[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH FOR ENERGY
AND MEDICAL APPLICATIONS AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-926 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL D. TONKO, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CHRIS KING Democratic Staff Director
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
JANE WISE Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
September 10, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 10
Witnesses:
Dr. Anna Palmisano, Associate Director for Biological and
Environmental Research, Office of Science, U.S. Department of
Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Biography.................................................... 18
Dr. Jay D. Keasling, Acting Deputy Director, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory; CEO, Joint BioEnergy Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Biography.................................................... 26
Dr. Allison A. Campbell, Director, WR Wiley Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 32
Dr. Aristides A.N. Patrinos, President, Synthetic Genomics, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
Biography.................................................... 37
Dr. Jehanne Gillo, Director for Facilities and Project Management
Division, Office of Nuclear Physics, Office of Science, U.S.
Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Biography.................................................... 41
Discussion
Interagency Coordination....................................... 42
Concerns About Limiting Research............................... 43
Flexibility and Properly Directing Funding..................... 44
Isotope Program................................................ 45
Cellulosic Ethanol and Algae Biofuels.......................... 46
Public-Private Partnerships.................................... 47
The Government's Role and Next Steps........................... 48
Carbon Recycling............................................... 50
More on Cellulosic Biofuels.................................... 51
Radioisotopes.................................................. 52
Jurisdiction Over Nuclear Medicine Issues...................... 52
Bioremediation and Isotope Research............................ 53
Algae and Harmful Algal Blooms................................. 53
Closing........................................................ 54
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Anna Palmisano, Associate Director for Biological and
Environmental Research, Office of Science, U.S. Department of
Energy......................................................... 58
Dr. Jehanne Gillo, Director for Facilities and Project Management
Division, Office of Nuclear Physics, Office of Science, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 59
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH FOR ENERGY AND MEDICAL APPLICATIONS AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Biological Research for Energy
and Medical Applications at the
Department of Energy Office of Science
thursday, september 10, 2009
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, September 10, 2009 the House Committee on Science &
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a hearing
entitled ``Biological Research for Energy and Medical Applications at
the Department of Energy Office of Science.''
The Subcommittee's hearing will receive testimony on the biological
research activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science
conducted through the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and
Nuclear Physics (NP) programs. It will also examine how these areas are
related to the work of other DOE program offices and other federal
agencies.
Witnesses
Dr. Anna Palmisano is Director of BER. Dr. Palmisano
will provide an overview of the program and discuss its
coordination with other DOE program offices and federal
agencies.
Dr. Jay Keasling is CEO of the Joint BioEnergy
Institute (JBEI) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Dr.
Keasling will testify on the status of the three major
bioenergy centers and the efficacy of this model for bioenergy
research.
Dr. Allison Campbell is Director of the WR Wiley
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) at the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Dr. Campbell will
explain EMSL's role in meeting DOE's mission needs with a
particular focus on environmental remediation.
Dr. Ari Patrinos is President of Synthetic Genomics,
Inc. Dr. Patrinos will testify on the private sector's
perspective of the BER program in bioenergy, as well as his
experience as a former Director of BER.
Dr. Jehanne Gillo is Facilities & Project Management
Division Director of NP. Dr. Gillo will testify on the status
of the isotope development and production program recently
transferred from the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy.
Background
The origins of biological research conducted by the Department of
Energy date back to 1946. The U.S. had recently developed and deployed
the atomic bomb in World War II and was subsequently examining the
potential peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which led to major concerns
regarding health effects from exposure to radiation. Research in these
health effects produced advances in genetics and developments in
nuclear medicine, such as radioisotopes for common medical tests and
positron emission tomography (PET) scanners that are still used to
diagnose millions of patients each year.
Perhaps the most significant event in the last two decades of the
DOE Office of Science's Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
Program was its initiation of the Human Genome Project in 1990 in
collaboration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A genome is
a complete genetic sequence of the DNA of an organism. Built on the
advances in technology development at DOE's national laboratories, the
Human Genome Project led to the determination of the complete DNA
sequence of humans by 2003, two years ahead of schedule. Work to
support the project was conducted by teams of scientists in the public
and private sectors from around the world, and their results have
provided new opportunities for discovering and understanding
fundamental principles of life.
Biological Systems Science
BER then shifted the focus of this new capability to rapidly
sequence an organism's complete genome to the fields of microbial and
plant biology with an emphasis on organisms with energy and
environmental relevance. The Biological Systems Science program within
BER--first authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005--brought
together genomic research in microbial and plant biology with protein
science, computational biology, and environmental science to support
the energy, national security, and environmental missions of DOE. The
ability to study an organism beginning with its DNA sequence has
provided new understanding of fundamental biological processes related
to biofuels production, carbon sequestration, and environmental clean-
up. Details on current and proposed funding for Biological Systems
Science can be found in Table 1.
Genomic Science
The Genomic Science subprogram includes three major components:
Bioenergy Research Centers--Bioenergy research is now
a primary focus in the BER program. In 2006 BER solicited
applications for several Bioenergy Research Centers. The
Centers were to be focused on achieving significant
breakthroughs in the development of cost-effective technologies
to make production of cellulosic (plant-fiber based) biofuels
commercially viable on a national scale. Each Center was chosen
for its unique set of skills to address three major
challenges--the development of next-generation bioenergy crops;
the discovery and design of enzymes and microbes with novel
biomass-degrading capabilities; and the discovery and design of
microbes that create fuels directly from biomass. Three were
finally selected in the summer of 2007, and include the:
BioEnergy Science Center (BESC) led by the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. This center focuses on the
resistance of plant fiber to breakdown into sugars and
is studying the potential energy crops poplar and
switchgrass. Partners of BESC include Georgia Institute
of Technology Atlanta; DOE's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO; University of Georgia in
Athens; University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Dartmouth
College, Hanover, NH; ArborGen, Summerville, SC;
Verenium Corporation, Cambridge, MA; Mascoma
Corporation, Boston, MA; The Samuel Roberts Nobel
Foundation, Ardmore, OK; and Ceres, Inc., Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) led by
the University of Wisconsin, Madison in close
partnership with Michigan State University. Other
partners include Illinois State University, Normal;
Iowa State University, Ames; Lucigen Corporation,
Middleton, WI; and both DOE's Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) and Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL). This center is studying a range of
plants and, in addition to exploring plant fiber
breakdown, aims to increase plant production of
starches and oils, which are more easily converted to
fuels. GLBRC also has a major focus on sustainability,
examining the environmental and socioeconomic
implications of moving to a biofuels economy.
Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) led by Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory and headed by Dr. Jay
Keasling. JBEI is using well-characterized genomes and
genetic-engineering tools established for rice and
Arabidopsis (a small flowering plant related to
mustard). These two model species are ideal research
subjects because they go from seed to mature plant in
weeks or months, rather than the year or more required
for energy crops such as switchgrass and poplar.
Genetic insights from rice (a model for grasses) and
Arabidopsis (a model for trees) are thus expected to
accelerate the development of new energy crops. JBEI is
also exploring microbial-based synthesis of fuels
beyond ethanol. Partners of JBEI include DOE's Sandia
National Laboratories; University of California,
Berkeley; University of California, Davis; Carnegie
Institution for Science, Palo Alto, CA; and DOE's
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
The Centers consist of multi-disciplinary teams of
scientists from 18 universities, seven DOE national
laboratories, two nonprofit organizations, and a range of
private companies. They were soon authorized in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 in which the Secretary
was directed to establish at least seven bioenergy research
centers to accelerate basic transformational research and
development of biofuels.
The funding plan for the Centers is for each to receive up
to $125 million over a period of 5 years starting in 2008: $25
million in the first year for startup costs and up to $25
million per year for operations during the subsequent four
years. The Administration's FY 2010 budget request continues
this plan, recommending $25 million each or $75 million in
total.
Fundamental Genomic Research--This activity supports
fundamental research on microbes and plants, with an emphasis
on understanding biological systems across multiple scales of
organization, ranging from sub-cellular protein-to-protein
interactions to complex microbial community structures. It
investigates how cells are able to balance dynamic needs for
synthesis and assembly of cellular machinery in response to
changing signals from the environment. A broad diversity of
biological functions are examined, from microbial respiration
and separation of soil minerals to nutrient uptake and cell-to-
cell communication. There is a strong focus on understanding
the conversion of carbon from simple forms to advanced
biomolecules, as well as a focus on development of new
strategies and tools to fully exploit the information contained
in complete DNA sequences from microbes and plants for
bioenergy, carbon sequestration, and bioremediation
applications.
Computational Biosciences--Advanced computational
models and tools are needed to accurately describe the
biochemical capabilities of microbial communities and plants.
These new tools must be able to integrate diverse data types
and data sets into single functioning models. An important task
over the next several years will be the extension of database
capabilities beyond data generation and storage to cross-
database comparative computational modeling so that better
microbes for bioenergy, carbon sequestration, or bioremediation
purposes can be more readily engineered. This research is
closely coordinated with the Office of Science's Advanced
Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program.
Radiological Sciences
The Radiological Sciences subprogram supports fundamental research
in radiochemistry to develop new methodologies for real-time, high-
resolution imaging of dynamic biological processes. This includes
examination of biological systems with benefits for DOE mission needs
as well as techniques and tool development that can be applied to
nuclear medicine diagnostic and therapeutic research.
This subprogram also supports research that will help determine
health risks from exposures to low levels of radiation, information
critical to adequately and appropriately protect radiation workers and
the general public. It provides a scientific basis for decisions
regarding remediation of contaminated DOE sites and for determining
acceptable levels of human health protection, both for cleanup workers
and the public.
Medical Applications
The Medical Applications subprogram utilizes resources and
expertise in engineering and materials science primarily available at
DOE national laboratories rather than NIH facilities to develop unique
neuroprostheses--medical devices that connect directly to the human
brain, spinal cord, or nerves. It has focused in particular on the
development of an artificial retina to restore sight to the blind.
DOE's goal for this project is to create the technology underpinning a
device that will allow a blind person to read large print, recognize
faces, and move around without difficulty. The DOE-funded phase of the
artificial retina project will be completed in FY 2010.
Biological Systems Facilities and Infrastructure
Joint Genome Institute--The Joint Genome Institute
(JGI), based in Walnut Creek, CA and operated by the University
of California, is the only federally funded large center
focusing on genome discovery and analysis in plants and
microbes for energy and environmental applications, including
bioenergy, carbon cycling and sequestration, and soil
remediation. JGI incorporates expertise from five DOE partner
laboratories--Lawrence Berkeley (LBL), Lawrence Livermore
(LLNL), Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest--along
with the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology. Its workforce
draws most heavily from LBL and LLNL. Through the development
of genome assembly methods, tools for comparative gene
analysis, and integration of data from multiple technology
platforms, JGI enables researchers and plant breeders to
identify traits and genes for specific bioenergy applications
or environmental conditions. The Institute provides these
services to the broad scientific user community, including the
Bioenergy Research Centers, on a merit-reviewed basis.
Synthetic Genomics Inc. (SGI), a privately-held company, is the
only other institution with similar capabilities in the world.
Structural Biology Infrastructure--The Structural
Biology Infrastructure program develops and supports access to
DOE's national user facilities for the Nation's systems
biologists. BER coordinates with NIH and the National Science
Foundation (NSF) the management and maintenance of 22
experimental stations at several DOE light and neutron sources
used to examine biological materials and processes. BER
assesses the quality of the instrumentation at its experimental
stations and supports upgrades to install the most effective
instrumentation for taking full advantage of the facility
capabilities as they are improved by DOE. This activity enables
a broad user community to conduct the high-resolution study of
biological molecules involved in cellular architecture,
environmental sensing, and carbon capture.
Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications
In FY 2009, the Isotope Development and Production for Research and
Applications subprogram was transferred to the DOE Office of Science's
Nuclear Physics (NP) program from the Office of Nuclear Energy. This
subprogram provides facilities and capabilities for the production of
isotopes to address national needs. Stable and radioactive isotopes are
vital to the mission of many federal agencies and play a crucial role
in basic research, medicine, industry, and homeland defense. Isotopes
are produced for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and their
grantees, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), other DOE
Office of Science programs, and other federal agencies. The subprogram
also supports research related to the development of advanced isotope
production techniques.
Isotopes are used to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of
medical diagnoses and therapy, enhance national security through the
development of advanced sensors, improve the efficiency of industrial
processes, and provide precise measurement and investigative tools for
materials, biomedical, environmental, archaeological, and other
research. Some examples are: strontium-82 used for heart imaging;
arsenic-73 used as a tracer for environmental research, and helium-3 as
a component in neutron-detectors that may be used to scan for
radioactive weapons.
The consequences of shortages of radioactive and stable isotopes
needed for research, medicine, homeland security, and industrial
applications can be extremely serious ranging from the inability to
treat cancer to the failure of detecting terrorist threats. To address
several of these issues before they become larger problems, NP has
established a working group with NIH to act on the recommendations of a
2007 National Academies report, Advancing Nuclear Medicine through
Innovation, which identified areas in isotope production warranting
attention. NP has also facilitated the formation of a federal working
group on He-3 supply, involving staff from NP, NNSA, DHS, and the
Department of Defense.
Isotopes are made available by using NP's unique facilities,
including the Brookhaven Linear Isotope Producer (BLIP) at Brookhaven
National Laboratory and the Isotope Production Facility (IPF) at Los
Alamos National Laboratory. The subprogram also produces isotopes at
the reactors at Oak Ridge and Idaho National Laboratories. It operates
under a revolving fund as established by the FY 1990 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, and maintains its financial viability
by utilizing a combination of Congressional appropriations and revenues
from the sale of isotopes and services. These resources are used to
maintain the staff, facilities, and capabilities at user-ready levels
and to support peer-reviewed research and development activities
related to the production of isotopes. Commercial isotopes are priced
at full cost. Research isotopes are priced to provide reasonable
compensation to the government while encouraging research.
Chairman Baird. Our hearing will now to come order. I want
to welcome everyone to today's hearing on Biological Research
for Energy and Medical Applications at the Department of Energy
Office of Science. Our hearing today will explore the Office of
Science's biological research programs and how they fit in with
our broader federal research infrastructure for energy,
environmental, and medical applications.
The Department of Energy's role in examining biological
processes is not always well understood, nor is it appreciated
always, but it dates back to 1946. At that time, of course, we
needed to learn more about the effects that radiation could
have on people from the use of either atomic weapons or nuclear
power. This required bringing together the best and brightest
researchers from both physical and medical sciences to study
the issue.
Over the years DOE developed unique engineering
capabilities within its national laboratories that allow the
Department to quickly catalog the building blocks of living
organisms. These technologies are what enable the Human Genome
Project to be considered by scientists at DOE and NIH in the
late 1980s and the successfully completed that project on
budget and ahead of schedule by 2003.
Today the Office of Science focuses on these capabilities
on--focuses these capabilities on developing next-generation
biofuels, finding ways, new ways to sequester carbon, and on
cleaning up the legacy waste from our nuclear weapons complex.
In addition, DOE's nuclear physics program has recently
shouldered the responsibility of providing critical, non-
commercial isotopes for cancer treatments as well as other
research applications.
I look forward to learning more about the progress DOE is
making in working with NIH and other agencies to meet the
science and medical communities' needs.
And with that I would like to thank this excellent panel of
witnesses for appearing, and I yield to our distinguished
Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Today's hearing will explore the Office of Science's biological
research programs, and how they fit in with our broader federal
research infrastructure for energy, environmental, and medical
applications. The Department of Energy's role in examining biological
processes is not always well understood nor is it appreciated, but it
dates back to 1946. At that time we needed to learn more about the
effects that radiation could have on people from the use of either
atomic weapons or nuclear power. This required bringing together the
best and brightest researchers from both physical and medical sciences
to study the issue. Over the years, DOE developed unique engineering
capabilities within its national laboratories that allowed the
Department to quickly catalogue the building blocks of living
organisms. These technologies are what enabled the Human Genome Project
to even be considered by scientists at DOE and NIH in the late '80s,
and then successfully completed on budget and ahead of schedule by
2003.
Today, the Office of Science focuses these capabilities on
developing next-generation biofuels, finding new ways to sequester
carbon, and on cleaning up the legacy waste from our nuclear weapons
complex. In addition, DOE's nuclear physics program has recently
shouldered the responsibility of providing critical non-commercial
isotopes for cancer treatments as well as other research applications.
I look forward to learning more about the progress DOE is making in
working with NIH and other agencies to meet the scientific and medical
communities' needs.
With that I'd like to thank this excellent panel of witnesses for
appearing before the Subcommittee this afternoon, and I yield to our
distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
Today we are going to find out about the complexity of the
Department of Energy's Office of Science. Biology isn't the
first thing the comes to mind when we think of critical
research gaps in developing new energy technologies, but the
Biological Environmental Research Program at the Office of
Science is currently advancing biofuel development, helping us
better understand the impacts of climate change in our
environment and improving medical technologies.
Research in 1949, about the health impacts of radiation
exposure has evolved into dramatic advancements in genetics,
radiology, and nuclear medicine. One of the most notable
achievements of biological research at DOE is certainly the
Human Genome Project. In coordination with NIH, the project
resolved the complex human DNA sequence in 13 short years.
With the diversity of efforts at DOE I am looking forward
to hearing about other potential breakthroughs from our
witnesses, particularly in the area of biofuels.
I should also admit to a parochial interest in the
Biological Environmental Research Program. Clemson University
in the upstate of South Carolina has a remarkable research
program in the college of agriculture, forestry, and life
sciences. Researchers there do a considerable amount of work on
the genomics and development of biofuel crops and have
collaborated with DOE on several such projects previously, as
you point out in your testimony, Dr. Keasling.
Again, I am very much looking forward to the testimony of
our witnesses, while much of the work in the Biological
Environmental Research Program seems only loosely related to
the overall mission of DOE, they are working on exciting
progress in a variety of energy and medical initiatives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing and look
forward to hearing the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Good afternoon and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr.
Chairman.
Today we're going to be reminded of the unique complexity of the
Department of Energy's Office of Science. Certainly biology is not the
first thing that comes to mind when we think of critical research gaps
in developing new energy technologies. The Biological and Environmental
Research Program in the Office of Science is currently advancing
biofuel development, helping us better understand the impacts of
climate change on our environment, and improving medical technologies.
Research in 1949 about the health impacts of radiation exposure has
evolved into dramatic advancements in genetics, radiology, and nuclear
medicine. One of the most notable achievements of biological research
at DOE is certainly the Human Genome Project. In coordination with NIH,
the Human Genome Project resolved the complete human DNA sequence in 13
short years. With the diversity of efforts at DOE, I'm looking forward
to hearing about other potential breakthroughs from our witnesses,
particularly in the area of biofuels.
I also should admit a parochial interest in the Biological and
Environmental Research Program. Clemson University in the Upstate has a
remarkable research program in the College of Agriculture, Forestry,
and Life Sciences. Researchers there do a considerable amount of work
on the genomics and development of biofuel crops, and have collaborated
with DOE on several such projects previously, as you point out in your
testimony, Dr. Keasling.
Again, I'm very much looking forward to the testimony of our
witnesses. While much of the work in the Biological and Environmental
Research Program seems only loosely related to the overall mission of
DOE, they are working on exciting progress in a variety of energy and
medical initiatives.
Thank you again for bringing us back from the August recess with
this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing to receive testimony on the medical and energy applications of
biological research conducted by the Biological and Environment
Research (BER) Program at the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Science.
BER demonstrated its capacity for cutting-edge research in 2003,
when its scientists completed the Human Genome Project and produced the
first map of the entire human DNA sequence. Since that accomplishment,
BER has continued to use its ability to map an organism's genome to
make major advances in energy and medical research.
