[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY
INITIATIVE AND PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 14, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-702 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. MO BROOKS, Alabama, Chair
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi PAUL D. TONKO, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mo Brooks, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................
Written Statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................
Written Statement............................................ 19
Witnesses:
Dr. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office (NNCO)
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 22
Dr. Jeffrey Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics Research
Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation and
Semiconductor Industry Alliance
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Dr. Seth Rudnick, Chairman, Board of Directors, Liquidia
Technologies
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 43
Dr. James Tour, Professor of Chemistry, Computer Science and
Mechanical Engineering, and Materials Science, Rice University
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 48
Mr. William Moffitt, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Nanosphere, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 54
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office (NNCO)..................................... 74
Dr. Jeffrey Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics Research
Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation and
Semiconductor Industry Alliance................................ 82
Dr. Seth Rudnick, Chairman, Board of Directors, Liquidia
Technologies................................................... 89
Dr. James Tour, Professor of Chemistry, Computer Science and
Mechanical Engineering, and Materials Science, Rice University. 91
Mr. William Moffitt, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Nanosphere, Inc................................................ 100
OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY
INITIATIVE AND PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science, Space, 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. Mo Brooks
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Nanotechnology:
Oversight of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and Priorities for
the Future
thursday, april 14, 2011
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, April 14, 2011, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education will hold a hearing to examine the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and address the Nation's research and
development priorities for the future. Witnesses include a
representative from the NNI, as well as researchers and other
nanotechnology experts. The hearing will provide background on the
science and applications of nanotechnology.
Witnesses
Dr. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office (NNCO)
Dr. Jeffrey Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics Research Initiative,
Semiconductor Research Corporation and Semiconductor Industry Alliance
Dr. Seth Rudnick, Chairman, Board of Directors, Liquidia Technologies
Dr. James Tour, Professor of Chemistry, Computer Science and Mechanical
Engineering and Materials Science, Rice University
Mr. William Moffitt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nanosphere,
Inc.
Brief Overview
Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of
matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100
nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications.
(A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A sheet of paper is
about 100,000 nanometers thick.) Unusual physical, chemical,
and biological properties can emerge in materials at the
nanoscale. These properties may differ in important ways from
the properties of bulk materials and single atoms or molecules.
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the
President's FY 2012 Budget, p. 3
In December 2003, the President signed the 21st
Century National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
(P.L. 108-153). This Act provided a statutory framework for the
interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),
authorized appropriations for nanotechnology research and
development (R&D) activities through fiscal year 2008 (FY08),
and enhanced the coordination and oversight of the program. The
U.S. House of Representatives passed bills in both the 110th
(H.R. 5940) and 111th (H.R. 554 and H.R. 5116) Congresses to
amend and reauthorize the Act; however, the Senate did not act
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in either Congress.
Funding for the NNI has grown from $464 million in
fiscal year 2001 (FY01) to $1.9 billion in FY 10; 15 agencies
currently have nanotechnology R&D programs. Through FY 11,
Congress has appropriated approximately $14.2 billion in
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology, through the
NNI. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer, CRS, p. 6: The Third
Assessment of the NNI by PCAST denotes $12 billion spent on NNI since
2001; that report was published before the 2011 funding was in place.
The President's FY 12 budget request proposes a total
of $2.1 billion for the NNI, more than a $200 million or 11.3
percent increase over the FY 10 enacted levels \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the
President's FY 2012 Budget, p. 7 (Note: These amounts differ from the
OSTP February 2011 Draft one-pager on the NNI used in previous budget
hearings, as the Supplement had not yet been released.)
