dr. Randall.
Dr. Randall. Say what you will about the boom and bust
economics of the IT revolution. The benefits of it are still
with us, and in fact Internet commerce continues to grow. And
in fact I would argue that the IT revolution, even if the
economics of it was a little herky jerky, has really positioned
us to move forward in nanotechnology. In fact, a few people
find it a little strange that Jim Von Ehr, who mainly made his
money through a software company, got interested in
nanotechnology. He understands, and I agree with him
completely, that software and information control, largely
developed by the IT boom, is going to be absolutely essential
in developing nanotechnology. If you'll look at just in the,
say, the human genome project, the amount of information that's
generated there and will be generated ever more quickly with
nanotechnology being applied to that problem, generating the
information is one thing, dealing with it is entirely
different. And so all of the infrastructure that we've put in
place for information sharing, data mining and handling large
amounts of data is going to be absolutely essential in making
progress in this area. And as to the question are we well
positioned in the North Texas area to contribute and benefit
from the nanotechnology boom, I think absolutely, and I think
it's going to be a long and sustained economic growth for this
region and this country.
Chairman Burgess. Thank you. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you again, and I'm really
pleased you had the opportunity of selecting the panel that
you've brought us a good mix of academic researchers and
industry representatives. I think that's wholesome, and I think
that will be very good information to put out to the rest of
the Subcommittees, the Committee and to the Congress in
general. I might ask Dr. Randall if you attended the signing,
did the President keep his economy cutback going by not giving
out pens?
Dr. Randall. I believe, although I did not personally
attend, it was actually, I was speaking for Jim who did attend,
and I believe he actually did give away some federal dollars in
pens.
Mr. Hall. Well, to a guy like Jim Von Ehr I'd give him all
the pens I have because that's the ideal type contractor that
we like to see that puts themselves into it, and that's the
future with their funds, and I thank you for doing a good job
of representing him here today. I wish he could have been here.
Dr. Randall. Well, thank you, sir. I will pass along your
comments to him. He'll appreciate those.
Mr. Hall. Most of you mentioned federal funding and of
course President Bush has just announced a new thrust, the
National Nanotechnology Initiative, and the National Academy of
Sciences has already conducted some reviews on this, as you all
well know. First they establish a board, some type of an
advisory board. You have to have that, it seems like, always.
Then a strategic plan, which makes sense, and then interagency
coordination, ask for that, and we have that here today. If
they have it as much as they carry out the program as Chairman
Burgess has in setting up this hearing, why we'll have input
from everybody, from every side, and that's what we need. And
then to promote interdisciplinary nanotechnology R&D. Those are
some of the things, and you've mentioned funds being put in and
the federal funds that you have to have for programs like this
to get it off and going, just like the space program. One day
that will be a competitive program by the private sector as it
should be.
I think in addition to setting funding goals, though, this
bill, as you read it closely, the bill puts in place mechanisms
for planning and coordinating an interagency research program
and it includes a lot of expert outside advice, and that's what
we're doing here today is getting that to go to the people that
will make the program work and ensure its relevance to emerging
technological opportunities and to industry. In other words,
don't oversell or don't undersell nanotechnology, and I guess
that's what the Congress is crying out to you now.
You have to have funding and I think--and by the way, the
President's just announced a new thrust to the moon, and I
don't know how far off that is, but I think--I certainly
congratulate him for going back and thinking in those terms,
because who knows, the next war might be fought from space, but
certainly in all the thrust that we have from the Science
Committee and into the space thrust, we need to be first
because there's so much fallout, medical fallout, national
defense fallout. It's like President Reagan's effort for Star
Wars. We probably never did accomplish that, but the Russians
didn't know we didn't and there was a fallout on the way there.
Those are things that meetings like this spawn, and I thank you
all for being a part of it.
I guess my question is to any of you, what's your
impression as to how the United States ranks internationally in
the commercialization of innovations on nanotechnology? Have
you had a chance to survey that? Do you have some opinions on
that? Are there particular subfields in the technology in which
other countries are more advanced than we are? Are we behind?