The energy applications of BER research are particularly important
to Illinois. I am proud that the Normal, IL, campus of Illinois State
University is partnered with the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center
to engage in cutting-edge research on the production of biofuels. These
research efforts will enhance the work being done at Southern Illinois
University--Edwardsville's National Corn to Ethanol Research Center and
make renewable fuels easier to produce and more sustainable to use. In
addition, the Fundamental Genomic Research conducted by BER is in the
process of developing innovative ways to sequester carbon in the soil,
making clean coal facilities more efficient and helping new clean coal
facilities come online in the future. As a major supporter of the
FutureGen project in Mattoon, IL, I applaud BER's efforts to support
clean coal technology.
The collaborative efforts between national laboratories,
universities, non-profit organizations, and the private sector have
allowed BER to develop new medical and energy applications for
biological research. I would be interested to hear from our witnesses
how Congress can continue to support this collaboration. In particular,
I look forward to hearing how can Congress support efforts to move
these important projects towards demonstration and, eventually,
commercial viability on a national scale.
I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their
testimony. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. It is my pleasure to introduce our
distinguished witnesses at this time. Dr. Anna Palmisano is the
Director of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research
at DOE. Dr. Jay Keasling is the Acting Deputy Director of
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Chief Executive
Officer of the Joint BioEnergy Institute at DOE. Dr. Allison
Campbell, we are proud to say, is the Director of the WR Wiley
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory at Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), near and dear to my
heart. Dr. Ari Patrinos is the President of Synthetic Genomics,
Incorporated. Dr. Jehanne Gillo is the Director of the--did I
say that right?
Dr. Gillo. Gillo.
Chairman Baird. That would be Gillo. Are you sure you are
right? Okay. We will go with Gillo if you say so. And after
all, you are the Director of Facilities and Project Management
Division in the Office of Nuclear Physics at DOE.
As our witnesses should know, you will have five minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record. When you have completed your spoken
testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will have
five minutes to question.
Again, I just want to apologize. We normally have a pretty
packed house on this panel, but with early dismissal today
folks are racing home to their districts. Some have said they
will try to make it. They also have, believe it or not, many
other hearings conflicting with this, but we have an incredibly
distinguished panel. We look forward very much to learning your
input, and please, we will ask Dr. Palmisano to begin, please.
STATEMENT OF DR. ANNA PALMISANO, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, OFFICE OF SCIENCE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Palmisano. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, and
Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Biological and
Environmental Research Program in the Department of Energy's
Office of Science. I am the program director.
Biological and Environmental Research, known as BER,
supports innovative and transformational science to provide a
fundamental understanding of biological, climate, and
environmental systems. Through our research programs and our
scientific facilities we support a wide range of disciplines to
engage a broad scientific community, using peer review to
ensure scientific excellence.
The BER Program addresses three major scientific
challenges. The first challenge is to explore the frontiers of
genome-enabled biology. BER supports research that uncovers
nature's secrets to harness the catalytic power and biomass of
microbes and plants for bioenergy, the carbon cycle, and
bioremediation. Starting with an organism's DNA, BER-funded
scientists seek to understand whole biological systems as they
interact with their environments.
The second challenge is to discover the physical, chemical,
and biological drivers of climate change. BER plays a vital
role in the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program by
improving predictive climate models and by addressing some of
the key uncertainties such as clouds and aerosols in the carbon
cycle.
The third challenge is to seek the scientific basis for
environmental sustainability and stewardship. The Earth's
subsurface is a new frontier for discovering novel microbes and
understanding geochemical and hydrological processes that
affect the fate and transport of environmental contaminants.
BER supports three world-leading scientific facilities that
benefit a broad community of scientists. The Joint Genome
Institute provides state-of-the-art genome sequencing and
bioinformatic analysis for microbes and plants of energy and
environmental significance. To date the Joint Genome Institute
has sequenced over 500 microbes and microbial communities, as
well as 25 plants.
The Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory provides
novel experimental and computational tools for molecular-level
studies of the environment.
The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research
Facility provides unmatched level of observations and
measurements of climate--of clouds and aerosols for climate
researchers.
BER-supported biological research has a long history of
major contributions to the DOE mission and national needs
through discovery, science and innovation. Today BER supports
genome-enabled research to understand biological systems,
ranging from single microbes to microbial communities to
plants. Our ultimate goal is to predict, manage, and control
biological systems to support mission needs in bioenergy
production, climate change, and environmental stewardship and
sustainability.
In September 2007, three DOE bioenergy research centers
were launched to provide transformational science to overcome
the most difficult scientific and technological barriers to the
production of biofuels. Scientists are using systems biology to
discover and optimize enzymes, microbes, and plants that will
lead to new approaches to cellulosic biofuels.
BER is deeply committed to coordination with the DOE's
technology offices to facilitate a smooth transition of
knowledge to application. Successful mechanisms for
coordination include participation in joint reviews, site
visits, science team meetings, and strategic planning. BER-
supported research provides the fundamental knowledge of
microbes and plants needed by the DOE's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the successful development
and deployment of new bioenergy crops for sustainable biofuel
production.
BER research on the fate and transport of contaminants and
the subsurface environment provides knowledge for DOE's Office
of Environmental Management to develop new strategies for
stewardship and remediation of contaminants and for DOE's
Office of Legacy Management to develop tools to monitor
contaminants at clean-up sites.
Looking to the future, BER will strive to continue to
advance the Nation's biologic, climate and environmental
science through leading-edge programs that meet DOE needs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity to
discuss Biological and Environmental Research Program at the
DOE's Office of Science. This concludes my testimony, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Palmisano follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anna Palmisano
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program in the
Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Science (SC). I am the Program
Director.
Overview of the Biological and Environmental Research Program
The BER program supports fundamental research and scientific user
facilities designed to advance our understanding of complex biological,
climate, and environmental systems. A hallmark of BER-supported
research is the strong coupling of theory, observations, experiments,
models, and simulations, with an emphasis on interdisciplinary
research. The nature of biological, climate, and environmental research
necessitates involvement of a wide range of scientific disciplines
including microbiology, plant sciences, computational sciences,
ecology, geochemistry, atmospheric sciences, and hydrology, to name
just a few.
Using peer review to ensure scientific excellence, the BER program
engages scientists from national laboratories, universities, and the
private sector to generate cutting edge science. In FY 2009, BER
supported more than 1,800 Ph.D. scientists and nearly 500 students. In
addition, BER user facilities hosted more than 2,500 biological,
climate, and environmental scientists. In FY 2009, the BER program
funded research at more than 85 academic and private institutions in 39
states and at nine DOE laboratories in eight states.
The BER program is organized into two subprograms--Biological
Systems Science and Climate and Environmental Sciences--that provide
the fundamental knowledge for:
Exploring the frontiers of genome-enabled biology. BER Biological
Systems Science subprogram supports research that uncovers nature's
secrets to harness the catalytic power and biomass of microbes and
plants for DOE mission priorities in bioenergy, carbon cycle, and
bioremediation. Starting with an organism's DNA, BER-funded scientists
seek to understand whole biological systems as they interact with their
environments. BER scientists investigate a range of systems from
individual proteins and other molecules, to groups of molecules that
comprise molecular machines, to interconnected biological networks
comprising whole cells, communities, and entire ecosystems. BER also
supports the development of new tools and technologies to explore the
interface of the biological and physical sciences.
Discovering the physical, chemical, and biological drivers of climate
change. The BER Climate and Environmental Sciences subprogram plays a
vital role in the U.S. Global Change Research Program by supporting
research to improve predictive climate models by addressing key
uncertainties such as clouds and aerosols and the carbon cycle. BER
scientists study atmospheric processes, climate change modeling,
interactions between ecosystems and greenhouse gases, and the impacts
of climate change on energy production and use.
Seeking the geochemical, hydrological, and biological determinants of
environmental sustainability and stewardship. The Earth's subsurface is
a new frontier for discovering novel microorganisms and understanding
important geochemical and hydrological processes that affect the fate
and transport of environmental contaminants. The BER Climate and
Environmental Sciences subprogram supports laboratory studies and field
scale hypothesis-testing at BER's Integrated Field Research Centers to
provide the foundational knowledge needed for cost-effective strategies
for environmental stewardship and remediation.
BER supports three world-leading scientific facilities. The
Biological Systems Science program supports the Joint Genome Institute
(JGI) which provides state-of-the-art genome sequencing and
bioinformatic analysis for microbes and plants of energy and
environmental significance. The JGI has sequenced 500 microbes and
microbial communities, as well as 25 plants using state-of-the-art
sequencing and genomic analysis. The JGI is an innovator in genomic
sequence and analysis of complex microbial communities that degrade
cellulose, sequester carbon dioxide, and remediate environmental
contaminants. Recent scientific accomplishments include the genome
sequencing of key plants of bioenergy and agricultural importance
(soybean, sorghum) and microbes of importance to the carbon cycle
(single celled algae) and development of advanced data analysis tools
for metagenomes.
The Climate and Environmental Sciences program supports the
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility (ACRF) and
the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL). ACRF consists
of three stationary facilities that provide an unmatched level of
observations and measurements of clouds and aerosols, as well as two
mobile facilities that are strategically deployed by the scientific
community. In the past year, a mobile facility was deployed to China to
measure aerosols and to the Azores to collect measurements on the
marine boundary layer near the Equator. In 2009, the ACRF hosted more
than 800 users, resulting in over 185 publications in the scientific
literature. The Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL)
supports scientific discovery at the frontier of molecular systems
science and serves 600-700 scientists annually. EMSL develops and
applies one-of-a-kind experimental and computational tools to novel
molecular-level studies of complex environmental systems.
BER is using FY 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(Recovery Act) funds to update, improve, and optimize the capabilities
of its three user facilities and the three Bioenergy Research Centers
and to initiate planning and development for a Systems Biology
Knowledgebase to manage and integrate large systems biology data sets.
Biological Systems Science
BER supported biological research has a long history of major
contributions to DOE mission and national needs through science,
discovery, and innovation. BER's origins date to 1946, the atomic bomb,
concerns for health effects from exposure to radiation, and the promise
of benefits from peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Health effects
research gave us breakthroughs in genetics and developments in nuclear
medicine. Interest in the effects of radiation exposure led to
understanding the most fundamental level of biology, DNA, and prompted
DOE to initiate the Human Genome Project, spearheading today's
biotechnology revolution.
Today, BER supports discovery science to understand complex
biological systems. Our ultimate goal is to predict, manage, and
control biological systems to support mission needs in bioenergy
production, climate change, and environmental stewardship and
sustainability. To this end, BER supports work to address some of the
toughest
grand challenge science questions facing biologists: to understand
the functions and emergent properties of biological systems at multiple
levels. These systems can range in complexity from single microbes to
multicellular frameworks of plants, microbial communities, and plant-
microbe associations; yet all are specified by underlying information
encoded in the organism's genome. The subprogram supports systems
biology approaches that translate the genomic blueprint into
subcellular proteins, metabolites, and cellular architecture that
govern biological function and the interactions between an organism and
its environment. Systems biology approaches include genome sequencing,
proteomics, metabolomics, structural biology, high-resolution imaging
and characterization, and integration of the resulting information into
predictive computational models of biological systems that can be
tested and validated.
BER's foundational science in biological systems addresses critical
national needs in energy production and understanding the consequences
of energy use. Scientific innovation and discovery that drive new
solutions is essential for meeting the challenges posed by the energy
demands of a growing population and the impacts of energy use on
climate and the environment. The ongoing revolution in biological
sciences, driven by genomics, provides new ideas and paradigms for the
synthesis of novel biofuels as well as new approaches for understanding
the carbon cycle and harnessing the catalytic power of microbes for
bioremediation.
Input from the Scientific Community
The BER biological sciences subprogram engages the scientific
community through focused scientific workshops and program reviews and
through the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee
(BERAC). Hundreds of scientists provide input to BER programs every
year.
For example, in May 2008, BER hosted a workshop on ``Systems
Biology Knowledgebase for a New Era in Biology'' in coordination with
the Office of Science's Office of Advanced Scientific Computing
Research. A knowledgebase is comprised of a data repository and a suite
of tools for data analysis, comparison, visualization, and integration.
It also provides a framework for creating, testing, and improving
predictive models of biological systems. The workshop participants
described the need to facilitate the integration of diverse types of
biological data as well as environmental data describing the organism's
habitat.
Another example is a November 2008 community-based workshop, ``New
Frontiers of Science in Radiochemistry and Instrumentation for
Radionuclide Imaging.'' BER supports research in radiochemistry and
radiotracer development with the goal of developing new methodologies
for real-time, high-resolution imaging of dynamic in plants and
microbes, with the potential for broader application to areas of human
health. Participants included leading scientists from DOE laboratories,
universities, and federal agencies such as the National Institutes of
Health (NIH). The workshop participants identified knowledge gaps and
future opportunities for development of new radiochemical tracers and
new imaging modalities.
Details of the Biological Systems Science Subprogram
This subprogram explores the fundamental principles that drive the
function and structure of living systems of importance to energy and
the environment.
Genomic sciences use the genome as a blueprint for the foundational
biological understanding of microbes, microbial communities, and
plants. The research addresses: What information is contained in the
genome sequence of microbes and plants? How is that information
translated to proteins and metabolic networks? And, how can we predict
and control biological responses to environmental changes?
Three DOE Bioenergy Research Centers (BRCs)--led by Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the University
of Wisconsin at Madison in partnership with Michigan State University--
support multi-disciplinary teams of leading scientists to accelerate
transformational breakthroughs needed to convert cellulose to biofuels.
A more detailed description of the BRCs is provided later in the
testimony.
The Joint Genome Institute (JGI) is a high-throughput DNA sequencing
facility providing the basis for the systems biology of environmental
and energy-related microbes and plants. Current sequencing capacity at
the JGI is over 124 billion base pairs per year and is growing rapidly.
JGI provides the scientific community with the latest technologies for
genomic sequencing, genetic analysis, and genomic comparison.
Structural biology supports access to DOE's world-class synchrotron and
neutron sources for scientists to understand the proteins encoded by
DNA. Radiochemistry and imaging instrumentation focuses on development
of new methods for real-time, high-resolution imaging of energy- and
environmentally-relevant biological systems. This fundamental research
and tool development may have broader applications to nuclear medicine.
Radiobiology supports research on the biological effects of exposure to
low dose radiation.
DOE Bioenergy Research Centers
In September 2007, three DOE Bioenergy Research Centers (BRCs) were
launched to provide transformational science to overcome the most
difficult scientific and technological barriers to the production of
biofuels from microbes and plants. The Centers are marshalling the full
arsenal of modern genomics-based methods to overcome plant cell wall
recalcitrance. Scientists are using systems biology to model, predict,
and engineer optimized enzymes, microbes, and plants for the discovery
and development of new, innovative approaches to efficient cellulosic
biofuels production. Expertise at the BRCs spans the physical and
biological sciences, including genomics, microbial and plant biology,
analytical chemistry, computational biology and bioinformatics, and
engineering. The BRCs engage DOE National Laboratories, universities,
and the private sector in interdisciplinary partnerships to ensure the
best possible science and rapid transition to application. The BRCs
serve to galvanize the top researchers in the field to accelerate the
scientific breakthroughs needed by the emerging biofuel industry.
Although the Bioenergy Research Centers have only been fully
operational for two years, some early successes include:
1. New High-Throughput Pipeline to Identify Improved Bioenergy
Feedstocks
The BioEnergy Science Center (BESC) developed a screen to rapidly
identify the chemical, structural, and genetic features of biomass that
provide better access to the sugars within plant biomass. This pipeline
can screen more than 10,000 samples per week which is over 100-fold
more biomass samples per day than conventional methods. BESC
researchers tested 1,100 poplar trees from the Pacific Northwest.
Digestibility or sugar release ranged from 0.2 to 0.7 grams of sugar
per gram of biomass--the highest numbers will bring us close to desired
commercial biofuels production levels. This screening is accelerating
the discovery and optimization of plants most easily converted into
biofuels.
2. Innovations in Biomass Pretreatment and Deconstruction
Researchers at the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) have developed
an advanced biomass pretreatment process using room temperature ionic
liquids that completely remove virtually all the lignin from the plant
cell walls of switchgrass, corn stover, and eucalyptus. This approach
has reduced by a factor of five the time required for enzymatic
breakdown of biomass. Researchers have also developed a new cellulase
enzyme that is more stable and active in ionic liquid solutions at
elevated temperatures and low pH. Patents have been filed on both these
innovations.
3. Improved Screening for the Discovery of Biomass-degrading Enzymes
Microorganisms in natural environments have evolved enzymes for
degrading biomass; however, conventional methods for identifying these
enzymes are inefficient and time consuming. Scientists at the Great
Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) are coupling a novel genetic
expression approach with a newly developed enzymatic screening process
to dramatically improve the discovery of new cellulose-degrading
enzymes. They found that the rate and efficiency of enzyme discovery
was 100 times higher with the new expression and screening tools than
conventional methods. The novel cellulose-degrading microbes or enzymes
that are being discovered are providing hundreds of candidate
hydrolytic enzymes for use in biomass-degradation studies.
R&D Coordination in the Biological Sciences
BER is deeply committed to coordinating with DOE's technology
offices to better integrate the basic and applied research supported by
the Department. We have developed and maintained good working
relationships with DOE technology offices and other key stakeholders.
BER works closely with DOE's Office of the Biomass Program (OBP) in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Strong
partnerships have been forged and maintained to facilitate the
transition of scientific knowledge to applications that address DOE
mission needs.
BER has a long history of coordination with OBP that began over a
decade ago, when we worked with OBP and the scientific community to
identify key microbes of importance for the breakdown of cellulosic
biomass. Those microbes were subsequently sequenced by the JGI, and
bioenergy researchers worldwide have greatly benefited from that new
knowledge. From the earliest stages of planning BER bioenergy research,
we have worked closely with OBP--beginning with the jointly funded 2006
workshop ``Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol: A
Joint Research Agenda.'' The workshop report provided a roadmap for
addressing the toughest research questions to support biofuel
production. BER-supported research on the biochemical pathways and
genetic mechanisms of microbes and plants provides knowledge needed by
OBP (and the U.S. Department of Agriculture) to make decisions about
the development and deployment of new bioenergy crops and cost
effective and sustainable approaches to bioenergy production.
BER takes advantage of numerous mechanisms to encourage knowledge
transfer from BER science discoveries to applied programs within the
Department of Energy, including: 1) Regularly-scheduled program
briefings between SC-BER and EERE-OBP program staff; 2) briefings by
BRC directors to OBP program managers; 3) participation and attendance
at program reviews and investigator meetings for SC-BER and EERE-OBP;
and 4) joint participation in interagency working groups by SC-BER and
EERE-OBP program staff, such as the Biomass Research and Development
Board and the Metabolic Engineering Working Group. Moreover, EERE is
planning to use Recovery Act funds to build a pilot biorefinery that
can be used as a testbed for products from the three BRCs. Such an
approach will help to facilitate a smooth transition of knowledge from
the BRCs to applications by EERE.
Coordination and Partnering with other Federal Agencies in Biological
Sciences
A hallmark of the BER program is the coordination of research
across federal agencies and scientific disciplines. BER values
partnering and cooperation with many research agencies, including the
National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA, the NIH, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and others. Several examples of interagency activities in the
biological sciences include the following:
BER and the USDA have partnered on a competitive
grants program entitled Plant Feedstock Genomics for Bioenergy.
Now in its fourth year, the program develops and applies the
latest approaches in plant genomics to marker-assisted plant
breeding and crop production for potential bioenergy crops,
including fast growing trees, shrubs, and grasses.