It is estimated that in the U.S. the private sector
investment in the research and development of nanotechnology is
twice that of the public investment. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer, CRS, p. 4
Globally, the U.S. is the leader in this field but
foreign investments in nanotechnology continue to increase. In
2009, the U.S. continued to lead global public investments in
nanotechnology at over $2.5 billion (Federal, state and local
contributions). While Japan, France, China, South Korea, and
Taiwan grew their support, no other investment reached $1
billion. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ranking the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and False
Threats, LuxResearch August, 2010, p. 3-4
The very structure of materials can be improved
through nanotechnology, by developing nanomaterials that are
stronger, lighter, more durable or better conductors, among
other traits adding nanoparticles to plastics can make them
stronger, lighter and more durable. Nanoparticles are currently
used in baseball bats and tennis rackets, but someday may also
be used in bulletproof vests and light, fuel efficient
vehicles.Nanotechnology also holds the potential to
exponentially increase information storage capacity; soon [a]
computer's entire memory will be able to be stored on a single
tiny chip. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Nano.gov, Applications and Products
Varying estimates project nanotechnology product
revenues will reach between $2.95 billion and $3.1 trillion by
2015. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, CRS, p. 3
Background
As described by the NNI:
Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at
dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique
phenomena enable novel applications. Encompassing nanoscale science,
engineering, and technology, nanotechnology involves imaging,
measuring, modeling, and manipulating matter at this length scale. A
nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A sheet of paper is about
100,000 nanometers thick; a single gold atom is about a third of a
nanometer in diameter. Dimensions between approximately 1 and 100
nanometers are known as the nanoscale. Unusual physical, chemical, and
biological properties can emerge in materials at the nanoscale. These
properties may differ in important ways from the properties of bulk
materials and single atoms or molecules. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Nano.gov, What is Nanotechnology
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanotechnology is an enabling technology and, as such, its
commercialization does not depend specifically on the creation of new
products and new markets. Gains can come from incorporating
nanotechnology into existing products, resulting in new and improved
versions of these products. Examples could include faster computers,
lighter materials for aircraft, less invasive ways to treat cancer, and
more efficient ways to store and transport electricity. Some less-
revolutionary nanotechnology-enabled products are already on the
market, including stain-resistant, wrinkle-free pants, ultraviolet-
light blocking sunscreens, and scratch-free coatings for eyeglasses and
windows.
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is a multi-agency
research and development (R&D) program. The goals of the NNI, which was
initiated in 2001, are to maintain a world-class research and
development program; to facilitate technology transfer; to develop
educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the infrastructure and
tools to support the advancement of nanotechnology; and to support
responsible development of nanotechnology.
Currently, 15 Federal agencies have ongoing programs in
nanotechnology R&D. Additionally, 10 other agencies, such as the Food
and Drug Administration, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the
Department of Transportation, participate in the coordination and
planning work associated with the NNI (see Table 1).
(Table 1: NNI Participating Agencies) \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The National Nanotechnology Supplement to the President's FY
2012 Budget, p. 5
The potential contributions of nanoscale science and technology to
future U.S. economic growth were first raised to the level of a Federal
initiative, known as NNI, in the FY 01 budget request to Congress.
Legislatively, the NNI was originally authorized in 2003, through
the 21st Century National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
(P.L. 108-153). The Act adds oversight mechanisms to provide for
planning, management, and coordination of the program; encourages
partnerships between academia and industry; encourages expanded
nanotechnology research and education and training programs; and
emphasizes the importance of research into societal concerns related to
nanotechnology to understand the impact of new products on health and
the environment.
The Act authorized appropriations for nanotechnology research and
development (R&D) activities through FY 08. While the programs and
funding in the Act were only authorized through 2008 they have
continued to receive funding through the annual Appropriations process.
As is the case with numerous Federal programs, in order to maintain
program integrity the Federal government continues to provide funding
while the reauthorization process takes place.
The U.S. House of Representatives attempted to reauthorize the NNI
in both of the last two Congresses, passing H.R. 5940 in the 110th and
H.R. 554 and H.R. 5116 in the 111th. The Senate did not act in either
Congress.
The management structure for the NNI is as follows:
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is managed within the
framework of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), the
Cabinet-level council by which the President coordinates science and
technology policy across the Federal Government. The Nanoscale Science,
Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the NSTC's Committee
on Technology coordinates planning, budgeting, program implementation,
and review of the initiative. The NSET Subcommittee is composed of
representatives from agencies participating in the NNI. The National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) provides technical and
administrative support to the NSET Subcommittee, serves as a central
point of contact for Federal nanotechnology R&D activities, and engages
in public outreach on behalf of the NNI. The NNCO also serves as a
liaison to academia, industry, professional societies, foreign
organizations, and others to exchange technical and programmatic
information. Additionally, the NNCO coordinates preparation and
publication of NNI interagency planning, budget, and assessment
documents. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, PCAST, p. vii
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NNI has also established eight program component areas (PCAs)
that provide an organizational framework for categorizing NNI
activities (see Table 2).
(Table 2: Program Component Areas) \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, p. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NNI FY 12 Budget Request
In February 2011, the NNI released a supplement to the President's
FY 12 budget request. This supplement identifies the total amount of
nanotechnology-related funding requested by each NNI participating
agency.