Do we have to catch up like John F. Kennedy said at a certain
time we were going to put a man on the moon? Not today, you'd
have to say we're going to put a person on the moon, I guess.
But are we behind either in applications or in research
accomplishments in nanotechnology or have any of us really got
off and started and underway? Is that a question that any--Mr.
Gintz? And don't ever say small for anything in Texas, because
we don't agree with that. We think everything's huge in Texas,
and we think of all small industry, 98 percent of industry is
small industry here and everywhere.
Mr. Gintz. When I've gone abroad people's impression of
Texas is it's a whole other country. The assessment that we've
made is the Germans in particular have made some pretty
interesting advancements in basic materials science, which has,
of course, always been their strength.
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Mr. Gintz. I don't think outside of materials science,
though, there's any particular area of nanotechnology that
we're behind. I think that we have some very specific areas
that we're working in, especially with regards to electronics,
that we're clearly ahead. It's difficult, for example, for the
Japanese to understand exactly the nature of what we're doing
because of the structure of some of our collaborations between
research universities and private companies. But I think most
people today are probably concerned about the proximity of the
competition from overseas. The gap is narrowing because there
are dedicated groups of people in Singapore, in Europe, in
Japan that are working in nanotechnology that are probably
approaching the same scale of effort that we're seeing in the
United States, but because so much of the technology--of the
scientific discoveries were here, we have a three- to five-year
head start.
Mr. Hall. I have no time left but does anybody want to take
15 or 20 or 30 seconds? Go ahead, Dr. Reidy.
Dr. Reidy. Congressman, I think the way I would address
this is I would concur with what my colleague just said that
the Germans are doing some very interesting things in
nanotechnology of materials science.
Mr. Hall. Like what?
Dr. Reidy. Well, I mean, for example, the highly porous
materials, while originally developed in the '30's by
scientists at Stanford, the more recent revolution began in the
'80's in Germany. These are the materials called aerogels,
which are highly porous, and I just attended a conference on
that so I can speak on this. And the Germans and the Austrians
and some of the other European countries are doing very well,
and these are highly--very, very small structures that have
very selective things they can do in the environment, pick up
toxic chemicals, things like that. But to be fair, I think
Americans, because we have a tremendous base of
instrumentation, and believe it or not that really gives us a
huge advantage over other countries who are starting, is that
all three universities represented here are well stocked and
much better stocked, for example, than many universities, most
universities in China.
So we have the competitive edge, I think, to maintain our
lead and so again the key issue is, and I put a figure in my
testimony where it takes materials, it takes instrumentation
and it takes students to do research on the academic level, and
if you shortcut any of them, you slow things down, and I think
the Nanotechnology Initiative gives us the opportunity to keep
that pace up. So I would assert that we are in the lead in most
of the fields, but that cannot be--those cannot be laurels we
rest on.
Dr. Randall. If I could interject just for ten seconds, you
made a very good point about instrumentation and while
currently we do enjoy a big advantage there, let me point out
that in Europe and particularly in Japan a lot of the high-tech
instrumentation is being produced in these countries. This is a
key advantage that we own and are losing. Manufacturing tools
are seeping out of this country, and it's something that we
really need to work at bringing back, not only for
nanotechnology but for high technology in general.
Mr. Hall. Of course, initiatives are going to grow as we
fund it and as we put a proper budget in there for it, and I
think the President started it out with $464 million in Fiscal
Year 2001 and it's grown up to $849 million. That's an awful
lot of money in Rockwell, Texas, but that doesn't seem like an
awful lot of money as we move a thrust as important as
nanotechnology that can mean leadership for this country. I
think, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to take the word back that
we're going to need a lot more funds than we've put into this
as this thing grows, and I depend on you to sell that because
you're the majority party up there.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Burgess. We'll put it on the list.
Mr. Hall. Okay. I yield back the time I don't have.