BER coordinates with seven other agencies in the
Metabolic Engineering Interagency Program. The program, now in
its 11th year, supports innovative research in the fields of
targeted metabolic pathway design and construction.
BER supports the Protein Data Bank with NIH and NSF.
This community resource provides an archive of experimentally
determined, three-dimensional structures of biological
macromolecules.
BER is an active participant and partner with NSF and
USDA in the National Plant Genome Initiative. Current focus of
this initiative is the sequencing and analysis of the maize
(corn) genome.
BER actively coordinates with NIH on areas of common
interest such as tools and technologies for data management,
genome annotation, structural biology, proteomics, and
radiochemistry. For example, BER and the Office of Science's
Office of Nuclear Physics co-chair a working group with NIH on
radioisotope production and use.
In addition, BER actively participates in numerous working groups
to enhance dialogue and coordination. Interagency activities such as
these ensure that the BER portfolio is well-coordinated with other
agencies and that opportunities for interagency partnering are
vigorously pursued.
Climate and Environmental Sciences Subprogram
The Climate and Environmental Sciences subprogram addresses
national needs and DOE priorities in energy, environment, and security.
Although this hearing is focused on BER's biology programs, I would
like to share a few highlights from our climate and environmental
programs which represent almost half (47 percent) of BER's budget. The
subprogram supports an integrated portfolio of research ranging from
molecular to field scale studies with emphasis on the use of advanced
computer models, interdisciplinary experimentation, and observations.
BER supports fundamental research activities as well as two national
scientific user facilities for climate and environmental science.
DOE plays a vital role in advancing fundamental climate and
environmental research as part of the U.S. Global Climate Change
Research Program. BER supports a unique set of resources and
capabilities to address the major questions of global climate change
with a goal of providing more accurate simulations of the Earth's
climate. Climate simulations provide the foundations for future climate
projections and guide potential mitigation or adaptation strategies,
thereby informing the Nation's energy policies, and contribute to
assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. BER
climate research addresses the areas of greatest uncertainty in climate
change: clouds and aerosols and carbon cycling. BER also develops
world-class coupled climate models that take advantage of DOE's
leadership computing capabilities. Reducing uncertainty in climate
prediction will help us to identify potential vulnerabilities and to
develop new approaches for mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
The BER Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility
(ACRF) provides key observational data to the climate research
community on the radiative properties of the atmosphere, especially
clouds. The facility includes highly instrumented ground stations
(including radars, lidars, and a range of meteorological
instrumentation), a mobile facility, and an aerial vehicles program.
BER's subsurface biogeochemistry program is the only one of its
kind in the Federal Government that focuses on basic research in the
fate and transport of radionuclides and metals in subsurface
environments. BER seeks to understand the role that subsurface
biogeochemical processes play in determining the fate and transport of
contaminants at DOE sites. Laboratory studies are coupled with field
scale hypothesis testing that is carried out through three Integrated
Field Research Challenges located at sites at Hanford in Washington,
Oak Ridge in Tennessee, and Rifle, Colorado. Improved understanding and
predictive modeling of subsurface environments will lead to novel
approaches and strategies for remediation and stewardship of DOE sites
that are needed to address the staggering costs of cleanup of
contaminants. BER coordinates its environmental research with other
federal agencies through working groups under the aegis of the White
House National Science and Technology Council. BER also plays an active
role in the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP) in partnership with DOD and EPA. BER supports the Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) to accelerate scientific discovery
at the frontier of environmental systems science. EMSL houses an
unparalleled suite of state-of-the-art capabilities, including a
supercomputer and over 60 major instruments. EMSL instrumentation, with
capabilities in nuclear magnetic resonance, mass spectroscopy, and a
range of imaging modalities, supports major science themes of
biogeochemistry, biological interactions and dynamics, and catalysis.
R&D Coordination in Climate and Environmental Sciences
The knowledge and tools developed by BER research to understand
Earth's climate system and to predict future climate and climate change
is used by DOE's Office of Policy and International Affairs as it
develops strategies for our nation's future energy needs and control of
greenhouse gas emissions. BER also works with the U.S. Global Change
Research Program in numerous stakeholder engagement activities.
BER research on the behavior and interactions of contaminants in
the subsurface environment provides knowledge needed by DOE's Office of
Environmental Management (EM) to develop new strategies for stewardship
and remediation of weapons-related contaminants at DOE sites and by
DOE's Office of Legacy Management to develop tools to monitor the long-
term status of contaminants at cleanup sites. Mechanisms to foster R&D
integration with EM include joint participation by BER and EM in
planning activities, site visits and reviews, and involvement of EM
site managers in BER Integrated Field Research Challenge projects.
Knowledge of the subsurface environment as a complete system will also
be useful to DOE's Office of Fossil Energy in their efforts to predict
the long-term behavior of carbon dioxide injected underground for long-
term storage. As a direct result of BER supported basic research in
modeling the fate and transport of contaminants, EM will initiate an
effort in FY 2010 to develop the next generation simulation software
needed to address the prediction, risk reduction, and decision support
challenges faced by DOE sites.
Looking to the Future
BER continues to leverage its scientific strengths and novel
community resources for understanding complex biological, climate, and
environmental systems as it looks to the future. Biology has entered a
systems-science era with the goal to establish a predictive
understanding of the mechanisms of cellular function and the
interactions of biological systems with their environment and with each
other. Vast amounts of data on the composition, physiology, and
function of complex biological systems and their natural environments
are emerging from new analytical technologies. Effectively exploiting
these data requires developing a new generation of capabilities for
analyzing, mining, and managing the information.
To manage and effectively use this rapidly growing volume and
diversity of data, BER is developing a systems biology knowledgebase
that will facilitate a new level of scientific inquiry by serving as a
central component for the integration of modeling, simulation,
experimentation, and bioinformatic approaches. A systems biology
knowledgebase will be a primary resource for data sharing and
information exchange among scientists. It will not only enable
scientists to expand, compute, and integrate data and information
program wide, but it also will drive two classes of work: experimental
design and modeling and simulation. Integrating data derived from
computational predictions and modeling will increase data completeness,
fidelity, and accuracy. These advancements in turn will greatly improve
modeling and simulation, leading to new experimentation, analyses, and
mechanistic insight.
BER will continue to leverage its unique combination of user
facilities and DOE computational resources to improve our ability to
predict future climate with greater accuracy. BER will develop high
resolution regional climate simulations for use in assessing regional
and national implications of climate change on human systems and
infrastructure, especially energy demand, production, and supply, such
as biofuel feedstock production. This effort will also support
interagency activities of the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Concluding Remarks
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity to discuss
the Biological and Environmental Research program. This concludes my
testimony, and I would be pleased to answer any questions to you may
have.
Biography for Anna Palmisano
Dr. Anna Palmisano is the Associate Director of Science for
Biological and Environmental Research at the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE). With an annual budget of about $600 million, the Office of
Biological and Environmental Research supports complex systems science
to meet DOE mission needs in bioenergy, climate and the environment.
She joined the Office of Science on March, 2008 from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service where she served as the Deputy Administrator for
Competitive Programs. From 1998 to 2004, she was a Program Manager in
the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, where she
developed and managed a wide range of basic research programs including
bioremediation, carbon cycling and sequestration, and genomics. Dr.
Palmisano has also served as a Program Manager and acting Division
Director for Biomolecular and Biosystems Sciences and Technology in the
Office of Naval Research, and she worked as a staff microbiologist in
the Environmental Safety Division of the Procter and Gamble Company.
Dr. Palmisano received a B.S. degree in Microbiology from the
University of Maryland and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Biology from
the University of Southern California. She was an Allan Hancock Fellow
at the University of Southern California and a National Research
Council Fellow in planetary biology at NASA-Ames Research Center. Her
research interests have included sea ice microbial communities, stream
ecology, microbial mats, bioremediation of organic pollutants, and
landfill microbiology. She has led five research expeditions to
Antarctica and published numerous papers in the field of microbial
ecology.
Chairman Baird. Thank you.
Dr. Keasling.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAY D. KEASLING, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY; CEO, JOINT BIOENERGY
INSTITUTE
Dr. Keasling. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today and for your strong support for
science. My name is Jay Keasling. I am the CEO of the Joint
BioEnergy Institute (JBEI), Acting Deputy Director of the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and a Professor of
Biochemical Engineering at the University of California
Berkeley.
I am honored to testify before you today about the
Bioenergy Research Centers (BRCs), which are advancing the
science and technological development of cellulosic-based
biofuels. From biofuels to cost-efficient remediation of toxic
environments to changing the way we understand and predict
global impacts of climate change, BER serves an irreplaceable
role in the federal research enterprise.
At the core of BER's strengths are its unique facilities
and world-leading scientists. Since spearheading the Human
Genome Project in the 1980s, BER has led advancements in modern
systems biology that today enable the cutting edge research
into sustainable energy alternatives.
Upon this foundation BER established three centers to
research and develop cellulosic-based biofuels. These are
Bioenergy Research Centers, which today are up and running and
making great progress. JBEI's sisters are the DOE Great Lakes
Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) at the University of
Wisconsin, led by Tim Donohue, and the DOE Bioenergy Center at
DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), led by Martin
Keller.
JBEI is led by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in
partnership with Sandia Labs, UC-Berkeley, UC-Davis, Lawrence
Livermore National Lab, and Carnegie Institution for Science.
The mission of the BRC is maybe simply stated, to advance the
development of cellulosic biofuels. However, the challenge is
grand. Unlocking the energy potential in the sugars of
cellulose requires a lot of basic research and technology
development.
The BRCs are ideally suited to make rapid progress toward
this goal. Although unique in many ways, each of the BRCs has
pulled together the best of the national laboratories,
academics, and the private sector to build a new model for
interdisciplinary research. Working collaboratively, the three
BRCs have the potential to provide a better investment for the
federal dollar than a single large center and may serve as a
good model for similar energy research challenges.
Let me take a moment to describe JBEI in more detail. JBEI
is dynamically organized with scientific teams working together
in a single location, under one roof, to enable researchers to
share ideas and address problems at a systems-wide level.
Researchers don't have to wait for the weekly conference call
or the annual retreat to connect. It happens all the time.
Organized like a start-up, JBEI is designed to be nimble
and flexible, able to focus and refocus resources quickly, not
the typical research model. Unproductive research avenues are
quickly redirected. Ideas that show the most promise are
invested in aggressively. JBEI researchers are focusing on
developing next-generation biofuels that are compatible with
existing infrastructure and utilize feedstocks more
efficiently. Taking a whole-systems approach to this objective
ensures that our research is applicable on large scales.
Four independent areas are investigated: developing new
bioenergy crops, enhancing biomass deconstruction, producing
new biofuels through synthetic biology, and creating
technologies that advance biofuel research. The magic of this
approach is that advancements in any of the four areas can be
shared with and employed by other areas, by other BRCs, and by
industry.
The exciting research includes searching for new ways,
including novel and better enzymes, to break down
lignocellulose, the tough matrix of fibers that hold plant
material together. An answer may be found in microbial
communities, in Puerto Rican rainforest soils that boast some
of the planet's highest rates of biomass degradation. JBEI
researchers are analyzing these organisms to find potential
solutions.
On the fuel production side, using synthetic biology JBEI
researchers have re-engineered the microbes of E. Coli and
yeast to produce advanced ``drop-in'' fuels that perform better
than ethanol. Basically, these tiny microbes can become biofuel
refineries.
My personal area of research is in synthetic biology. In
addition to biofuels, this exciting field offers great promise
for bio-based chemical and medical products. One of the most
important applications of synthetic biology has been re-
engineering organisms to produce the anti-malarial drug,
artemisinin. There are currently 300 to 500 million cases of
malaria at any one time with one to three million people dying
of the disease each year and 90 percent are children under the
age of five. And while quinine-based drugs are no longer
effective, plant-derived artemisinin combination therapies are
highly effective but cost prohibitive for the world.
To decrease its cost we engineered a microbe to produce a
precursor to the drug by transferring the genes from plants to
the microorganism. The process has been licensed by Sanofi-
Aventis, which will scale the process and produce the drug
within the next two years, providing it ``at cost'' to the
developing world.
Luckily the precursor to the chemical artemisinin is a
hydrocarbon, a fundamental building block of fuel. We are now
re-engineering those same microbes to produce drop-in biofuels.
The artemisinin project required $25 million in funding and 150
person-years to complete in part because the engineering of
biology is so incredibly time consuming. Through synthetic
biology we hope to make the engineering of biology more
predictable and easier, thereby reducing its cost to develop
biofuels and other useful products, from chemicals to medicine
to consumer and commercial products.
Limiting BER research to just fuels would be a mistake and
a lost opportunity. Indeed, BER can take an important and
leading role in the development of this transformative field of
synthetic biology.
Thank you again for holding this important hearing and for
inviting me to participate, and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Keasling follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jay D. Keasling
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis and distinguished Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
important hearing. And, thank you for your strong and consistent
support for science and the innovation process. My name is Jay Keasling
and I am the CEO of the Joint BioEnergy Institute and the Acting Deputy
Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), a
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science laboratory operated by the
University of California. I am also a professor at the University of
California, Berkeley, in chemical and biological engineering.
The Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) is a scientific partnership
led by Berkeley Lab and including the Sandia National Laboratories, the
University of California campuses of Berkeley and Davis, the Carnegie
Institution for Science and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
JBEI's primary scientific mission is to advance the development of the
next generation of biofuels--liquid fuels derived from the solar energy
stored in plant biomass. JBEI is one of three DOE Bioenergy Research
Centers (BRCs) funded by the Office of Biological and Environmental
Research (BER).
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a world-leading multi-
disciplinary science laboratory founded in 1931 by Nobel Laureate
Ernest Orlando Lawrence. Eleven scientists associated with Berkeley Lab
have won the Nobel Prize and 55 Nobel Laureates either trained at the
Lab or had significant collaborations with the Lab. It has a very
distinguished history in several fields of science including physics,
chemistry, biology, computing, energy efficiency and Earth sciences,
among others.
Today, Berkeley Lab is mobilizing its strong bench of scientific
and engineering talent to lead the scientific advancement and
technological development of solutions to the energy and environmental
challenges facing our planet. Much of this good work is funded by the
Office of Biological and Environmental Research within the DOE's Office
of Science. I am delighted to be here with you today to share
information about this productive and good use of federal research
dollars, and to share a few thoughts about BER, the BioEnergy Research
Centers and more generally on biology-based opportunities in energy and
other fields.
Overview of Testimony
The energy and environmental demands facing our nation and the
world are daunting and require a broad and balanced mix of solutions--
from advancements in science and technology to bold changes in policy
and human behavior. BER is aggressively advancing the scientific
knowledge and the technological know-how needed to address these grand
challenges with its unique cadre of experts and facilities. From the
development of biofuels, to cost-efficient remediation of toxic
environments, to changing the way we understand and predict the global
impacts of climate change, BER serves a crucial and irreplaceable role
in the federal research enterprise.
Today I want to draw your attention to four key areas:
1. BER's arsenal of research resources, such as the BRCs and
the Joint Genome Institute, are unparalleled in the Nation's
science and technology complex and are hotbeds of potentially
game-changing energy and environmental research.
2. The BRCs' development of cellulosic biofuels, especially
next generation, environmentally benign, drop-in biofuels, will
contribute significantly to new technological approaches to
transportation fuels.
3. Synthetic Biology, a transformational approach to
biological energy and medical challenges, holds great promise
for the design and development of sustainable, safe, bio-based
products.
4. In order to make rapid and meaningful progress, DOE's basic
and applied energy research and development activities must
collaborate closely and strategically. The BRCs are an
excellent model for building stronger alliances between these
two areas.
BER's Arsenal of Resources
Championing large scale and team-centric biology-based approaches
to big problems have propelled BER to a world-leadership position in
the biological sciences and in the development of biology-based
technologies. Since spearheading the Human Genome Project in 1986, BER
has led the development of modern genomics-based systems biology that
today is enabling cutting-edge research into sustainable energy
alternatives and global climate change solutions.
At the core of BER's strength are its unique facilities and world
leading scientists. From the three BRCs to the Joint Genome Institute,
BER is providing American research institutions and companies the
intellectual horsepower and the specialized tools and equipment needed
to make progress quickly. Also, BER is careful to ensure that it and
its facilities utilize and leverage one another as well as other DOE
assets to support its mission.
A case in point: each of the BRCs has access to the tremendous
genomic research capabilities of the Joint Genome Institute (JGI). JGI
was created in 1997 to unite the expertise and resources in DNA
sequencing, informatics, and technology development pioneered at the
DOE genome centers at Berkeley Lab, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. By combining these
efforts, the significant economies of scale achieved enabled the JGI to
be the first to publish the sequence analysis of the target chromosomes
5, 16, and 19, in the journal Nature. Following this accomplishment,
the DOE JGI went on to advance basic science by sequencing scores of
microbial species as well as several model organisms and provided this
information freely to public databases.
Building on its success, in 2004 the BER established JGI as a
national user facility. The vast majority of JGI sequencing is
conducted under the auspices of the Community Sequencing Program,
surveying the biosphere to characterize organisms relevant to the DOE
science mission areas of bioenergy, global carbon cycling, and
biogeochemistry. Today, JGI's largest customers are the BRCs, which
utilize the JGI's skills and tools to sequence the genomes of
prospective biofuel feedstocks, such as the poplar tree and the grass
arabidopsis, or of potentially highly effective organisms for
cellulosic deconstruction, such as those in the hindgut of termites or
on the rainforest floor.
Additionally, JGI works with institutions and companies from around
the country, including from the Chairman's and Ranking Member's home
states. These projects include:
BER's leadership role in biological sciences and technology
development continued with its request for proposals in the summer of
2006 to establish three centers to research and develop cellulosic
derived ethanol. Inspired by a joint BER-EERE workshop, the report,
``Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol: A Joint
Research Agenda,'' provided direction for a program that would more
directly effect large-scale solutions to our energy and environmental
challenges. The workshop, in which I participated along with my UC-
Berkeley colleague Chris Somerville (Executive Director of the $500
million, BP funded, Energy Biosciences Institute), provided a cohesive
research strategy that could best be realized through the creation of
dedicated, collaborative scientific research centers.
This committee and the Congress also played a critical role in the
establishment of the BRCs. From the biofuel provisions in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, research agencies' budget authorizations in the
America COMPETES Act, and the appropriations that made the Centers
possible, you and your colleagues have demonstrated your leadership and
your understanding that new approaches are needed to attack these big
problems.
All of the BRCs are up and running and are making great progress.
As an addendum to this testimony I have attached the recently updated
``Bioenergy Research Centers Overview'' (07/09) which includes
information about the three centers, our progress and successes. JBEI's
sister centers are profiled below.
The DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center is led by the
University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin, in close
collaboration with Michigan State University in East Lansing,
Michigan. The Center Director is Timothy Donohue, and other
collaborators include: DOE's Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory in Richland, Washington; Lucigen Corporation in
Middleton, Wisconsin; University of Florida in Gainesville,
Florida; DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee; Illinois State University in Normal, Illinois; and
Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa.
The DOE BioEnergy Science Center is led by the DOE's Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Center
Director is Martin Keller, and collaborators include: Georgia
Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia; DOE's National
Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado; University of
Georgia in Athens, Georgia; Dartmouth College in Hanover, New
Hampshire; and the University of Tennessee, in Knoxville,
Tennessee.