Chairman Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I wanted to kind of
combine a couple of concepts. We've talked about some of the
grand vision things and coupling to the energy of the Apollo
mission in the '60's, balancing our long-term interests with
short-term expectations, and part of that would be a concern of
overselling the expectations on nanotechnology. And, certainly,
while we do, and Mr. Hall and I take this very seriously and we
will be selling the good news of nanotechnology, there's also,
and I think we heard this when we talked about the ethical
considerations that we were putting into the bill, there's a
dark side of the force as well, and I have not read the book, I
must confess. There's apparently a movie coming out next year
called ``Prey'' where there's a convergence of computers,
biotechnology and nanotechnology to create intelligent nanotech
particles that take over people's lives and bodies. So could
you just address that? How do we balance the expectations--
overbuilding our expectations with the short-term results we're
likely to achieve? And then, two, yes, we do want to sell the
good news on nanotechnology, but how do we counterbalance the--
someone brought up the issue of the genetic engineering in
foodstuffs in Europe and how that perhaps wasn't approached as
carefully as it might have been, and there's been some fallout
from that. So how do we address that as well? And open that to
any member of the panel.
Dr. Randall. I'd like to address at least part of that. I
love Michael Crichton, I think he writes great science fiction,
and he does touch on a fear that people have about new
technologies. This isn't a new phenomenon. And in fact
nanotechnology brings with it a lot of power in the technology,
and I don't believe there's any such thing as a good technology
or a bad technology. It has uses that can be for good and for
bad, and serious debates have been touched off about what is
the ways, the ethical implications, the social implications of
nanotechnology, and what are the impacts of a particular
material? We're very excited about, at Zyvex, carbon nanotubes,
but the health implications of those are not well understood.
There's a great program down at Rice that's starting to look
into those health risks, potential health risks with new
nanomaterials.
And so I think it's a debate that's a healthy one, that
should be ongoing. There's always going to be some reactionary
results there, but in fact I think that plays a good role in
starting the debate and looking very carefully as we develop
new technologies. We need to make sure that they're going to be
safe technologies and that they're going to be used in ways, as
best we can control through policy and good economics, in
beneficial ways.
Chairman Burgess. Anyone else like to address that,
particularly in the sort of sense of balancing the
expectations, the short-term results versus the long-term
expectations?
Dr. Feng. Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with what was just
said. I think it is very important for universities not to
oversell nanotechnology and not to oversell, generally, any
kind of research that they're doing. Universities must take a
long-term view about the research that they're trying to do for
the benefit of mankind, for the increase of lives and so on and
so forth. On the other hand, nanotechnology is posing a very,
very critical challenge to universities at the moment that we
must try to meet as soon as possible. It is one of the first
times where a research program within universities has
immediate interest from the media, from the public and so on so
intensively, and from the government, of course. And so,
therefore, I think that universities must conduct continuous
public lectures to the public and let them understand what are
the issues that are involved at the moment. Universities should
not close their doors to the public and do this research in-
house and only communicate with other academia. Therefore,
events such as this, and similar to this, should be conducted
on a continuous basis so that the public feels that they are
not being blocked out.
Chairman Burgess. Yes, Dr. Reidy.
Dr. Reidy. Dr. Feng's an excellent representative and has
spoken very well for the scientific community on nanotechnology
and the public in the past, and I'm sure will continue to do
so. I think one issue that he brought up that I want to hammer
down is I had an advisor once tell me that as a scientist the
only thing you have is your credibility, and that really--he
was speaking with regard to our colleagues. What's even more
important is the public has very little understanding for what
we do and how important our credibility is, and they have very
little patience for a scientist who says one thing and can't
produce, and it is incumbent on us to produce what we say we
can produce. And I think one of the things I listened very
carefully to all the things that were said today, all of us
were very measured in how we described what nanotechnology is
doing, and we speculate what it can be, but no one's reaching
beyond the football field here. We're all staying within our
realm, and I think having representatives on universities who
are willing to speak toward books and movies like ``Prey''
immediately and not pooh-pooh the idea that it's just a fear
but discuss it, these sort of forums are critical. And one of
the things that I spoke of earlier, it is critical that the
public appreciate what we're doing and support it, because in
the long term if they don't, they're going to vote against
people who are in support of it.