Each of the BRCs has pulled together the best of the national
laboratories, academics, and the private sector to build a new model
for interdisciplinary research. Working collaboratively, the three BRCs
have the potential to provide a better investment for the federal
dollar than a single large center. As has been pointed out by many, the
days of Bell Labs and Xerox Labs are behind us. Therefore, it is
critical that the Federal Government continue to invest in high payoff
research that will bring transformative technology to the marketplace,
maintain the leadership position of the United States in technology
development and support the creation of new economic sectors. As
example, let me describe JBEI to you in more detail.
As noted earlier, the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) is a six-
institution partnership led by Berkeley Lab and based in the San
Francisco Bay Area in a new research facility in Emeryville,
California, within commuting distance of its partner institutions. JBEI
is designed to be an engine of ingenuity, dynamically organized with
all the scientific teams working together in a single location, under
one roof, to enable researchers to share ideas and address cellulosic
biomass problems at a systems-wide level. Within 60 miles of JBEI are
some of the world's foremost expertise and facilities for energy, plant
biology, systems and synthetic biology, imaging, nanoscience, and
computation, plus the highest concentration of national laboratories
and world-class research universities in the Nation.
Organized like a start-up company (for example, my title is CEO),
JBEI is designed to be nimble and flexible, able to focus and refocus
resources quickly, efficiently and effectively--not the typical mode
for basic scientific research. This organizational structure is
critical to JBEI's success. For example, research avenues that are
unproductive as related to meeting biofuels development targets may be
quickly redirected. Ideas that show the most promise are invested in
aggressively and resources are allocated to ensure rapid progress.
Biofuels: The Next Generation
Although biofuels have been in use, and in some stage of
development for decades, the Federal Government and industry have not
invested adequately in the basic science and technology development
needed to advance more useful and sustainable forms. Ethanol derived
from corn starch and other starch based biomass is a good place to
start and have demonstrated the viability of bio-based fuels as useful
and effective alternatives to fossil fuel. However, ethanol, especially
when derived from starches, presents problems that must be overcome.
From the limitations of using existing transportation
infrastructure, such as our inventory of automobiles and fuel
distribution networks, to the inefficient utilization of the feedstock,
starch derived ethanol is ultimately not the best way to address our
energy security or global climate change challenges. New ways must be
developed, and BER's investment in the BRCs is one critical path that
holds great promise.
At JBEI, we are focusing on developing ``next generation'' biofuels
that are compatible with existing infrastructure and utilize feedstock
more efficiently. To do this we are taking a whole-systems approach to
ensure that our research is applicable on large scales. The research
revolves around four interdependent efforts that focus on (1)
developing new bioenergy crops, (2) enhancing biomass deconstruction,
(3) producing new biofuels through synthetic biology, and (4) creating
technologies that advance biofuel research. The magic of this approach,
as well as similar approaches at the other BRCs, is that advancements
and discoveries in any of the four areas can be shared with and
employed by each other, and by industry. In other words, commercially
applicable developments made at the BRCs can speed improvement in
various components of biofuels production before game changing
discoveries are made and perfected.
JBEI researchers are engineering microbes and enzymes to process
the complex sugars of lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels that can
directly replace gasoline. However, the process and the research begin
much earlier than the conversion of sugars into fuels. First, we must
develop better biomass and better technologies for deconstructing the
tough cellulosic bonds. Below are three examples of work through which
JBEI researchers will improve the fermentable content of biomass and
transform lignin into a source of valuable new and sustainable fuels.
The conversion of cellulosic biomass to biofuels begins with
pretreatment--the use of chemical or physical treatments to loosen the
tight linkages among cell-wall components, making the biomass easier to
degrade. A new development in pretreatment research is the use of ionic
liquids--salts that are liquid rather than crystalline near room
temperature. Ionic liquids can dissolve both lignin and cellulose;
their use, however, has required large amounts of anti-solvent to
recover the dissolved cellulose. JBEI researchers have studied solvent
extraction technology based on the chemical affinity of boronates to
complex sugars and determined optimal pH and temperature conditions for
recovering sugars from the ionic liquid-biomass liquor.
To find other ways, including new and better enzymes, to break down
lignocellulose, JBEI researchers have analyzed microbial communities in
Puerto Rican rainforest soils that boast some of the planet's highest
rates of biomass degradation. Scientists used the Phylochip, a credit
card-sized microarray developed at Berkeley Lab that can quickly detect
the presence of up to 9,000 microbial species in samples. Using bags of
switchgrass as ``microbe traps,'' the researchers conducted a census of
these soil microbes to identify the most efficient biomass-degrading
bacteria and fungi.
Through re-engineering microbes, JBEI researchers have used
synthetic biology and metabolic engineering techniques in Escherichia
coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast) to produce advanced, ``drop-
in,'' fuels that perform better than ethanol. The scientists redirected
central metabolic, fatty acid, and cholesterol biosynthetic pathways to
produce candidate gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel molecules. JBEI also
has developed a new metabolic pathway that potentially could produce
both advanced fuels and other molecules (e.g., polymer monomers) that
might otherwise be produced from petroleum, paving the way to replace a
significant portion of petroleum-based products with sugar-based
products. I will discuss this in more depth later in the testimony.
Close collaborations with industry is critical to the whole systems
approach and to the process of getting discoveries and technological
improvements to the market. At JBEI, we collaborate with companies in a
number of ways to achieve this goal. We have an Industry Advisory
Committee, comprised of leading companies in a number of sectors that
relate to biofuels: agriculture, biotechnology, chemicals, oil and gas,
automobile and aerospace. Currently this committee is comprised of
representatives from the following companies: Arborgen, Boeing, BP
America, Chevron, DuPont, GM, Mendel Biotechnology, Plum Creek, and
StatoilHydro. These companies meet annually for a review of JBEI's
research and provide feedback from an industry perspective. They are
able to identify challenges and opportunities that are difficult to
perceive from the lab bench, but critical to address in the
marketplace.
We also have an Industry Partnership Program though which companies
can collaborate with JBEI in a variety of ways to best meet their
needs. JBEI partners with companies to expand the scope of its biofuels
research and take JBEI's fundamental discoveries the next step in
development by focusing on an applied research problem in tandem with a
company. In one example, JBEI is planning to work with a company on
testing the compatibility and efficacy of our inventions with their
processes. In another, JBEI has leveraged industry funding from Boeing
and StatoilHydro to develop an economic model of a cellulosic
biorefinery that will identify those aspects of the process that would
most benefit from cost reduction.
JBEI ensures that its discoveries offer value to industry by
patenting those inventions that we expect to be commercially valuable.
Thus far, JBEI has produced 30 inventions and copyrighted or filed a
patent application on 21 of them. JBEI actively promotes these
inventions to the public and the target markets, not only to ensure
that Fairness of Opportunity is met, but to find the most qualified
licensee in each case.
Although we are making significant progress, I do not want to leave
here today having given you unrealistic expectations. I estimate that
whole-system, cellulosic to drop-in biofuels production on a mass scale
is still at least a decade away. However, as stated before, we and our
colleagues at the other BRCs are rapidly developing solutions for
various aspects of the biofuels enterprise that may come to market much
quicker. Synthetic biology offers more immediate opportunities.
The Promise of Synthetic Biology
As an example, I would like to describe my personal research in
synthetic biology and how this exciting field offers great promise, not
just for the development of game-changing biofuels, but for other bio-
based chemical, consumer and medical products.
I started my career at Berkeley in the early nineties when it was
very difficult to engineer biology. I began with the idea that one
could engineer microorganisms to be chemical factories to produce
nearly any important chemical from sugar. Unfortunately, there were
very few tools to engineer microorganisms to produce chemicals. So, we
began by developing tools to control the expression of genes that had
been transferred to cells so that we could accurately control the
production of the chemical of interest. There was really no name for
what we were doing, but now it is referred to as synthetic biology.
At the time, I was somewhat ostracized by my colleagues for
focusing on the development of tools for engineering biology--even
though the development of tools is at the heart of every engineering
field. As an example, Gordon Moore famously recommended that Intel
spend at least 10 percent of its budget on the development of tools.
Obviously, tools help to move science forward.
One of our most important and well-known applications of these
tools has been engineering microorganisms to produce the anti-malarial
drug artemisinin. There are 300-500 million cases of malaria at any one
time, with one to three million people dying from the disease each
year, 90 percent are children under the age of five. While the quinine-
based drugs that have been so widely used to treat malaria are no
longer effective, artemisinin combination therapies are highly
effective in treating malaria.
Because the drug is extracted from a plant that naturally produces
it in rather low yield, artemisinin combination therapies are too
expensive for most people in the developing world to afford. To
increase the availability of the drug and decrease its cost, we
engineered a microorganism to produce a precursor to the drug by
transferring the genes responsible for making the drug from the plant
to the microorganism. Through generous funding from the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, we were able to complete the science in three years.
That science was greatly enabled by our previous work on developing
biological tools. The engineered microorganism was further optimized
and a production process developed by Amyris Biotechnologies. The
microbial production process has been licensed by Sanofi-Aventis, which
will scale the process and produce the drug within the next two years.
Artemisinin is just a start. Just as synthetic biology is being
applied to develop new fuels, I believe that similar processes and
techniques can also be applied to the production of many other
products--from chemicals and medicine to consumer and commercial
products. Today, companies like Amyris and DuPont are leading the way
in the development of more sustainable, bio-based products that
traditionally have utilized fossil fuels. Investing in cleaner, non-
petroleum based manufacturing methods for non-fuel products should also
be a significant focus of our energy and global climate change federal
research agenda. Limiting this research to just fuels would be a
mistake and a lost opportunity.
Collaborating for Success
I wanted to bring to the Committee's attention an important issue
that, if addressed effectively, could greatly improve the Department's
ability to develop solutions to great problems and help to move them to
the marketplace. Energy research and the development of energy and
environmental technologies at DOE demonstrate an unfortunate disconnect
between the basic sciences and applied technology development at DOE.
Instead of dwelling on the problem, however, I prefer to
concentrate on the huge upside presented by closer collaboration. If
the Office of Science and DOE's applied research and development
programs were more strategically and organizationally aligned, the
progress that could be made would be astounding. Just as JBEI and the
other BRCs are taking a whole-systems approach, so must the Office of
Science and the DOE technology offices work together to establish
objectives, to coordinate activities and to jointly invest in programs
and projects. The BRCs provide a great opportunity for this type of
collaboration.
There are signals that this is occurring. A recent instance is the
announcement by Secretary Chu that EERE's Office of Biomass will fund a
biofuels pilot plant for use by the Office of Science/BER-funded BRCs
and other users across the Nation. The pilot plant would translate the
technologies created by the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) and its
sister BRCs beyond laboratory scale to facilitate their
commercialization. The facility will have capabilities for pilot scale
pretreatment of biomass, production of enzymes for biomass
deconstruction (cellulases, hemicellulases, and lignases), and
fermentation capacity for advanced biofuels production and purification
in quantities sufficient for engine testing at partner institutions.
Finally, I would like to share one last example of a potentially
dynamic and productive collaborative effort. More foundational research
is needed to develop the underpinning technologies in synthetic biology
(SC), and to apply synthetic biology to test beds like microbial
production of transportation fuels and specialty chemicals (EERE). An
example of this foundational research is that conducted at the National
Science Foundation-funded Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center
(SynBERC), a collaboration of the University of California campuses at
Berkeley and San Francisco, Stanford University, Harvard University,
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. BER could play large
role in this foundational research, which would complement its work at
the Joint Genome Institute, and advance its mission-focused research in
many fields. Specifically, the funding of a biological fabrication
facility dedicated to the construction and characterization of
biological components would increase the speed and reduce the costs of
the development of microorganisms that produce biofuels, commodity and
specialty chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.
Conclusion
I hope that my testimony has illustrated for you the remarkable
role that BER has and will continue to play in our nation's research
and innovation enterprise. Your actions and the support of the
Congress, however, will determine whether these efforts described today
are ultimately successful. This is a marathon, not a sprint, and
requires consistent and continuous nourishing and care. Additionally,
the Department has a huge burden to shepherd their programs in a
coordinated, strategic and efficient manner. To meet the monumental
tasks before us, just in the area of advanced biofuels, will require
more than what BER can do alone--all of DOE's resources, in
coordination and collaboration with industry and other federal
agencies, must be brought to bear.
Finally, thank you, again, for holding this important hearing and
for inviting me to participate. Please let me know if I may ever be of
any assistance.
Biography for Jay D. Keasling
Jay Keasling was named as Berkeley Lab's Acting Deputy Director in
March, 2009. While serving in this interim position he continues his
duties as the Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Department of
Energy's Joint BioEnergy Institute and as a professor of chemical and
bioengineering at the University of California-Berkeley. From April
2005 to June 2009, he served as Director of Berkeley Lab's Physical
Biosciences Division. He joined that division in 1992 and in 2002
became the first head of its Synthetic Biology Department. In addition,
he directs UC-Berkeley's Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center
and is also a founder of Amyris Biotechnologies, a leading firm in the
development of renewable fuels and chemicals.
Keasling is one of the foremost authorities in the field of
synthetic biology research. His work has focused on engineering
microorganisms for the environmentally friendly synthesis of small
molecules or degradation of environmental contaminants. He led the
breakthrough research in which bacteria and yeast were engineered to
perform most of the chemistry needed to make artemisinin, the most
powerful anti-malaria drug in use today. In 2004, the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation awarded a $42.6 million grant to further develop the
technology which is now nearing commercialization. For this research,
Keasling received the 2009 Biotech Humanitarian Award from the
Biotechnology Industry Organization. Keasling is now applying his
synthetic biology techniques towards the production of advanced carbon-
neutral biofuels that can replace gasoline on a gallon-for-gallon
basis.
Keasling grew up on his family's corn and soybean farm in Harvard,
Nebraska, then earned his Bachelor's degree from the University of
Nebraska, and his graduate degrees in chemical engineering from the
University of Michigan. He is the recipient of the American Institute
of Chemical Engineers Professional Progress Award (2007) and Scientist
of the Year, Discovery Magazine (2006). He is a Fellow of the American
Academy for Microbiology (2007) and the American Institute of Medical
and Biological Engineering (2000). In 2006, he was also cited by
Newsweek as one of the country's 10 most esteemed biologists.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Campbell.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALLISON A. CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR, WR WILEY
ENVIRONMENTAL MOLECULAR SCIENCES LABORATORY, PACIFIC NORTHWEST
NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Campbell. Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Inglis, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I am the Director of Wiley
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, a BER-funded
national scientific user facility.
EMSL's mission is to provide researchers worldwide with
integrated computational and experimental capabilities to
advance scientific discovery and provide technological
innovation in the environmental molecular sciences in support
of DOE and the Nation's needs.
It is unique in that it offers users under one roof a
problem-solving environment that integrates these capabilities
with staff expertise that enable the highest impact science
possible. Capabilities include high-performance computing
tools, ultrahigh resolution microscopes, and world-leading
magnetic resonance spectrometers. Think of it as an MRI for
molecules. And mass spectrometers.
Within the Office of Science BER supports, sponsors, and
advances world-leading biological and environmental research
programs and operates scientific user facilities that drive
fundamental scientific discoveries to meet its mission
priorities. In addition to DOE's Office of Science, the
National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of
Health also fund programs in biology and medical research.
Many scientists from--funded by these three agencies
perform their research at DOE-sponsored National Scientific
User Facilities such as EMSL. A few examples of highlights in
the biological arena include researchers from Washington
University at St. Louis, who recently discovered a novel
cluster of genes that include proteins essential for
photosynthesis. This is the process by which plants convert
light into energy. Understanding this process and how nature
converts light into energy is a reaction important in the
development of new clean fuels.
Another example is researchers from Oregon State University
and the University of California, as well as at PNNL, for the
first time measured protein complements of microbial
communities in the Sargasso Sea. Insights afforded by this
research is important because bacteria such as these heavily
influenced biogeochemical cycles affecting the concentrations
of elements such as carbon and therefore, the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide in the Earth's air, water, and soil.
Finally, an international team from the Erasmus Research
Center at Rotterdam have identified 55 different proteins that
vary in amounts between patients who were responsive to a
certain breast cancer therapy and those who were not. This
discovery can potentially lead to new biomarkers for the
efficacy of new therapies and drugs.
BER continues to make significant investments in EMSL to
keep the user facility unique and state-of-the-art, such as the
recent investment of $60 million of Recovery Act funds to
enable our planned investments and recapitalization.
We are also collaborating with the National High-Field
Magnet Laboratory at Florida State University, as well as an
institute in the Netherlands to develop the world's highest-
field mass spectrometer. This high-fuel magnet would make what
today is impossible, possible, through increases in dynamic
range, sensitivity, and resolution. New knowledge garnered from
this instrument could enable biofuel development and foster
better-informed technology and policy decisions affecting
bioremediation, waste processing, energy production, and
associated health impacts.
Of course, EMSL would not exist without our user base.
During our 12 years of operation we have hosted more than
10,000 scientists from all 50 states, including all the states
represented by this committee, and over 60 countries. Nearly
half of our users come from university systems, 40 percent come
from other national labs and other government labs, and a small
portion come from the industrial sector.
Nearly 45 percent of EMSL users are funded by DOE, with
one-third of those being funded by the Office of Biological and
Environmental Research, and another 25 percent are funded by
NIH and NSF, the remaining balance being funded by various
associated agencies across the government sector. User
productivity has been excellent. Over the last two years EMSL-
based research and discoveries have been the subject of more
than 1,000 peer review papers and journals and featured on more
than 30 journal covers.
To summarize, in partnership with BER, EMSL will continue
to provide these world-class scientific resources and
scientific expertise to the scientific community worldwide,
with integrated capabilities to achieve the highest impact
science possible in support of the needs of the DOE and the
Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to discuss
EMSL and DOE's biological programs with you. As we both call
Washington our home, I would like to invite you at your
convenience out to the Laboratory to take a look yourself, and
I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee might
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Campbell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Allison A. Campbell
Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of
the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you to provide
testimony on ``Biological Research for Energy and Medical Applications
at the Department of Energy Office of Science.'' In 1990, I became
affiliated with the Department of Energy's (DOE's) national laboratory
system as a post-doctoral chemist at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland, Washington. Since that time, I have
spent nearly 20 years at PNNL as a senior research scientist, a
technical group leader and, as of 2000, the Associate Director of
EMSL--the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. In May 2005, I
was named EMSL Director.
Today, my testimony will focus on three objectives: (1) introducing
you to EMSL, its mission, its users, and the science it enables; (2)
articulating the role of EMSL in supporting the biological research
efforts of DOE's Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
and other agencies; and (3) describing future opportunities that will
accelerate scientific discovery at EMSL.
History of EMSL
Located at PNNL, EMSL is a BER-funded national scientific user
facility. The concept of EMSL began in 1986, when then-PNNL Director
Dr. William R. Wiley and his senior managers met to discuss how PNNL
could respond to the scientific challenges that faced DOE. Dr. Wiley
and his senior leadership team, knowing of the tremendous advances made
in the ability of the research community to characterize, manipulate,
and create molecules, believed that molecular-level research would be
instrumental to solving significant challenges in the environment,
energy, and health arenas. The resulting concept was a center for
molecular science research that would bring together experimentalists
from the physical and life sciences and theoreticians with expertise in
computer modeling of molecular processes.
Dr. Wiley's vision was realized in July 1994 when construction
began on the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences
Laboratory, as it came to be called, and the building was dedicated in
October 1996, shortly after he passed away unexpectedly. The doors of
EMSL opened to the user community on October 1, 1997.
The Uniqueness of EMSL
Today, Dr. Wiley's vision continues to be embodied in EMSL's
mission to provide researchers worldwide with integrated experimental
and computational resources for scientific discovery and technological
innovation in the environmental molecular sciences to support the needs
of DOE and the Nation. EMSL is unique in that if offers users a
problem-solving environment that integrates scientific expertise with
transformational capabilities to enable the highest-impact scientific
results possible. These capabilities include, under one roof, high-
performance computing tools that advance molecular science in areas
such as aerosol formation, bioremediation, catalysis, climate change,
and subsurface science; high-resolution microscopes that enable
scientists to visualize molecules and molecular processes; and world-
leading nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and mass spectrometry
capabilities that allow researchers to characterize complex systems
such as microbial communities.
Many of these capabilities are built in house, another feature that
sets EMSL apart from other facilities. For example, the EMSL-developed
NWChem, DOE's premier computational chemistry software, runs on systems
such as EMSL's high-performance, third-generation supercomputer,
Chinook--an HP system that can reach 163 teraflops in peak performance.
Researchers apply NWChem to run highly scalable, parallel computations
to gain understanding of large, challenging scientific problems such as
the biological activity of reactive sites in proteins, providing
insight into how they carry out critical functions such as DNA repair.
Another example is EMSL's STORM--an optical microscope that allows
users to observe biological systems in natural environments at electron
microscopy resolution, without altering the material from it natural
state as required by electron microscopy.
However, world-class instruments are only one component of a world-
class facility. The most important aspect of EMSL is the cadre of
leading scientific and technical experts. EMSL scientists have been
recognized with the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientist and
Engineers, and they have been elected as Fellows in a variety of
professional societies such as the American Chemical Society and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. They serve as
editors on scientific journals, have patented several new technologies,
and publish their work in leading scientific journals. Our researchers
have dedicated their careers to building new and innovative
technologies, pushing the limits of scientific discovery and advancing
the science of our users.
These capabilities and scientific expertise are focused to support
DOE's missions in energy and environment and address complex challenges
within EMSL's three science theme areas: (1) Biological Interactions
and Dynamics, (2) Geochemistry/Biogeochemistry and Subsurface Science,
and (3) Science of Interfacial Phenomena.
Biology Research within BER and other Federal Agencies
DOE's Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing more
than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national
importance. Within the Office of Science, BER sponsors, supports, and
advances world-class biological and environmental research programs and
scientific user facilities to drive fundamental science discoveries and
to meet its mission priorities to:
Develop biofuels as a major secure national energy
resource
Understand relationships between climate change and
the Earth's ecosystems, and assess options for carbon
sequestration
Predict fate and transport of subsurface contaminants
Develop new tools to explore the interface of
biological and physical sciences.
In addition to DOE's Office of Science, the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) fund research
programs in the biological and health sciences. Scientists funded by
these programs advance their research with the help of DOE's national
scientific user facilities, such as EMSL. EMSL is particularly well
positioned to foster discovery in the biological sciences for these
researchers because of its strong focus on providing transformational
capabilities. Such capabilities at EMSL offer researchers new
approaches to view chemical and biological systems--from single
molecules or organisms to complex structures or communities, from
static to dynamic processes, and from ex-situ systems to in-situ
observation. These capabilities and EMSL's world-leading scientists are
helping researchers unravel complex biological problems such as the
following.
Understanding the light path to bioenergy. Using
EMSL's world-leading high-throughput proteomics resources, a
team led by researchers from Washington University in St. Louis
discovered a novel cluster of genes that encode proteins
essential for photosynthesis. This discovery is providing
insight into how nature converts light into energy, a reaction
of interest because future clean energy sources will rely
heavily on this conversion.
Understanding how oceanic microbial communities are
optimized for nutrient uptake. EMSL's world-leading proteomics
resources were critical to pioneering research in which EMSL
users from Oregon State University, the University of
California and PNNL, for the first time, measured protein
expression in microbial communities from the Sargasso Sea. The
insight afforded by this research into oceanic microbial
communities is important because such bacteria heavily
influence biogeochemical cycles, affecting the concentrations
of elements such as carbon--and therefore the greenhouse gas,
carbon dioxide--in the Earth's air, water, and soil.
Fundamental studies give insight into ocular
function. The eyes house the elegant machinery that responds to
light and triggers the neural impulses that allow us to
visualize our surroundings. Researchers from the University of
Washington have used EMSL's NMR spectrometers and sophisticated
probe technologies to gain new knowledge about the complex
visual system at the molecular level. The team is the first to
determine a high-resolution structure of a photoreceptor domain
that affects how quickly the eye can see. Studies such as this
one are the first steps toward a fundamental understanding of
the how the visual system works and how to fix it when it goes
awry.
Identifying newly found proteins that may indicate if
breast cancer cells will resist treatment. Researchers from
Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam combined EMSL's mass
spectrometry capabilities with EMSL expertise in proteomics to
identify 55 proteins that vary in abundance between patients
responsive to the breast cancer treatment tamoxifen and those
who are not, indicating that a biomarker for resistance to this
drug might exist.
Developing new tools to aid in understanding the
physiology of live cells. A research team from PNNL, The J.
Craig Venter Institute, and Merck Co., Inc., used EMSL
resources to develop a first-of-its-kind MRI biochamber that
provides accurate metabolic information for live cells
maintained in a controlled growth environment. This new
capability is helping researchers understand the processes
employed by microorganisms under different conditions, an
important step in using these microbes to manufacture biofuels
and other valuable chemicals from waste.
Investigating how bacterium immobilizes subsurface
contaminants. An international team used EMSL's surface science
and imaging capabilities to determine the location, with
nanoscale resolution, of two proteins on the surface of the
bacteria, Shewanella oneidensis. These proteins help Shewanella
exchange electrons with minerals in the subsurface, which can
affect the migration of environmental contaminants.
Understanding the role of these proteins in electron exchange
may lead to enhanced bioremediation methods. The team was
comprised of participants from The Ohio State University; PNNL;
Corning Incorporated, Johannes Kepler University of Linz,
Austria; Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland;
and Umea University, Sweden.
Future Opportunities
BER continues to make significant investments in EMSL to keep the
user facility unique and state of the art. Perhaps the greatest vote of
confidence in EMSL and our ability to serve the user community is BER's
recent investment of $60 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act funds, which will accelerate planned recapitalization activities
and condense the effort from more than five years to 18 months. This
investment represents a ``game changer'' for EMSL in that it allows us
to push forward critical, cutting-edge capabilities for in situ
chemical and biological imaging, ultra-high resolution microscopy,
near-real-time integration of theory and experiment, and
characterization of molecular dynamic processes. These new high-end
capabilities will bolster and refresh our user program and our users'
research and allow EMSL to attract and retain vital scientific
leadership. Our efforts are under way, and the instruments will be in
our facility by December 31, 2010.
We are also collaborating with the National High-Field Magnetic
Laboratory at Florida State University and the Atomic and Molecular
Physics Institute in the Netherlands to develop the world's highest-
field Fourier Transform-Ion Cyclotron Resonance mass spectrometer. This
high-field magnet would make the scientifically impossible possible
through increased analytical performance--sensitivity, dynamic range,
accuracy, resolution, and speed/throughput. Such a system has the
potential to revolutionize our biomolecular understanding of how
organisms function and how microbial systems cooperate as communities
by allowing our users to qualitatively identify and measure intact
proteins, the machinery of life. The magnet would also allow our users
to better investigate complex environmental samples such as fossil
fuels and atmospheric aerosols. New knowledge garnered from this
instrument would have applications to energy and environment problems
of national significance. For example, it would help enable biofuel
development and foster better-informed technical and policy decisions
affecting environmental remediation, waste processing, energy
production, and associated health impacts.
In concert with the unique instrumentation at EMSL, BER has
provided the user facility with much needed critical infrastructure
support. They are making investments for the development a
radiochemistry capability that will serve a broad and growing base of
users who require instrumentation in a radiological environment to
further their studies of chemistry and biogeochemistry of actinides,
fission products, and the use of radiotracers for biological research.
In addition, EMSL will build a new space that will house ultra-high-
resolution instruments for providing physical and chemical information
at unprecedented spatial or energy resolution. Called the Quiet Wing,
it will house new microscopy capabilities that require extremely low
electromagnetic field and vibrational interference as well as high-
temperature stability.
EMSL Users
Of course, EMSL would not exist without its user base. Users can
access EMSL to perform either non-proprietary or proprietary research.
There is no charge for access to EMSL if the research is considered
non-proprietary, meaning that researchers will publish the results in
the open literature and acknowledge EMSL's contribution. However, if
the research is proprietary--the results are to be confidential--the
user will pay full-cost recovery of the facilities used, which
includes, but is not limited to, labor, equipment use, consumables,
materials, and EMSL staff travel.
During our 12 years of operation, we have hosted more than 10,000
scientists from all 50 states and more than 60 countries, including
many countries from Asia, most European countries, and Australia. Many
of these users--nearly half--come from the university system.
Another large user set of EMSL capabilities is scientists from the
government sector, including the DOE national laboratory system, NASA,
the Department of Defense, and the Department of Agriculture. Finally,
members of industry comprise a much smaller sector of EMSL's user base
due mostly to the proprietary nature of their research. These entities
include, for example, Bayer Polymers, 3M, Ford Motor Company, and Dow
Chemical Company.
In terms of agencies that fund the projects of EMSL users, most--
nearly 45 percent--are funded by DOE; and one third of these DOE
projects are funded by BER. The NIH and NSF fund approximately 25
percent of projects at EMSL, and the balance is funded from a variety
of sources, such as the Department of Defense, Department of
Agriculture, and private industry.
EMSL users range from undergraduate and graduate students to post-
doctoral fellows and research scientists and engineers. EMSL strives to
bring in the best and brightest users to conduct the highest-impact
science possible. We have counted among our users 160 distinguished
scientists--including 11 National Academy members, 32 endowed chairs,
two Nobel laureates, and 131 authors who are considered top publishers
over a 10-year span.
We have had many users from the states that the Members of this
committee represent; for example, during the history of EMSL, we count
among our users more than 20 researchers representing the University of
South Carolina and Westinghouse Savannah River. Nearly 120 of our users
call Texas their home and represent institutions such as University of
Texas at Austin, Texas A&M, and Baylor College of Medicine. From
Illinois, 90 researchers from institutions such as Argonne National
Laboratory, the University of Illinois, and the University of Chicago
have benefited from use of EMSL's capabilities and expertise. And in
our home State of Washington, EMSL has been an excellent scientific
resource for more than 2,300 researchers not only from PNNL, but also
institutions such as the University of Washington, Washington State
University, and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
We continue to conduct outreach activities to grow our user base.
This is done through colleague-to-colleague interaction, contact at
professional society meetings, and development of programs such as the
Wiley Visiting Scientist Fellowship and EMSL Distinguished User Seminar
Series, among others.
Scientific and Technological Output
Since Fiscal Year 2007 alone, EMSL-based research and discoveries
have been the subject of nearly 1,000 papers in peer-reviewed journals,
with 57 percent of them in top-10 journals and 13 of them in top-tier
journals such as Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. Since that time, research at EMSL by our users and
staff has been featured on more than 30 journal covers, including
Science, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (PCCP), ACS Nano,
Nanotechnology, and Proteomics. These statistics help illustrate the
broad scientific impact enabled by EMSL.
Concluding Remarks
To summarize, with continued support and investment from BER in the
user program, EMSL will continue to bring Dr. Wiley's vision to
fruition by providing the scientific community worldwide with the
unique ability to integrate capabilities and staff expertise for
achieving the highest-impact science.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity to discuss
EMSL and DOE's biological research programs. This concludes my
testimony, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might
have.
Biography for Allison A. Campbell
Dr. Allison A. Campbell is the Director of EMSL--the Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory. Her primary responsibility is to lead
EMSL in achieving its vision of being a premier scientific user
facility for the Department of Energy by ensuring that EMSL develops
and provides transformational computational and experimental resources
to the scientific user community and conducts research that is focused
on critical scientific issues. Dr. Campbell began her career with
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in 1990 as a post-doctoral
fellow, when she joined the Materials Synthesis and Modification
Technical Group. In 1992, she was hired into that group as a research
scientist involved in developing new methods for synthesizing ceramic
coatings from aqueous processes. She went on to manage the Advanced
Materials Product Line and the Materials Synthesis and Modification
Technical Group at PNNL before joining the EMSL management team in
2001. She was named the EMSL Director in May, 2005.
Dr. Campbell is nationally recognized for her contributions towards
materials development through her research in the field of
biomaterials. Dr. Campbell is credited with co-inventing a bio-inspired
process to ``grow'' a bioactive calcium phosphate layer, from the
molecular level, onto the surfaces of artificial joint implants (total
hip and knee) to extend implant life and reduce rejection. She is also
recognized for her work in understanding the role of proteins in
biomineralization process such as tooth formation and decay. She has
authored numerous peer reviewed technical papers, been an invited
speaker at national and international meetings, and has several patents
based upon her research. Additionally, Dr. Campbell is an avid promoter
of science education, sharing her enthusiasm for science with young
students through a number of hands-on education programs.
Dr. Campbell is a member of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the International Association for Dental
Research, and the American Chemical Society.
Awards and Honors:
2006 R&D100 Award
2006 Federal Laboratory Consortium Award
2005 American Chemical Society Regional Industrial Innovation Award
2003 George W. Thorn Award, SUNY/Buffalo
2002 American Chemical Society--Outstanding Women in Chemistry
2001 Energy 100 Award for Biomimetic Coating for Orthopedic Implants,
DOE
2000 Young Alumni Achievement Award for Career Development, Gettysburg
College
1997 Fitzner-Eberhardt Award for Outstanding Contributions to Science
& Engineering Education, PNNL
1997 Woman of Achievement Award, PNNL
1995 DOE Basic Energy Sciences Award in Materials Science
1994 Director's Award for Scientific and Engineering Excellence, PNNL
1987 Excellence in Teaching Award; SUNY/Buffalo
1985 Undergraduate Research Award; Gettysburg College
Chairman Baird. Dr. Patrinos.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARISTIDES A.N. PATRINOS, PRESIDENT, SYNTHETIC
GENOMICS, INC.
Dr. Patrinos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Inglis, and Mr. Ehlers. I am honored to be asked to speak about
BER and about my company, Synthetic Genomics, Incorporated. I
am also pleased to see that my colleagues at the table also
still recognize me and remember me.
The common theme between BER and my company, Synthetic
Genomics Incorporated, is, in fact, genomics, which you have
heard so much about already. SGI was created by a genomics
pioneer, Craig Venter, in the summer of 2005, to drive
commercial solutions using genomics, starting with energy but
eventually we expect to move into things such as vaccines,
clean water, and many other applications. We are currently
partnering with industry giants like BP to enhance hydrocarbon
recovery, subsurface hydrocarbon recovery; with a Malaysian
company, Genting ACGT, to sequence the genomes of Jatropha and
oil palm, and of the microbial communities residing in the
rhizosphere to include things such as yields, and very recently
we also announced an alliance with Exxon to exploit algae-
produced biofuels.
The genomics revolution as you correctly have stated
started really with the Human Genome Project that was launched
by the BER Program back in 1986, by one of my predecessors,
Charles DeLisi. Through the genomics program, through the Human
Genome Project, we have developed many high-throughput
technologies for sequencing, assembly, and informatics, and
many of those technologies were actually developed by Craig
Venter himself.
Over the years there have been very many successful
partnerships between BER and Craig Venter, and in fact, one of
them continues today.
As you have heard already, synthetic biology, synthetic
genomics, genome engineering are all new fields that have been,
essentially have been launched by genomics and promise
disruptive technologies with myriad applications beyond energy:
in medicine and in other industrial processes.
I am very proud of my many-year association with the BER
Program and for the contributions the program has made since
its inception. I will always remember the age of the program
because it is the same age that I am, 62 years, and the
contributions it has made in radiation biology, in nuclear
medicine, climate change, bioremediation, genomics, structural
biology, the list goes on.
BER has always invested in high-risk and high-payoff
research and leveraged the physical and the computational
sciences that reside within the Office of Science, that unique
position that BER enjoys. BER, therefore, should not be like
NIH or NSF. It should retain its own DNA so to speak, because
diversity is really the strength of the American scientific
enterprise, and I mean diversity of performers, diversity of
scientific approaches, and yes, diversity of funding sources. A
good idea that gets shut out by an agency that dominates a
field needs another chance to be shopped around. If it wasn't
for the BER Program, the Human Genome Program would probably be
much delayed and probably we would still be sequencing it.
When I was in DOE, I suffered in the last few years by
many--much questioning about why DOE should be doing biology.
Questions came from the Secretary's office, from the OMB, and
also from your sister committee on Energy and Commerce. There
was also an attempt to raid BER to provide funding for the
newly-founded Department of Homeland Security.
I am hopeful that these dark days are over, and my
successor will not have to suffer what I suffered back in those
days. BER is extremely important for the DOE missions,
especially those involving clean energy as you have heard.
Carbon capture and sequestration will not be possible without a
biological solution and also bioremediation of the legacy of
the cold war.
Also, BER has important scientific user facilities like you
have heard: the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory,
the Joint Genome Institute, and the facilities and stations it
nurtures, the light sources and the neutron sources of the
National Labs.
My suggestions for continuing the successful tradition of
BER is to push the high-risk, high-payoff envelope. Too much is
at stake, especially for climate, not to do that. Continue to
exploit the physical and computational sciences that reside in
the Office of Science. There are still many new tools and
methodologies that BER can steal shamelessly in order to serve
biology.
Also, nurture public-private partnerships. I particularly
appreciate that now being in the private sector. There are
obstacles like intellectual property, but these obstacles
should not stand in the way of making them successful. And
build the scientific infrastructure for synthetic biology,
including looking at the ethical, legal, and social
implications of this new disruptive technology.
Finally, I must say that the BER stewardship role for
genomic science, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Ehlers, needs to
be affirmed, needs to be strengthened and generously funded if
we are to successfully confront the great challenges of our
times.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I
would be delighted to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Patrinos follows:]
Prepared Statement of Aristides A.N. Patrinos
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Energy and
Environmental Subcommittee. I am honored to be asked to speak about the
DOE Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program and about
Synthetic Genomics, Inc. (SGI). I led the BER program between 1993 and
2006 and since February of 2006 I have been the President of SGI.
Genomics is the field of science that exploits new technologies and
tools to allow scientists to routinely and accurately sequence the DNA
of thousands of species. SGI was founded in 2005 by genomics pioneer J.
Craig Venter to create genomics-driven commercial solutions that will
revolutionize many industries, starting with energy. SGI is working
with BP to study the microbial communities in coal beds in order to
enhance the production of natural gas. Through a joint venture with the
Malaysian company ACGT, a subsidiary of Genting Corporation, SGI has
sequenced the genomes of Oil Palm and Jatropha to enhance yields,
reduce the use of petroleum based fertilizers, and improve disease
resistance of these oil seed crops.
Recently SGI announced an agreement with ExxonMobil to harness the
potential of algae to produce renewable fuels. Beyond the energy field
we envision a future when synthetic genomics will be used to generate a
variety of products, from new and improved vaccines to prevent human
disease, to efficient and cost effective ways to provide clean drinking
water. The world is dependent on science and SGI is leading the way in
turning novel science into ``game-changing'' solutions.
During the last twenty-five years the field of genomics has
undergone a rapid transformation with scientific discoveries coming at
a dazzling pace. The spark for this scientific revolution was the BER
initiative to sequence the human genome launched by Charles DeLisi in
1986 that led to the Human Genome Project (HGP).
The research momentum created by the HGP enabled the development of
technologies such as high-throughput DNA sequencing, genome assembly,
and bioinformatics. These advances, many of which are directly
attributable to Dr. Venter and his teams, have enabled researchers
around the world to readily sequence and analyze the genetic codes of
thousands of species. In fact, it was BER that went against the
prevailing scientific opinion of the time and funded Dr. Venter in 1995
to sequence the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium using the ``shotgun''
sequencing method.