Chairman Burgess. Dr. Elsenbaumer, did you have anything to
add?
Dr. Elsenbaumer. I just wanted to expound a little bit more
on the public awareness factor. I think as we as scientists,
and also those of us in private industry, need to partner and
make sure that we are able to communicate adequately to the
general public what these technologies mean and what they mean
to them in common terms and easily understandable terms. And we
need to do this, I think, on a continual basis as these
technologies get developed. It's, I think, also critical that
the private sector be part of this process, because they are
the ones that have the measure, they are the ones that will
actually be implementing these technologies into our lives. And
so as these things get--as our technologies advance, as new
products and processes and devices get developed, the private
sector can help with understanding how these are going to
change or implement or impact on people's lives. So I think
both academia and the private sector have a responsibility
here.
Chairman Burgess. Thank you. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Dr. Elsenbaumer, I certainly agree with you, and
we need to have it in language that everybody understands. So
often we have men and women like you that come before us up
there and I have to say, and it irritates them sometimes, ``Now
tell me what you said in American where I can understand it.''
Even my associate, Charles Cook, here who's been with me,
believe it or not, since I was in the Texas Senate 40 years
ago, a graduate of TCU, University of Texas and a guy that
knows something about just about everything, but I asked him
with the good scientific mind that he has, I asked him what was
nanotechnology and his answer was it's the science of
manipulating and characterizing matter at the atomic and
molecular level. I could ask 19 more questions about that and
still not know what the heck nanotechnology is. But you know
and we know, let me tell you, this program is going to grow and
it's going to grow fast, and we've got to really have some
cooperation, as the President requested, in those four things
that he set out there between industry and educators.
For example, electrophoresis in space at one time was the
equipment that, you know, that Johnson and Johnson and McDonald
Douglas and NASA put together to gather components in a
weightless environment as they circle the Earth to come back
here to study to try to find a cure for cancer, diabetes and
other dreaded diseases. And after the Challenger--who's from
Penn State? Yes. We got to looking for that equipment and we
found it at Penn State, and nobody knows how it got there, and
it was old equipment by that time, and we now have bioreactors
that are up there that we hope will be productive. So it's
going to go pretty fast.
Dr. Feng, I can give you some good hope on the visa
situation. There's some technology answers to letting the right
people in and keeping the wrong people out, and they're working
on that up there. You know, the Immigration Act used to be
written by a couple of names: Simpson and Mazzoli, Alan Simpson
from Wyoming and Mazzoli from Kentucky. What the heck did they
know about immigration? You know, up there insulated by about
ten states, I guess, and we're here on the border.
Chairman Burgess. They actually have a northern border up
there.
Mr. Hall. Yes, they have a northern border too but I don't
count that.
[Laughter.]
I'm very pro-Mexico, and I'm not very pro-Canada. But they
say down in Mexico and on the Rio Grande there one time under
the Simpson-Mazzoli Act we just passed that there was a group
standing there that had just crossed the river with their hands
up and said the act was so loose they said, ``No, no, drop your
left hand and repeat after me.''
[Laughter.]
So that might have been the way that they were going to
solve the problem, but that doesn't solve it. We have a lot to
do and I certainly want to encourage your witnesses to share
the views of the federal effort to advance nanotechnology and
how we can make it more effective.
And I think it's 20 minutes until 11, the Chairman said
we're going to stop at 11, and I don't have any more real
questions, but I would like, Mr. Chairman, if we might have the
right to maybe write to these gentlemen and seek information in
the future if we need it to update the report that Dr. Burgess
will make to the United States Congress. And I yield back my
time and I thank you very much.
Chairman Burgess. Without objection, so ordered.
Dr. Randall. Please, we would be honored to answer any
questions that you might send to us at Zyvex and do our best to
illuminate you as best we can.
Chairman Burgess. Let me just touch on one other concern
before this wraps up today, and that's the issue of the
liability climate in this country, and we're currently
struggling with trying to somehow come to some sense on the
asbestos litigation crisis in the country and how it's
negatively impacted the manufacturing sector in this country.
Dr. Randall, you brought up the issue of the nanotubes and
carbon tubes and the biologic effects on the human body, a lot
of which are unknown. What would be your vision? Obviously, we
want to protect the public interest and yet at the same time we
don't want to drive the technology offshore by a pernicious
legal climate. So how do you see those two roles progressing?
Dr. Randall. It's certainly a difficult balancing act
between trying to encourage progress and trying to maintain the
health and safety of the American public. I think that
activities such as this one, where we have an open forum to
discuss the issues, are a good way to start. I do believe that
to some extent some of the attempts to control the size of the
awards that are made in some cases I think to some extent
that's gotten a little out of control in this country. We tend
to be a litigious society, and I think some control in that
place would be a good thing. But I certainly have to recognize
and understand that there are risks out there and that people
want to feel protected, and so it's a difficult act to try to
figure out what the right balance is. I would like to see us
swing a little more toward reducing the level of liabilities,
reducing the enormous size of some of the settlements that
we've seen recently.
Chairman Burgess. Yes, Dr. Feng.
Dr. Feng. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, this country is
evolving so rapidly in terms of litigations and political
correctness and so on. In fact, yesterday I just learned that I
no longer can refer to Before Christ, B.C., anymore as an era.
It now has to be B.C.E., which stands for Before Common Era. So
all that is changing so rapidly. It's actually coming out of
Washington, so you probably should know this.
Chairman Burgess. No.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. Probably out of the leadership.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Burgess. No.
Dr. Feng. The asbestos and the nanotube are actually
excellent examples of how we have progressed as a nation.
Asbestos was obviously used when it was introduced into the
Nation for a specific purpose, to do insulations and so on.
And, of course, at that time no one knew that it was a health
hazard, and years later we found out that that was true.
However, nanotechnology, of course, we don't know it now, but
we are already worrying about it. So I believe that the fact
that we are talking about it almost from day one, scientists
that are working in this issue, thinking about it, talking to
the health people, talking to the medical people, working
closely with them, we will very quickly come to an
understanding as to its implications on human health. Asbestos
was used, and in fact introduced to the whole Nation, without
having any kind of such discussions, and by the time it was
realized it was already too late, it was all over the Nation.
So I think that I'm quite optimistic that we are much more
mature as a nation in dealing with this issue today.
Chairman Burgess. Yes, Dr. Reidy.
Dr. Reidy. I would concur with Dr. Feng. As a one-time
asbestos inspector, I can speak both to the logic and the
illogic of some of the actions, especially the litigious
nature, of asbestos. For example, at one postal service
facility in Washington, one of the plenums was covered in
asbestos and was repeatedly being hit by mail carts and
launching asbestos in the air. I would consider that a major
hazard. On the other hand, this was treated with the same
concern as a small amount of asbestos in a closet in the far
reaches of the same facility.
I think Dr. Feng's exactly right. We are at the point now
that both the arrogance of the way we do things has diminished
considerably. We are sensitive to the public. And also, in
agreement with what he said, I think we are beginning to do
this at the very onset of our issues. Now, I heard--someone
mentioned the Rice Nanoscience Institute. Vicki Colvin, the
Director there, recently spoke to some of the fear issues that
were going on, and she spoke that she spends a great deal of
her time today answering questions about some of the fear
issues that the public has. And this is a tremendous
responsibility that we all have. I mean when someone from the
press comes up to us, this is not something that we need to
sneer at. I think rapid response and knowledge about our own
topic area is critical.
I would not, however, and it's been suggested by some of
the people who are very concerned, that there should be sort of
FDA approval of a lot of these products. The fact is we're not
going to know what a lot of these things do for a long time
anyway and risk is going to occur. I think there's a
rationality to some of these things, for example, some of these
nanoparticles that I mentioned earlier being looked at as fuel
additives. These materials are incredibly inert and have been
inert for a long time and we walk around with them. They exist
in road salts and things like that. The fact is that we can't
expect the worst from nanotechnology. We have to expect
rational sort of studies, and I think so long as the
Nanotechnology Initiative has some room for funding for this
sort of thing, these sort of companion pieces between
universities and researchers will work well to allay a lot of
the public fears.