Over the years the scientific partnership of BER with Dr. Venter's
teams has been one of the most successful fuels of the genomics
revolution. This partnership led to many accomplishments including the
Sorcerer II Global Ocean Sampling Expedition--conducted by the non-
profit J. Craig Venter Institute with funding from BER--which more than
quadrupled the number of genes in the public data bases. I believe that
BER, through support of scientists like Dr. Venter, can be credited
with giving birth to the new field of synthetic genomics.
The new fields of synthetic biology, synthetic genomics, and genome
engineering have the potential to spawn disruptive technologies and
dramatically improve our future. These fields enable us to use living
systems to tackle stubborn challenges we face in medicine, energy, and
the environment. The eminent scientist Freeman Dyson used genomics as
an example when he discusses the difference between a concept-driven
scientific revolution and a tool-driven scientific revolution.
In his book ``Imagined Worlds'' Dyson wrote that in the concept-
driven science we are forced to explain old things in new ways whereas
in tool-driven science we discover new things that need to be
explained, a far more rewarding undertaking. Genomics is the tool that
has transformed biology from a strict hypothesis-driven and data-poor
discipline into a discovery-driven and data-rich enterprise. BER has
been on the front line of this transformation.
I am proud of my association with BER and of its many contributions
over the sixty years of its existence. Formed at the dawn of the atomic
era to address the impacts of ionizing radiation on human biology, it
has been a trailblazer of many scientific activities. They include the
fields of radiation biology, nuclear medicine, global climate change,
environmental remediation, genomics, structural biology, computational
biology, and bioinformatics. In most cases, BER has not had an
exclusive role and never had the greatest portion of funding among the
U.S. agencies sharing that role. Nevertheless, BER has made unique
contributions because it has invested in high risk but high payoff
research. BER has also capitalized on its proximity and association
with the physical science and high performance computing programs
within the Department of Energy. BER has used its unique resources to
cross-fertilize biology, physical sciences and computational power to
create new opportunities for discovery. As a relative newcomer to the
business world I now also recognize the value of the creative ways by
which BER has engaged research partners in the private sector.
BER has never been and should never be like the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) nor should it
mimic all the functions of the other programs within the DOE Office of
Science. The U.S. scientific enterprise is the best in the world
because of ``diversity'': diversity in its scientific performers,
diversity in its scientific approaches, and diversity in its funding
sources. A research idea that may prove too risky or too controversial
to a more mainstream funding agency should have a chance to be picked
up and funded by a less risk-averse agency with very impactful results.
Such is the heritage of BER and I hope this Subcommittee will
appreciate this heritage and act to preserve it in the future. Every
new political leadership has been tempted to ``tidy up'' the research
activities across the government and periodically even propose a
Department of Science. Thankfully, reason eventually prevails and the
powers-at-be come to appreciate the value of diverse funding systems.
One of the many challenges I faced during my tenure as Director of
BER was the questioning of a DOE role in biology and more specifically
in genomics. The questioning came from DOE leadership, from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and from Capitol Hill, specifically from
the House Committee on Commerce and Energy. At times the questioning
was in the context of why DOE should support biological research when
it is mostly the primary funder of many elements of the physical
sciences. At other times, there was a perceived redundancy with
research activities at the NIH that is so generously funded. When the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was formed there was an attempt
to hijack the BER biology funding to support DHS R&D efforts.
I am hopeful that these dark days are over and that it is now
universally recognized and accepted that BER is an important member of
the U.S. scientific enterprise and that it rightfully belongs within
the DOE Office of Science. The existential challenges to BER led to an
in-depth examination of the contributions and potential of the BER
biology programs to serve the DOE missions. BER genomics science is
leading the way in the production of biological energy, including
biofuels, which are considered one of the best hopes of improving our
energy independence, and tackling the problem of global climate change.
The BER Bioenergy Centers are the world's foremost performers in basic
research of renewable fuels from biomass. BER science is central to the
biological part of carbon capture and sequestration that is considered
an imperative of carbon management. BER programs are also essential in
environmental bioremediation that holds the greatest promise of
containing DOE's cold war legacy of mixed radioactive waste.
BER plays a unique role in serving the needs of biologists from
around the world who seek to access and use the scientific user
facilities across the DOE National Laboratory complex and that were
originally designed for the physical sciences. These include the
synchrotron radiation and neutron sources, the Environmental Molecular
Sciences Laboratory, and the supercomputer centers. These resources are
enabling research in the fields of structural biology, structural
genomics, proteomics, and computational biology. BER serves as the
valuable intermediary between the biological research world and the
research infrastructure of the National Laboratories that host the user
facilities. A lead DOE scientific user facility is the BER Joint Genome
Institute (JGI), which successfully completed the DOE contribution to
the HGP. Today, the JGI is among the world's most productive sequencing
centers focusing on organisms that are relevant to the DOE missions in
energy and the environment.
My suggestions for continuing the tradition of successful
contributions of BER in genomics sciences are:
First and foremost, push the envelope of high risk
and high payoff research. Our energy challenges are huge and
even though incremental advances are important we will not be
able to meet those challenges without the game-changing
approaches that BER has nurtured. In many ways, BER has
accomplished the biological piece of what the newly created
ARPA-E seeks to accomplish across the entire energy
technologies spectrum.
Continue to capitalize on the inherent strengths of
the BER program by virtue of its existence in the bosom of the
physical and computational sciences. There are still many
instruments and methodologies in those sciences that BER can
exploit to further propel genomics science forward.
Enable more creative public-private partnerships in
genomics involving the DOE National Laboratories and private
companies. There are barriers to such partnerships such as
issues of intellectual property but no barrier should be
insurmountable if the tremendous value of such partnerships is
recognized.
Exploit the full potential of synthetic biology,
synthetic genomics, and genome engineering by building the
scientific infrastructure that will serve the diverse
performers in these fields such as those from academia and the
private sector. Take the lead in studying the ethical, legal,
and social issues dealing with these fields.
Finally, I would like to address the stewardship role of BER for
genomic science. I endorse the stewardship role of NIH in genomic
science as it relates to human health and medicine. However, when it
comes to genomic science that encompasses the broader living world
there is no better and there will be no better steward than BER. That
stewardship role of BER needs to be affirmed, strengthened, and
generously funded if we are to successfully confront the great
challenges of our times in energy and the environment.
I would be happy to answer questions.
Biography for Aristides A.N. Patrinos
Aristides A.N. Patrinos, Ph.D., is President of Synthetic Genomics,
Inc. (SGI), a privately held company founded in 2005 applying genomic-
driven commercial solutions that address global energy and
environmental challenges.
Prior to joining SGI, Dr. Patrinos was instrumental in advancing
the scientific and policy framework underpinning key governmental
energy and environmental initiatives while serving as associate
director of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the
U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. He oversaw the
Department's research activities in human and microbial genome
research, structural biology, nuclear medicine and climate change. Dr.
Patrinos played a historic role in the Human Genome Project, the
founding of the DOE Joint Genome Institute and the design and launch of
the DOE's Genomes to Life Program, a research program dedicated to
developing technologies to use microbes for innovative solutions to
energy and environmental challenges.
Dr. Patrinos currently serves on two National Academy of Science
committees: America's Energy Future; and Strategic Advice to the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program. He is a fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American
Meteorological Society, and a member of the American Geophysical Union,
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the Greek Technical
Society. Dr. Patrinos is the recipient of numerous awards and honorary
degrees, including three Presidential Rank Awards and two Secretary of
Energy Gold Medals, and an honorary doctorate from the National
Technical University of Athens. A native of Greece, he received an
undergraduate degree from the National Technical University of Athens,
and a Ph.D. from Northwestern University.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Gillo.
STATEMENT OF DR. JEHANNE GILLO, DIRECTOR FOR FACILITIES AND
PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS, OFFICE
OF SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Gillo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis,
and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear
before you to provide testimony on the DOE Office of Science's
Isotope Development and Production for Research and
Applications Program within the Office of Nuclear Physics.
The Isotope Program was transferred from the Office of
Nuclear Energy to the Office of Nuclear Physics in March 2009,
and specifically to the Nuclear Physics Facilities and Project
Management Division. I served as the Director of the Division
since 2004, and I am pleased to share with you my perspectives
on the DOE Isotope Program.
The Office of Science recognizes that isotopes are high-
priority commodities of strategic importance for the Nation and
essential for energy, medicine, national security, and
scientific research, and a goal of the program is to make
critical isotopes more readily available to meet domestic
needs. The expertise of the nuclear science community in
operating accelerator facilities and developing instrumentation
and accelerator technology for a broad suite of applications
complement the expertise of the isotope production community.
And the synergies between the two communities will lead to an
overall improvement in the productivity of the Isotope Program.
The Isotope Program produces isotopes only where there is
no U.S. private sector capability or other production
capacities are insufficient to meet U.S. needs. Isotope
production for commercial distribution and application is done
on a full cost recovery basis. Isotopes are needed for a broad
range of basic research, biomedical, homeland security, and
industrial applications that benefit society every day. For
example, americium-241 for smoke detectors, helium-3 for
neutron detectors, nickel-63 for explosive detections,
strontium-82 for heart imaging, and californium-252 for oil
exploration. Isotopes have had a profound impact on daily life,
including reduced health care costs, improved ability of
physicians to diagnose illnesses, and advances in agriculture,
basic physics research and the security of the Nation.
The Isotope Program supports both production capabilities
at a suite of facilities as well as the research and
development efforts associated with improving and developing
isotope production and processing techniques.
As a service, the Isotope Program also sells and
distributes other isotope products that it does not directly
produce. Examples are helium-3 and lithium-6 that are produced
by the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration or NNSA.
The Isotope Program does not produce special nuclear material
or sell highly-enriched uranium. The Isotope Program is not
responsible for the production of molybdenum-99, a medical
isotope which currently is in short supply. The DOE National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is responsible in the
long-term for establishing a diverse domestic supply of
molybdenum-99 without using highly-enriched uranium.
The Office of Nuclear Physics has taken several actions to
improve communication amongst isotope stakeholders. A workshop
was organized last summer to bring together university,
laboratory, federal and commercial isotope producers and users
to discuss issues related to isotope production and identify
isotopes in short supply. The Office of Nuclear Physics has
specifically engaged federal agencies in discussions regarding
agency needs and concerns on isotope production, including the
National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland
Security, and NNSA.
The program is in the process of increasing the suite of
production facilities with consideration given to the
capabilities at universities, commercial entities, and other
government facilities. The research component of the Isotope
Program is being strengthened within Nuclear Physics. Research
and development efforts associated with improving the
effectiveness of or creating altogether new approaches to
isotope production are being pursued.
Research isotopes will be produced more reliably and at
more affordable prices. In 2008, the Nuclear Science Advisory
Committee on Federally Chartered Advisory Committee was charged
by the Office of Nuclear Physics to develop a prioritized list
of research topics across a wide range of scientific
disciplines that used isotopes. The committee was also asked to
develop a long-range strategic plan for future production of
stable and radioactive isotopes.
The Office of Nuclear Physics is committed to increasing
availability of isotopes in short supply, providing isotopes
reliably and more--at more affordable prices to researchers and
supporting research activities that develop more cost-effective
and novel isotope production techniques. NP is using merit peer
review and priority-setting mechanisms to optimize the
productivity of the Isotope Program within available resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for
providing the opportunity to discuss the Isotope Program, and I
am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gillo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jehanne Gillo
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to provide
testimony on the DOE Office of Science's Isotope Development and
Production for Research and Applications program within the Office of
Nuclear Physics. The Isotope Program was transferred from the Office of
Nuclear Energy to the Office of Nuclear Physics within the Office of
Science in March 2009, and, specifically, to the Nuclear Physics
Facilities and Project Management Division. I have served as the
Director of the Division since 2004, and I am pleased to share with you
my perspectives on the DOE Isotope Program.
Overview of the Program
For over 50 years, this program and its predecessors have been at
the forefront of the development and production of stable and
radioactive isotope products and related services that are used
worldwide. The Office of Science recognizes that isotopes are high-
priority commodities of strategic importance for the Nation and
essential for energy, medicine, commerce, national security, and
scientific research. A goal of the program is to make critical isotopes
more readily available to meet domestic needs. The program produces
isotopes only where there is no U.S. private sector capability or when
other production capacity is insufficient to meet U.S. needs. Isotope
production for commercial distribution and application is done on a
full-cost recovery basis.
The Isotope Program has unique expertise and capabilities to
address technology issues associated with the production, processing,
handling, and distribution of isotopes. The expertise of the nuclear
science community in operating accelerator facilities and developing
instrumentation and accelerator technology for a broad suite of
applications complements the expertise of the isotope production
community, and we expect the synergies between the communities to lead
to an overall improvement in the productivity of the Isotope Program.
Isotopes are needed for a broad range of basic research,
biomedical, homeland security, and industrial applications that benefit
society every day. For example, americium-241 for smoke detectors;
helium-3 for neutron detectors and lung imaging; nickel-63 for
explosive detection; strontium-82 is used in heart imaging, tungsten-
188 and rhenium-188 for cancer research; californium-252 for oil
exploration; and arsenic-73 as a tracer for arsenic studies. With
Federal support over the last several decades, isotopes have had a
profound impact on daily life, scientific discovery and innovation, and
the Nation's economy, including reduced health care costs, improved
medical diagnoses, and advances in agriculture and basic physics
research and in national security. The Isotope Program supports both
production capabilities at a suite of facilities and research and
development efforts associated with improving and developing isotope
production and processing techniques.
The facilities used by the Isotope Program to produce radioisotopes
include particle accelerators, hot cells, and reactors. Radioisotopes
provided through the Program are produced in reactors by neutron
absorption followed by radioactive decay or are produced in
accelerators by bombarding materials with charged atomic particles
followed by radioactive decay. Some isotopes provided by the Program
are obtained by extraction from the waste byproducts of the
Department's weapons programs and research activities. The Isotope
Program is the steward of the Isotope Production Facility (IPF) at Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the Brookhaven Linear Isotope
Producer (BLIP) facility at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), and
isotope processing facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),
BNL, and LANL. The IPF is completely dependent on the operations of the
Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) facility.
The Isotope Program also produces isotopes at facilities where it
is not the steward--in this case, the program pays for space and
services at those facilities. The Isotope Program purchases irradiation
services at the High Flux Isotope Reactor at ORNL, a research reactor
with a neutron scattering mission operated by the Office of Science
Basic Energy Sciences program, to produce selected isotopes such as Cf-
252. In addition, the Isotope Program seeks cooperative isotope supply
agreements with other government, private sector, and university
isotope producers.
The Isotope Program is also the steward of the National Isotope
Data Center (NIDC) at ORNL. The NIDC coordinates isotope production
across many facilities and manages business operations for the sale and
distribution of isotopes. The NIDC also supports over 50 staff members
at LANL, BNL, and ORNL who provide the technical expertise for
research, production, processing, and transportation of isotopes, which
are then processed, sold, and distributed from ORNL.
While the research activities supported by the Isotope Program are
modest, they provide important results. R&D includes target
fabrication, enhanced processing techniques, radiochemistry, material
conversions, and other related activities. It should be emphasized that
the research activities supported by the Isotope Program are focused on
isotope production and processing techniques to assure their
availability for research and applications, not on their actual end-use
applications, which is the mission of other programs and Federal
Agencies.
Further, the Isotope Program does not produce special nuclear
material or deal in highly-enriched uranium, areas which serve as
sources in the production of several important isotopes. So, while the
Isotope Program is not responsible for producing such isotopes, it does
work cooperatively with the responsible Department offices to provide
services, technical advice, or R&D on potential alternative production
techniques. For example, as a service, the Isotope Program sells and
distributes isotope products like helium-3 (He-3) and lithium-6, which
are produced by the DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). But, the challenge associated with producing He-3 is that it is
a byproduct of tritium decay; and the availability of tritium is
determined by NNSA mission needs, not by a commercial demand for He-3.
Similarly, the DOE Office of Environmental Management is
responsible for disposition of excess uranium-233 stockpiles. Though
uranium-233's decay products, alpha-emitting radioisotopes are in
demand by the research community. Uranium-233's proliferation and
national security concerns support continued disposition, thus limiting
its availability. To address this dilemma, the Isotope Program is
pursuing R&D on alternative isotope production techniques for these
alpha-emitters as a high priority, with the goal of decreasing
dependence on uranium-233 sources.
Other needed isotopes under various DOE Program Offices include the
production of Plutonium-238, for which DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy
has mission responsibility to support activities such as the
fabrication of radioisotope thermoelectric generators for NASA's deep
space program, and the production of Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), a mission
responsibility of NNSA. Mo-99, a commercial isotope used extensively in
medical diagnosis, is currently in short supply. NNSA is responsible
for establishing a diverse domestic supply of Mo-99 as part of their
mission to minimize the use of Highly-Enriched-Uranium to avoid
proliferation concerns. Today, the Isotope Program and the Department
are actively engaged in interagency and international discussions on
how to address the current shortage.
Recent Activities
Operations of the current isotope production facilities are being
assessed to ensure that resources are being utilized optimally. The
Isotope Program is in the process of increasing the suite of production
facilities that will provide isotopes, with consideration given to the
capabilities of universities, commercial facilities, and other
government facilities. The research component of the Isotope Program
will be strengthened, and research and development efforts associated
with improving the effectiveness of or creating new approaches to
isotope production will be pursued. Research isotope production will be
prioritized, based on community input; the overall goal will be to
produce research isotopes more reliably and at more affordable prices.
Additional cooperative agreements with the commercial sector will be
pursued to leverage resources. Sound planning processes and merit-based
peer review will guide the Program's production decisions and strategic
planning.
In August 2008, the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC), a
Federally-chartered advisory committee to the DOE and the National
Science Foundation, was charged to develop a prioritized list of
research topics across a wide range of scientific disciplines,
including the medical field. NSAC was also asked to develop a long-
range strategic plan for future production of stable and radioactive
isotopes. The Isotope Program also issued a call to universities,
national laboratories, and commercial facilities for proposals to
produce high-priority research isotopes.
The Office of Nuclear Physics is engaged in discussions with other
Federal Agencies concerning isotope needs and production. A working
group with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was established to
address the recommendations of the recent National Academies report
Advancing Nuclear Medicine Through Innovation, which identified areas
of isotope production warranting attention. A strategic plan was
generated that identifies the isotopes and quantities needed by the
medical community for the next five years, in the context of the
Isotope Program capabilities. The Office of Nuclear Physics also is
represented on several interagency working groups considering the
production of Mo-99 in order to enhance communication within the
Department and with other federal agencies and to provide technical
support in development of short-term and long-term solutions. The
Office also facilitated the formation of a federal working group on the
He-3 supply issue involving staff from the Office of Nuclear Physics,
NNSA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of
Defense. This working group will help ensure that the limited supply of
He-3 will be distributed to the highest-priority applications and basic
research.
Recovery Act Support
Funds from the Recovery Act are supporting an R&D initiative on
alternative and innovative approaches for the development and
production of critical isotopes and for the improved utilization of
isotope production facilities. This includes additional operations for
the production of isotopes, one-time investments to improve the
efficiency of or provide new capabilities for the production of
isotopes at existing production facilities, and opportunities to
establish production capabilities at new production sites based on peer
review of the proposals received from the open call mentioned above.
Concluding Remarks
The Office of Nuclear Physics (NP) is committed to increasing
availability of isotopes in short supply, providing isotopes reliably
and at more affordable prices to researchers, and supporting research
activities that develop more cost-effective and novel isotope
production techniques. NP will utilize merit peer review and priority
setting mechanisms to optimize the productivity of the Isotope Program
within available resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for providing
this opportunity to discuss the Isotope Development and Production for
Research and Applications program. I'm happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Biography for Jehanne Gillo
Dr. Jehanne Gillo has been the Director of the Facilities and
Project Management Division in the Office of Nuclear Physics at the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) since 2004. In this position, she aids
in establishing the vision, strategic plans, goals, budgets and
objectives for the scientific and technical activities supported by the
Division, and Office of Nuclear Physics in general. She is responsible
for planning, constructing, upgrading and operating the Nuclear Physics
program's user facilities and for overseeing the fabrication of major
instrumentation used at these facilities and elsewhere. During this
time she also served as the Acting Associate Director of Science for
Nuclear Physics from September 2007 to October 2008.
Dr. Gillo joined the Office of Science's Division of Nuclear
Physics at DOE as Program Manager for Facilities and Instrumentation in
February 2000. Prior to coming to DOE, Dr. Gillo, was a guest scientist
at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) from 1988-1989, and then a
staff scientist from 1990-2000. During this time period she performed
nuclear physics experiments at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, and the CERN Laboratory in Geneva,
Switzerland. Dr. Gillo obtained her Bachelor of Science Degree from
Juniata College in 1985, and her Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry with an
emphasis in relativistic heavy ion physics research from Texas A&M
University in 1990.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. I thank the panel for most informative
testimony. You are doing great work.
I will recognize myself for five minutes and then we will
proceed with my colleagues.
Interagency Coordination
Help me understand--Dr. Patrinos, it is good to see you
again. We were here previously on some of those prior hearings.
I remember them. Walk us through, though, a little bit about
the interface between, you know, between let us say NSF, DOE,
now ARPA-E, and how research is, you know, how do you make sure
that we are not all doing the same thing or we are not
neglecting the ``gee whiz'' discovery that is going to solve
the problems? How do you sort that out? How do you coordinate
with those other agencies, and how do you differ in some ways?
Dr. Palmisano. Thank you for your question, Chairman Baird.
All of our program managers are actively engaged in interagency
working groups under the aegis of the National Science and
Technology Council and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, the President. And through these relationships we build
joint programs, we ensure that our programs are synergistic and
complementary, and then we minimize the amount of overlap that
exists. And I would be happy to give examples if you would
like.
Chairman Baird. So if NSF is focusing its funding, related
funding in some area, you would say, okay. You have got that
covered. We are going to look at a different way?
Dr. Palmisano. Yes, sir. That is exactly correct, and you
know, I can give examples of where, for example, we have
partnered with other agencies, such as the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in bioenergy, where we realized that we had, both
had interests in biofuels but we have complementary expertise.
So we launched a program on plant genomics for bioenergy
feedstocks, and that took advantage of the USDA's expertise in
traditional plant breeding and cultivation of bioenergy crops
and DOE's expertise in genomics.
So there are many similar examples of that with the
National Science Foundation, NIH and other agencies.
Chairman Baird. That is very helpful. The argument, of
course, a while back was, well, you know, to what extent is
this duplicative, do we have multiple bureaucracies trying to
do the same thing, can we not save money, et cetera. And I
think there are--there is a great deal of merit to the cross
disciplinary synergies that you describe, and unexpected--when
a layman looks at DOE to see your operation, it is unexpected--
the proof is in the pudding to some extent, and you have done
some remarkable things, and I think that is commendable.
Dr. Keasling, you sort of raised an intriguing question
that I want to follow up on a little bit.
Concerns About Limiting Research
Two things. One, you spoke about limiting research to just
fuels would be a mistake and a lost opportunity. Are you
feeling like it is limited, or are you concerned about the
potential that it would be limited?
Dr. Keasling. I am more concerned about the potential that
it would be limited. I think now that BER has gone down this
path of biofuels from biomass, which is a great thing for it to
be doing, we could potentially source all of our petroleum-
based--all the chemicals that we now source from petroleum,
from biomass or from sugar, and so there is huge potential
there. And the research would be directly complementary to what
is already being done in BER, so it is a potential growth area.
Chairman Baird. I am not sure I understand. You are saying
because it is a growth area that would rule out some of the
other research or----
Dr. Keasling. No. I am saying that it is an additional area
of research that could be done by BER.
Chairman Baird. Okay. Related and actually the next area in
your testimony you had talked about--and you worded it
artfully, so I don't want to try to get you in trouble if this
would do so, but it was an important issue that if addressed
effectively could improve the Department's ability to develop
solutions, and the issue there seemed to be that the energy
research seemed somewhat disconnected from the basic sciences.
Can you elaborate on that?
Dr. Keasling. In fact, we are using a lot of the basic
science research that BER has developed over the years, so a
lot of the basic research that is going on in their Genomics:
GTL Programs, in the Joint Genome Institute, all this is
extremely important to the work that we are doing on converting
biomass to biofuel.
So, in fact, that core basic research is so important, and
the work we are doing, while it has an important goal of
breaking down these barriers of biomass to biofuels, it is
still fundamental research.
Chairman Baird. Okay. Are there artificial constraints, and
this is for anybody, where you feel that you have the expertise
and knowledge to make major contributions in an area that is
consistent with your mission but that we have somehow
statutorily or historically constrained? Anyone here feel you
have the leeway to do what you need to do?
Dr. Keasling. For my own perspective the research we are
doing is something that I would want to do anyway.
Chairman Baird. Yes.
Dr. Keasling. It is important, though, for us to make a
connection to energy, we feel, as we are proposing this
research. So----
Chairman Baird. The connection is great, but at the same
time, you know, you gave a point about artemisinin, and that is
a big deal, and if you have the--if you find that thread, you
ought to be able to pursue it.
Dr. Keasling. That is right. That is right, and artemisinin
is a unique case because it is a hydrocarbon, so it is not too
far a stretch from biodiesel.
Chairman Baird. Great.
Proud to recognize Mr. Inglis for five minutes.
Flexibility and Properly Directing Funding
Mr. Inglis. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
So Dr. Keasling said something interesting that I would
like to compare with what Dr. Patrinos said about funding.
Dr. Keasling, you said that it is important to figure out
which research paths are dead ends and cut them off quickly,
which makes a lot of sense to me, and then it is also true Dr.
Patrinos said he wants diversity of funding sources, and I
guess that is in order to develop the kind of paths that maybe
aren't too clear.
So how do you work that out? I think it is an impossible
question actually but----
Dr. Keasling. That is an excellent question, and I was
speaking more about how JBEI manages its research portfolio,
and one of the things that we wanted to do when we designed
JBEI is be able to go down a path that looked like it was going
to be productive as quickly as possible and see if it is going
to be a productive angle of research, and if not, then we
redirect those research funds to another area that--an
alternative area that looks like it is going to be productive
so that researchers don't spend all of their time going down a
particular path that will eventually be non-productive, but
they are doing so because they don't have any flexibility.
So we have built in this flexibility at JBEI from the top
that allows us to really focus on an important aspect, and if
it doesn't work, go to the next aspect of the problem.
Mr. Inglis. Which is a difficult thing to do, right,
because people say they have got their Ph.D. in a particular
area. That means that their sort of meal ticket is punched by
that area, and so if you find out that that is not productive,
they just lost their meal ticket. Right? And so it is--maybe
there is a way that you do that. It is a tough management
challenge I take it.
Dr. Keasling. It is a tough management challenge, but
because there are so many important problems. If we take, say,
the plant area, for instance, we have researchers in JBEI who
specialize in plant genetic engineering and understanding how
cellulose is made in plants so they could be looking at one
particular aspect of how cellulose is made and maybe that won't
work or it doesn't look like we can increase the cellulose
level. So they will turn their attention to a different way in
those same plants or still using plants to increase the
cellulose level.
So it is a little more subtle than completely cutting off
an entire research area, and we do to the extent we can try to
preserve people's meal tickets.
Mr. Inglis. Right. Well, Dr. Patrinos, anything to add
about that, about how you balance that?
Dr. Patrinos. Well, I would like to say that basic research
is fundamentally a messy housewife, and the tendency is always
by especially newcomers in political positions to tidy up
research, to look for redundancies and remove those because,
you know, that way we save money and so on. It turns out that
the more you try to tidy up, the more you restrain the
research.
There has to be redundancy, because there has to be
competition, and there has to be diversity in approaches. I
mean, I, when I was--if I was still in DOE, I would have said
the same thing my colleague, Anna Palmisano, said that we did a
lot of collaborations when I was in DOE across agencies, and I
think my record speaks for itself in terms of the partnership
with NIH, with NSF, and other agencies and so on.
But I don't hide the fact that there was also competition.
We had different attitudes, different approaches, and we
presented different cultures, and even though there wERE
occasional arguments, sometimes pretty violent ones I would
say, the net result was always very, very positive. You know,
it was the give and take of competition, the give and take of
having different points of view that were brought to the table,
and the ultimate result in the conduct and execution and
management of research is so far better than anywhere else in
the world because of that perceived untidiness.
Mr. Inglis. Yes. Dr. Palmisano, do you want to add anything
to that or how your approach may differ or be consistent?
Dr. Palmisano. Yes, Congressman Inglis. I agree with
everything that Dr. Patrinos said, and I think I would describe
it as we challenge one another in a very positive way to
provide the best we can for the American public, and I think
that there is a very good balance and dynamic among the
different agencies pursuing science for that reason.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you.
Dr. Inglis--Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, and just a quick side note. I agree.
Dr. Patrinos said basic research is messy, at least the way I
did it it was. I am puzzled why you blamed the housewife
instead of the house husband. I find house husbands are much
messier than housewives. It is okay. Don't take me seriously.
Isotope Program
Dr. Gillo, I must admit I am suffering from some sleep
deprivation, but I don't quite see how the isotope production
relates to what we are doing and what--first of all, what
isotopes are you talking about producing, and how does that
relate to the energy generation issue? Could you run through
that again, please.
Dr. Gillo. So the Isotope Program that was just transferred
to the Office of Nuclear Physics has two components: to produce
isotopes for basic research and also for a broad suite of
applications. And so we operate accelerator facilities and also
make use of other facilities domestically--reactors and
accelerators--to produce these isotopes and to distribute them
as a service to the Nation.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay.
Dr. Gillo. They are used for energy reasons. They are used
by the BER Program and----
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. That part I understand, but how does it
relate to the cellulosic issue and energy production issue? Are
these used as tracers in some of the experiments?
Dr. Gillo. They can be used as tracers, and yes, they are
used.
Mr. Ehlers. Are these by and large radioactive isotopes?
Dr. Gillo. There are radioactive isotopes, and there are
stable isotopes. For the stable isotopes, we have an inventory
that we distribute, and the radioactive isotopes we produce.
And so the BER Program scientists are users. The NP Program, we
are the producers of the isotopes, and yes, they are used as
radiological tracers in plant studies and other life sciences.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Now, the non-radioactive ones you trace
them with mass spectrometry and so forth?
Dr. Gillo. Yes. They are used--one of the ways that they
are used is for nutritional studies since they are non-
radioactive, and so that is one of the most popular. Bone
studies, calcium retention and bone growth, osteoporosis
studies.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Thank you.
Cellulosic Ethanol and Algae Biofuels
I wonder if somebody could give me the broad perspective
here. You know, everyone got excited about ethanol here a few
years ago, and we passed some legislation which I thought was
probably unnecessary and perhaps damaging, and I would
attribute that mostly to the farm lobby rather than the
scientific community. And I think my impression has borne, has
been borne out, that it is not the best way to go.
But in just picking up what you said, it seems to me you
are still talking a lot about ethanol, but producing it with
cellulosic material. Are you looking at other fuels, and what
other fuels are you looking at?
Dr. Patrinos. Well, I can start, Mr. Ehlers.
We believe, at Synthetic Genomics, that corn-based ethanol
especially is a big mistake.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah.
Dr. Patrinos. In some way, of course, we benefited because
through that process we cut our teeth in the biofuels business,
so at least there is some, some credit is due. But we need to
move away from corn-based ethanol as far and as fast as
possible.
Any fuel that competes with food should really not be
pursued. We should not pursue it.
I also think that ethanol is not a very good fuel by
itself, you know, it hasn't--it doesn't mix with water, it is
very corrosive. So it may have been a good start, but I think
we need to be moving away from ethanol as well.
So there are better quality fuels that we could pursue,
even using cellulosic material, but also as I mentioned in my
introductory remarks, the use of algae to produce a variety of
biofuels is perhaps the one that we think has the greatest
promise.
Mr. Ehlers. And what type of biofuels would they produce?
Dr. Patrinos. Jet fuels is the fuel that we particularly
are focusing on at this stage, but it doesn't necessarily have
to be a fuel. The process can actually generate crude that
mimics in every way the crude that we remove from the ground so
we can insert it into the existing infrastructure for the
production of a whole variety of fuels that we currently use.
So that would be the ultimate holy grail of this enterprise.
Mr. Ehlers. I see, and what sort of chemicals do you pull
out of this?
Dr. Patrinos. They are essentially different molecules of
carbon. Let us say starting from C12 all the way up to C20.
Mr. Ehlers. Oh, really? And you will get that large variety
from the cellulosic material?
Dr. Patrinos. No. The one that I am describing is using
algae, carbon dioxide, and sunlight.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah. Okay, and you regard that as a very
promising field at the moment?
Dr. Patrinos. We do indeed.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah. Are there other promising fields that you
are looking at?
Dr. Patrinos. This is not a renewable field per se, but we
are looking to enhance the production of natural gas in
existing coal beds, and thus avoid the need to extract the
carbon and to burn it. So from a point of view of CO2
climate change impacts, it is a significant savings because
burning methane is a lot cleaner than burning coal.
Mr. Ehlers. That is certainly true, but you still generate
a lot of CO2 from----
Dr. Patrinos. We generate CO2 but I go back to
my first statement about using algae.
Mr. Ehlers. You are also using carbon there.
Dr. Patrinos. The CO2 generated from the methane
can then be recycled using the algae and sunlight.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. I think my time has expired, so I better
yield.
Chairman Baird. The great thing about Dr. Ehlers is he
knows what he is talking about, so he can go on for awhile, and
we just watch and learn.
Mr. Ehlers. I am just very good at pretending.
Public-Private Partnerships
Chairman Baird. Give us some discussion of--Dr. Patrinos
raised the issue of public-private partnerships, and one of the
questions the public rightfully asks is, okay, so what is in it
for them. Give us some examples, if you can--Dr. Campbell, for
example, take just for example your work at EMSL--what are some
examples of things that you think might have commercial
applications? Or if I am talking to John Q. Public about why do
we do this research, what does the average guy get out of his
or her investment in this endeavor? Give us some examples of
that. Talk about how you would partner with a private company
and what the vocations are, et cetera, for that.
Dr. Campbell. Sure. At EMSL, of course, since it is a
national user facility, many of our users or some of our users
come from industry, and they can either work with us in one of
two ways. They can work in a proprietary manner where they pay
the fee to operate and utilize the facility, in which case they
would retain any intellectual property or knowledge that would
result from that research.
A more common way for industry even is to work in the open
environment where they agree to publish. And many times they
come with us on--in a lot of cases on the technology
development side. So they may be interested in pushing the
technology or instrument forward.
An example of that would be in our mass spectrometry area,
where we are developing capabilities that would enable us to
increase the sensitivity of certain commercially available mass
spectrometers or the throughput of those mass spectrometers. We
develop that, and then that would be commercially available and
licensed out to these companies, for instance.
Then the greater benefit of that is, of course, the
resulting science that these advancements have for the
scientific community broadly. So if you can do things at higher
resolution, at higher throughput, you can perhaps start to do
clinical essays or clinical studies or more system-wide-type
studies that get published. It goes out to the broader
scientific community in that regard.
So you can have a direct line, or you can have a more
indirect line where the knowledge base is created through these
advancements.
Chairman Baird. So on the one hand you have facilities that
other people--maybe I am a bright person but I don't have the
capital to build the kind of equipment you have, maybe nobody
has that capital except government.
Dr. Campbell. Yes.
Chairman Baird. And so the government is able to say we
will make these resources available, and then people from
private sector can contract with you to do that. Right?
Dr. Campbell. That is correct.
Chairman Baird. And at the same time then you help refine
the instrumentation that could be used by the private sector.
Dr. Campbell. In partnership oftentimes with the private
sector. So we have, for instance, a partnership with a company
that builds probes that goes into these magnetic resonance
spectrometers. They are interested in it because it can go into
their product pipeline. We are interested in it because it can
open up a whole new area of biological research that will allow
you to look at proteins inside intact membranes.
And so our users are now getting a new capability through
this partnership with this company, and they are getting a new
product pipeline. So it is a win, win in my opinion.
Chairman Baird. Do they pay--if I develop a product based
on your work, is there a ``buy'' kind of function? Do I pay
back into the system, or how does that work?
Dr. Campbell. Yeah. There are intellectual property rules
that we follow, and it depends upon, of course, the type of the
agreement or the relationship where the government may take
some ownership in the intellectual property and then it comes,
it can come back into the laboratory, or it might be an
exclusive. It just really depends on the type of relationship.
The Government's Role and Next Steps
Chairman Baird. Dr. Patrinos, now that you have made the
jump to the dark side--I am just teasing with that, but you
have made this big move from director of a government program
to the private sector--what insights have you gained about
that? How do you, you know, in terms of how we can do things
better on the government side, or how private sector can
interact better? What are you insights from that?
Dr. Patrinos. First of all, it may sound a little self-
serving when I encourage you to foster more and more productive
public-private partnerships, but I must say that even when I
was in the Department of Energy and specifically with the Human
Genome Project, I advocated a very strong presence and
involvement of the private sector. In fact, I helped bring
Synthetic Genomics to the table, and we successfully completed
the program and avoided, you know, serious embarrassment at the
time. But we also created many partnerships that survive to the
day and are extremely productive. So it isn't just self-
serving.
But nevertheless, my move to the private sector has very
much reinforced my conviction that it really is the private
sector that can translate successfully the wonderful
discoveries that the programs like BER nurtures and translates
them into real products and services. This is something that I
have grown to appreciate a lot more than perhaps I
theoretically or, you know, intellectually could accept in the
past.
It has already been mentioned what kind of things that
needed to be done. One of the areas that I feel needs to be
strengthened further is creation of these scientific user
facilities across a broader spectrum of the scientific
disciplines. I think biology is tremendously benefited by the
light sources and the neutron sources and nuclear magnetic
resonance facilities like EMSL, for example, but we need to do
more for biology, because biology is the science of this
century. And we need to provide the resources for all our
scientists in both the public and the private domain. And they
need these facilities whether they are super-computers for
computational biology or dedicated facilities for the
production of proteins, for example, or doing the proteomics of
looking at the entire protein components of an individual cell.
These are capabilities that are in great demand, and if
successfully put in place will enable biology to very quickly
deliver on the promises that it has made, very rightfully so,
of changing our lives, changing our industries, and solving
many of our problems.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Palmisano, please share your insights
on that as the current director.
Dr. Palmisano. I think the future lies in our solving the
problem of the vast amounts of data that are being generated
through systems biology. Our ability to manage those data, to
mine them, to integrate them, to provide them and make sure
they are accessible to a broad community of sciences, to assure
their quality and standardization. And I think that is a major
challenge that probably all of us at this table face.
And we are through the new sequencing, types of sequencing,
technologies, regenerating a huge amount of genome sequencing,
proteomic data, metabolomic data, it goes on and on.
Information about genetic networks, trying to combine that with
computational models of biology and, you know, I see that as
really a need for the future.