Mr. Hall. You addressed the word, ``fear,'' you pitched
that in there. I think it's something that we really ought to
consider and talk about and maybe put to rest, because Frank
Roosevelt said 60-something years ago that the only thing we
had to fear was fear itself, and today we're a nation at fear.
We're fearful they're going to hit the Golden Gate Bridge, one
of our other huge facilities, and you know the hard truth is
we've spent a lot of money protecting this country and they
haven't hit us since that time. And the Doctor and I, as we go
to the Capitol and go to our offices we have to show our IDs,
and we know people up there, they know us, but we have to get
in our own office. They look under our car with mirrors, they
have the dogs sniff around. They're careful with us.
Chairman Burgess. They don't do that to me.
Mr. Hall. They just do it to us Democrats, I guess.
[Laughter.]
But we do, we go through a tough mission to get in to our
own offices there, and if they're that careful with us, you can
know how careful they are at the airports. One thing we have to
be thankful for is it's working, and we may have an incident
before any of us get home today, but up to this time it's
working. And let me just thank, I want to make two thanks, and,
Doc, I want to thank you for this hearing and for the way you
came to Congress. You didn't come to Congress as a novice. You
hit there working and he was accepted as a partner in the
thrust that we had up there. He's a very fine Member of
Congress, highly respected, and I want to also give thanks to
Gene McDermott, Cecil Green and Eric Johnson, three of the
great men in American history and those that they spawned from
them. We are in a building that they provided for the
University of North Texas. I handled the bill as a senator in
the Texas Senate when we created the University of Texas at
Dallas. They were very generous in giving all the area that
they gave there. Great Americans like that step forward when we
really need them, and I want to certainly always remember their
gifts and their dream.
And just in closing, I was very close to Eric Johnson. I
had such high regard for him. And I asked him about TI and how
they formed it, and he said, one Sunday morning he was driving
out and he had just cut a trade, he had signed a deal, a letter
of intent to acquire Texas Instruments. He was driving out one
Sunday morning to see what he'd bought and he was trying to get
out there and get back to go to church with Margaret, with his
wife, and on the way out he turned on the radio and the
Japanese were bombing Pearl Harbor. I said, ``Well, Mayor, as a
matter of being a great engineer, you're really super but as a
matter of timing, by God, you're perfect.'' And, of course, TI
had just gone like that. And we have a great country and great
opportunity, and this is going to require a lot of cooperation
and a lot of work.
And let me also congratulate Dr. Burgess. He's done a good
job with the men and women in Congress who allocate funds. His
area and the State of Texas were very gifted through his
efforts, and there's others of course who have helped, in
acquiring funds in nanotechnology trusts. If you'll just check
the books and records, we weren't passed by when they allocated
out the funds, and that's the name of the game. They say money
ain't everything, but it sure keeps you in touch with your
kids. Well, let me tell you, it also keeps you in touch with
the folks you represent, and the Doctor is doing a great job of
that. I congratulate him. And all this kidding about
Republicans and Democrats, I'm the only Democrat in Congress
that endorsed, worked for, supported the President and I am
still proud I did. So I'm not that hard on Republicans,
actually. Thank you.
Chairman Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for being here. I
guess we probably will wrap this up at this point. Someone made
the point about not wanting to throw nanotechnology over the
fence. I think what we've seen here this morning is a good
example--we're taking fences down. We've got private
enterprise, we've got public institutions and what really
excites me is we've got collaboration between our three centers
of excellence of nanotechnology in the Metroplex. And going
forward I think that's really what's going to make the
difference for us here in North Texas and being the leader,
making the type of world class institutions we want to make,
utilizing this technology going forward.
I would just say, as we wrap up, if any of you have any
follow-up thoughts that you wish to send to myself or the
Committee, please feel free to do so. I want to put things in
generational context. Ralph Hall was a contemporary of Eric
Johnson, and I went to high school and graduated with his
granddaughter. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]