Chairman Baird. I don't really think the general public has
a full appreciation, probably not this body itself, of this
kind of model, of the basic science role. Not just the basic
science in terms of the, okay, so the publication comes out and
the data gets out, but the basic science in terms of the
hardware, the physical infrastructure, the super-computers, the
light sources, the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy, et
cetera, the average guy just doesn't have access to, but really
brilliant people can access it through your resources and then
get, you get a tremendous multiplier. We see it with nanotech
as well in some of the nanotech initiatives, and I think there
is a whole host of--whether it is accelerators that we really
need to sort of highlight that. And this comes in the context
of the sort of vitriolic debate now of, does government do
anything well?
Government does best what people can't necessarily do
themselves, and this is something government does well. I don't
think the average business is going to create, you know, light
sources or accelerators or isotopes in some cases. Some do
obviously. They make a business model out of it, but in some
cases we just have resource to allow us to do that, and DOE is
an example of that.
Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Carbon Recycling
Following up on that, it is also true that private industry
is the one that is going to implement the technology. So if,
for example, Dr. Patrinos was talking about the use of carbon
dioxide to grow algae, is that--we need to do more of this
research I take it in order to prepare for that, but there is a
point at which you want it to tip over to have somebody
actually building these things and using the CO2.
Right?
How far away is that before we are really making use of the
CO2 rather than wasting it?
Dr. Patrinos. It is going to be several years before we can
have large-scale recycling of CO2 through the method
that I described using algae and sunlight. But nevertheless,
the urgency is huge because of the problem of global climate
change and the need to do something about carbon.
Mr. Inglis. Right.
Dr. Patrinos. And therefore, if properly funded, both by
the public and the private sectors, I think we can see some of
these advances happening faster perhaps than other--than we may
have assumed originally. This is the promise of biology. This
is the promise of genomics.
I make the parallel of currently the advances are on the
surface. It used to be that you had to dig real deep to get a
nugget of gold in the high-energy physics field. In biology all
you need to do is stoop down, and you pick it up from the
ground. That is the analogy that I have.
Genomics has given us this power, has given us this tool,
and all we need to do at this stage is make sure the right
resources are put in place so that we can fully capitalize on
this capability.
Mr. Inglis. So with limited resources would you put your
money on using the CO2 to grow algae, or would you
put it on sequestration?
Dr. Patrinos. I would do both. I strongly believe that
dealing with the climate change problem we have a case of
silver buckshot as opposed to a silver bullet.
Mr. Inglis. Okay.
Dr. Patrinos. We need to look at all forms of
sequestration, just like we need to look at all forms of
energy, renewable energy.
Mr. Inglis. Is it because it is not possible to use the
great volume of CO2 so basically you got to figure
out some way to sequester it? Is that right? I mean--or can you
see a future where there is--the use of CO2 is
scalable to the point that you really could use, say, all that
is coming out of a coal-fired electrical plant, for example, to
create this biofuel?
Dr. Patrinos. Perhaps not all of it, but if we were
successful in sequestering or recycling 50 percent of that, it
is a long ways towards stabilizing the atmospheric
concentration of CO2, if we combine that with
aggressive use of renewable energy.
Mr. Inglis. Interesting. Anybody else want to add to that?
Dr. Keasling. When plants grow, they are scrubbing CO2
out of the atmosphere to make the biomass, and this is another
way we can reduce carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere
by producing our fuels from that cellulosic biomass.
And so just as algae do it and scavenge it to build more
algae, so do plants, and this is a great way to go for carbon-
neutral biofuels.
Mr. Inglis. Yes.
Dr. Palmisano. At this point in time there is so much we
need to learn about the carbon cycle; it is one of the greatest
uncertainties in our climate models and very fundamental
information. And now we are starting to bring the tools of
modern molecular biology and genomics to bear on the carbon
cycle. And in doing so we want to cast a wide net and use a
number of different models, plant, microbial models, microbial
communities.
Mr. Inglis. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers.
More on Cellulosic Biofuels
Mr. Ehlers. Is it fair to say that what you are doing with
cellulosic materials, algae, and so forth is developing very,
very sophisticated ways of using solar energy? Or is it more to
it than that?
Dr. Keasling. Well, nature has been doing this for a long
time.
Mr. Ehlers. I know.
Dr. Keasling. So we are repurposing this source of biomass
or algae as it is to produce biofuel. So it is a sophisticated
form of capturing sunlight and carbon dioxide.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah. Because that is really your energy
source.
Dr. Keasling. That is correct.
Mr. Ehlers. And it is really the only perpetual, relatively
perpetual energy source we have.
Dr. Keasling. That is right. The key, though, is to get
them to produce the right fuels.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah.
I--last round I had most of my questions for the end of the
alphabet but not quite the alphabet but usually we go left to
right, so I started the other way, but want to give the three
of you on that side a chance to respond to the questions I
asked earlier.
If you don't wish to, that is fine, but I just wanted to
give you the opportunity.
Radioisotopes
Dr. Palmisano. Well, thank you, Congressman Ehlers, for
that opportunity. One thing I would like to comment on that you
asked Dr. Gillo about was this--the use of radioisotopes. We
work very closely with Dr. Gillo and with our colleagues at NIH
on to develop new types of radio-chemistries that can be used
as metabolic tracers for lots of different models. Not just for
humans but for microbes and for plants so we can start to
understand, for example, carbon allocation in plants and
microbes, so we have been able to take advantage of those
opportunities that have been provided through our colleagues
who are producing these radioisotopes.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, it is true. Radioisotopes are extremely
convenient, because they let their presence be known wherever
they go and with very specific signatures so you can really
track them very easily. Mass spectrometers work for those that
aren't radioactive, but that is much more cumbersome.
Dr. Patrinos said something like the next century is a
century of biology, and I have to demur just a little bit on
that, because I remember, even though I wasn't alive then but I
read the books: In 1906, there were predictions that physics
was essentially over. We had found everything that was to be
discovered via physics, and the century turned out to be the
century of physics.
So I appreciate your comment. It made me think about it,
but it tells me that some of our other branches of science
better get busy, too, if they want to avoid the catastrophe of
this being known as the century of biology. Now, of course, for
biologists it is a great thing if it happens.
I really appreciate the insights you have brought here. I
mean, I have had lots of questions on this topic and just have
not had the time to sit down and try and catch up on it, and
you have done a very concise and very good job of bringing me
up to date. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Inglis had to race to catch a flight. I
have just two quick more questions unless--if any of you have
to catch a flight, tell me. That occasionally happens for
witnesses. We make them miss, and they have to spend another
day in this town.
Jurisdiction Over Nuclear Medicine Issues
One of the questions, the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee has been looking at shifting
nuclear medicine and medical applications in its jurisdiction
to nuclear physics. Where do you think, Dr. Gillo, is an
appropriate residence of this, if I am not asking you to speak
out of school? If I am, tell me you would rather not comment,
but what is your expertise and insight into this?
Dr. Gillo. I think the program is most optimized within
BER. Within the Nuclear Physics Program the focus really is on
the production of isotopes, not on the use of isotopes, and so
it would be far more productive within the BER Program.
Chairman Baird. Okay. It is not there now, though, right?
Dr. Gillo. Yes, it is.
Chairman Baird. Okay. I am sorry. Sorry. You were saying
earlier it was within the Nuclear Physics Program.
Dr. Gillo. The Isotope Program is within Nuclear Physics.
It is best to keep the Medical Applications Program----
Chairman Baird. Got you.
Dr. Gillo.--within BER.
Chairman Baird. Got you. Thank you. That is helpful.
Bioremediation and Isotope Research
Dr. Campbell, talk to us a little bit about bioremediation
if you would. You know, we have got the Hanford Nuclear Site up
river. Some of those isotopes make their way down river. Talk
to us a little bit about what is done there.
Dr. Campbell. There is a lot of potential in bioremediation
in that if you think about the isotopes that are of interest
that have the potential to migrate out, for instance, to the
Columbia River. It is possible to transform those from mobile
species, ones that migrate, to immobilized species, ones that
don't migrate. That is often facilitated through microbial
interactions, and that is a strong area of research out of the
BER Program. It is a strong area of research out of EMSL, where
we are trying to understand how these microbes basically
transfer electrons to these species, thereby immobilizing them
in the subsurface environment. If you immobilize them, you know
where they are. They are easier to accommodate and handle in
terms of remediation from that point. So----
Chairman Baird. Let me make sure I understand. You have got
microorganisms that take radioactive material and demobilize
it.
Dr. Campbell. Yeah. It is basically a redox reaction, where
they transfer an electron to the species, and therefore,
changes oxidation state, and what happens is it goes from a
soluble species, one that is soluble in water and therefore
migrates to an insoluble. It is precipitated into little
nodules on the surface of these microbes. And, therefore, they
don't migrate through the subsurface.
So it is a really nice example of how biology is actually
helping to remediate, a natural example. The challenge is to
understand that process so that you can perhaps engineer other
processes to do similar types of things.
That is one example. Then there is another way in which you
can use computational tools to actually stimulate contaminants
and their migration and transfer through the vadose zone out
into the subsurface environment and start to mimic their
reactions along the way as they go. And so it brings together
both experimental and computational resources.
Algae and Harmful Algal Blooms
Chairman Baird. Okay. We--next week we will have a hearing
in this committee on harmful algal blooms, which is a growing
problem. We have a great interest in ocean health issues, and
any insights into that? I am intrigued by--I know, Dr.
Campbell, your lab is working on some things related to that.
Dr. Patrinos, in a different direction, using algae, any
insights into that, which in the Pacific Northwest and around
the country is a bipartisan, multi-regional partner, and some
of the work on this is from Connie Mack, a Republican from
Florida, and so you have got both corners of the country
dealing with this. Any insights gained from your work or
potential that you see?
Just while I have got you here. We are going to have
another panel next week, but I know you are doing some work on
this.
Dr. Patrinos. Well, algae are among the most ubiquitous of
species. I mean, they exist everywhere, in the marine world
especially, and we are, over the last few years through the
power of genomics, understanding them more and more. Many of
them, their genomes have been sequenced specifically by the
Joint Genome Institute.
So inside synthetic biology, the biology of algae can also
give us the opportunity and the tools to fight them where they
are not helping us, where they are hurting the environment
primarily because of the insults that we cause, for example,
through many of the fertilizers that end up in the Gulf of
Mexico and cause the hypoxia, which generates the algal blooms.
Chairman Baird. So you feel like you are--some of the
insights you are gaining by just working on the genomics of
algae could help us understand that?
Dr. Patrinos. Absolutely.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Campbell or Dr. Keasling. Either one.
Dr. Keasling. I might just mention that a lot of these
algal blooms are due to pollution, as Dr. Patrinos said, that
it goes into the ocean, and the way these are often cleaned up
in municipal wastewater treatment plants is through
microbiology.
Chairman Baird. Uh-huh.
Dr. Keasling. Actually, microbes accumulate the phosphates
and other nutrients that would have otherwise ended up in the
ocean. Using some of the tools that BER has developed, the
Joint Genome Institute is trying to understand those microbial
communities. So they sequenced the communities from these
wastewater treatment reactors, and they now understand the
microbes that are responsible for accumulating phosphates, for
instance, and then this can help us design new wastewater
treatment plants that are much more effective and lower cost at
cleaning up these harmful chemicals.
Chairman Baird. That is a great example. Thanks.
Dr. Ehlers, do you have any further questions or comments?
Mr. Ehlers. Just a comment. I appreciate this last
interchange because I was the one that wrote the legislation
about the algal blooms, and it is becoming a problem even in
the Great Lakes, much to everyone's surprise. So it is becoming
more of a universal problem. Anything you can do to help solve
that problem is helpful.
Closing
But I also want to conclude just by thanking you. It is a
terrible experience, frankly, to be a scientist in the
Congress, because you tend to starve. You know what the
intellectual community is like, the research community, and how
you are constantly interacting with people, generating ideas
and so forth. And there are very few scientists to talk to
here, and so you have really innervated me again, and I just
want to thank you for that.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers, thank you. I was negligent when
I mentioned my work with Connie Mack. Dr. Ehlers really has
been the lead on harmful algal blooms for many, many years, and
I have been privileged to work with him on that. He really has
in many, many cases been seeing things that other folks aren't
looking at, and so Dr. Ehlers, thank you for raising that
issue. You have been the champion on this issue for many years.
Starving intellectually in the Congress is an interesting
observation. We will just leave it at that.
Any other final comments?
Voice. Not on this committee.
Chairman Baird. No, no. This committee is sort of the
brain----
Mr. Ehlers. Especially this subcommittee. This is very
intellectually stimulating.
Chairman Baird. And today was no exception. Fascinating
element of research that I think many of us had not been fully
apprised of before. I am grateful for your service to the
country and your research, which is very, very exciting, and we
look forward to working with you. And with that I thank you for
your time here and all our witnesses and the staff who put this
meeting together, and the hearing stands adjourned. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Anna Palmisano, Associate Director for Biological and
Environmental Research, Office of Science, U.S. Department of
Energy
Questions submitted by Representative Ben R. Lujan
BER clearly sponsors some important work in climate science
Q1a. While climate modeling work attempts to understand the global
climate system, how does your monitoring work feed useful data into
these models? Would you say that you need more experimental data in
climate monitoring to understand how carbon and other greenhouse gases
are captured and released in the Earth's oceans, atmosphere, and
forests?
A1a. BER supports a diversity of scientific research ranging from
molecular to field scale experiments as well as observational studies
designed to increase our understanding of specific climate and Earth
systems processes. That understanding is encapsulated into climate and
Earth systems models that capture our current and best understanding of
how these complex and interrelated systems work.
BER does not directly support environmental monitoring. However,
data and knowledge derived from our process research, in conjunction
with monitoring data from agencies such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, support the development and validation of climate
models. Our climate change research activities carefully balance
investments in model development, validation, and testing with
investments in experiments and observations to understand the
fundamental processes associated with key areas of scientific
uncertainty.
Increased scientific understanding is continuously being
incorporated into state of the art models; and the results from model
simulations are regularly evaluated in order to inform subsequent
decisions on needed experimental and observational research. This
closely coupled, iterative process ensures that our models reflect the
current state of the science and that our experimental and
observational science is best directed to improve the models.
Q1b. How can we help ensure that the scientific work you are doing is
connected to the science that we need in Congress to understand the
economic impacts of climate change and the policy impacts of climate
legislation?
A1b. We appreciate the continued support of Congress for our research
activities in climate change science; and we are actively engaged in
research to improve the tools used to help inform policy-makers on
issues of climate change. DOE's Office of Science supports fundamental
research to provide improved scientific data and models about the
potential response of the Earth's climate and terrestrial biosphere to
changing climate. A key aspect of this research program is the
specialized area of modeling commonly referred to as Integrated
Assessment (IA). IA research seeks to understand the complex
interactions of human and natural systems and to develop and
continuously improve the integrated models and tools that can be used
to underpin future national and regional decision-making. IA models are
often adopted and adapted by various decision-making entities to
project future scenarios and to evaluate potential impacts,
adaptations, and vulnerabilities.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Jehanne Gillo, Director for Facilities and Project
Management Division, Office of Nuclear Physics, Office of
Science, U.S. Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Representative W. Todd Akin
Q1. What are the current efforts by the Department for biomedical
research?
A1. Research supported by Office of Science programs, in particular
radiochemistry and isotope development and production, as well as
Office of Science scientific user facilities, benefit the biomedical
research community. For example, research supported by the Office of
Science's Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program in
radiochemistry and imaging instrumentation focuses on development of
new methods for real-time, high-resolution imaging of energy- and
environmental-relevant biological systems; some of these methods could
also be used in biomedical research to study biological systems of
interest to that research community. The Isotope Development and
Production for Research and Applications program within the Office of
Science's Nuclear Physics program supports the production of isotopes
for a broad range of applications, including biomedical applications.
Likewise, the scientific user facilities supported by the Office of
Science, such as the synchrotron light sources and neutron sources at
the DOE national laboratories are used by a broad spectrum of the
scientific community, including biomedical researchers.
In addition, the BER Medical Applications activity supports work to
develop a prototype of an artificial retina; work at DOE laboratories
is supported in engineering, materials sciences, computational
sciences, microfabrication, and microengineering, in partnership with
other federal agencies and the private sector.
Q2. What are the current efforts to address the international shortage
of Mo-99/Tc-99m?
A2. The Administration has established an Interagency Working Group to
coordinate international and domestic efforts to address the shortage
of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) and the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) is responsible for coordination within DOE. In
response to the shutdown of the National Research Universal (NRU)
reactor in Canada earlier this year, the Interagency Working Group,
together with their counterparts in the Canadian Government,
investigated options for creating an interim backup supply of Mo-99 in
North America to mitigate expected production shortages in 2010 if the
NRU does not resume operation. The group then submitted its options to
the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the White House,
where they are currently under review.
To further support international efforts, the U.S. Departments of
Energy and Health and Human Services represent the U.S. Government in
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)--
Nuclear Energy Agency's (NEA) High Level Group on the Security of
Supply of Medical Radioisotopes (HLG-MR). The NEA is a specialized
agency within the OECD, an intergovernmental organization of
industrialized countries, based in Paris, France. The HLG-MR focuses on
global supply coordination and contingencies for short-term production
by fostering information sharing on reactor operating schedules and
production quantities among Mo-99 producers.
Q3. How has the current shortage of Mo-99 impacted health care in the
U.S.?
A3. While the Department of Energy does not have the expertise to
calculate the impacts to health care in the U.S. attributable to the
shortage of Mo-99, we observe that in August 2009, the Society of
Nuclear Medicine (SNM) surveyed members to estimate the impact and the
response of the medical community to the limited supply of Mo-99 during
a period when both the NRU in Canada and the High Flux Reactor in the
Netherlands were not in operation.
While the SNM survey data include sampling errors due to self-
selection, the data do provide insight on how medical practitioners are
managing the current Mo-99 shortage. Roughly 20 percent of respondents
indicated that they are operating at less than 50 percent of their
normal capacity. The data suggest that medical practitioners appear to
be managing the limited supply through the deferral of procedures and
the use of alternative isotopes and procedures.
Q4. How is DOE supporting the development of domestic supply of Mo-99?
A4. DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has worked
with both existing and potential Mo-99 producers for years by making
technical expertise available, on a non-proprietary basis, to assist in
converting and developing Mo-99 production processes in accordance with
the U.S. HEU minimization policy. Through these efforts, NNSA has
established long-standing relationships with current and potential Mo-
99 producers.
NNSA is currently working on several cooperative agreements with
potential commercial Mo-99 producers whose projects are in the most
advanced stages of development. The objective of the cooperative
agreements is to accelerate establishment of domestic sources of Mo-99
without the use of HEU in quantities sufficient to meet U.S. demand by
the end of 2013. NNSA anticipates that a group of domestic commercial
producers will be able to meet more than 100 percent of U.S. needs for
Mo-99 by the end of 2013, thus providing a continuous, sufficient
supply during periods of facility maintenance or shutdown. Each
potential commercial producer under NNSA's cooperative agreements uses
a different non-HEU technology. This strategy aims to ensure that no
single points of failure exist within the supply network.
Q5. Will other diagnostic imaging modalities currently in use or
envisioned replace the need for Mo-99/Tc-99m?
A5. While the Department of Energy does not have the expertise to
provide a comprehensive answer to this question, to the best of our
knowledge, the medical community has not identified any other
alternative procedure that is preferable or comparable to the Mo-99/Tc-
99m procedures.
Q6. What do you think the cost of the current shortage is to health
care, to the U.S. Government through Medicare reimbursable?
A6. The Department of Energy does not have the ability to determine the
anticipated costs of Mo-99 shortages to health care.