The FY 12 budget request for NNI is $2.1 billion, an increase of
$216 million or 11.3 percent over the FY 10 actual levels. The
Administration's budget request includes funding for three signature
initiatives: Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond; Sustainable
Manufacturing: Creating the Industries of the Future; and
Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion. The DOE
contribution will increase to $611 million, a $237 million or 63
percent increase. Likewise, NASA sees a 64 percent increase, EPA an
11.9 percent increase, NSF a 6.3 percent increase, HHS a five percent
increase, and NIST a one percent increase. All other agency funding is
reduced by a total of $88 million. (See Appendix A for more detail.)
Each of the 25 participating agencies creates its own annual budget
request, including its request for nanotechnology-related funding.
``The NNI is an interagency budget crosscut in which participating
agencies work closely with each other to create an integrated
program.'' \12\ Of the 25 participating agencies, only 15 have funding
dedicated to nanotechnology-related fields (see Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the
President's FY 2012 Budget, p. 4
(Table 3: NNI Budget, by Agency, 2010-2012) \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the
President's FY 2012 Budget, p. 8
The FY 12 budget request states the NNI's continued support for the
Federal role in basic research, infrastructure development, and
technology transfer, while renewing an emphasis on accelerating the
transition from basic R&D into innovations that support sustainable
energy technologies, healthcare and environmental protection. To
achieve this, Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) at
the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
National Institutes of Health each receive significant funding
increases through the request. \14\ Further, environmental, health and
safety (EHS) research remains a priority as identified by funding
increases in the FY 12 budget request. NNI EHS funding for the Food and
Drug Administration is increased over 100 percent, and the Consumer
Product Safety Administration requests a 300 percent increase.
Additionally, agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration are strengthening their role in the NNI and EHS
research. \15\ (See Appendix B, C, and D for FY 10--FY12 Agency
investments by PCA.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the
President's FY 2012 Budget, p. 7
\15\ Ibid.
PCAST Third Assessment of the NNI
The 21st Century National Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act required that a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP)
biennially report to Congress on trends and developments in
nanotechnology science and engineering and on recommendations for
improving the NNI. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) acts as the NNAP, and as such conducts the biennial
assessments. The latest assessment by PCAST was released in March 2010.
The third assessment of the NNI utilized three overarching
categories for its evaluation and recommendations. \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ PCAST's Third Assessment of the NNI, p. viii-xiii
(1) Program Management-An appraisal of how well NNI leadership
has performed with respect to the roles it has been tasked to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
carry out. Recommendations include:
NNCO broadened impact and efficacy and improved
ability to coordinate and develop NNI programs and policies
related to those programs;
Focus on commercialization;
Develop coordinated milestones, promote strong
educational components, and create public-private partnerships
to leverage the outcomes of the Signature Initiatives;
Continue investments in innovative and effective
education
NNCO consideration of the commission of a
comprehensive evaluation of the outcomes of the overall
investment in NNI education; and
Develop a clear expectation and strategy for
programs in the societal dimensions of nanotechnology.
(2) Nanotechnology Outcomes-An analysis of what the Federal
nanotechnology investment has delivered and recommendations to
enhance the outcomes, especially economic outcomes, as follows:
Include a greater emphasis on manufacturing and
commercialization while maintaining or expanding the level of
basic research funding in nanotechnology;
Launch at least five government-industry university
partnerships across the Federal government;
Advise the NNI on how to ensure that its programs
create new jobs in the United States (Department of Commerce
and Small Business Administration);
Take steps to retain scientific and engineering
talent trained in the United States; and
Clarify the development pathway and increase
emphasis on transitioning nanotechnology to commercialization.
(3) Environment, Health, and Safety (EHS)-An assessment of
NNI's performance in helping to orchestrate the identification
and management of potential risks associated with
nanotechnology, with particular attention paid to reviewing
progress the NNI has made in following through on
recommendations made in the 2008 NNAP review of the NNI. New
recommendations include:
Develop clear principles to support the
identification of plausible risks associated with the products
of nanotechnology;
Further develop and implement a crossagency
strategic plan that links EHS research activities with
knowledge gaps and decision-making needs within government and
industry;
Develop information resources on crosscutting
nanotechnology EHS issues that are relevant to businesses,
health and safety professionals, researchers, and consumers;
and
Foster administrative changes and communications
mechanisms that will enable the NNI to better embrace the EHS
issues associated with nanotechnology research, development,
and commercialization.
NNI Strategic Plan
The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan is the
framework that underpins the nanotechnology work of the NNI member
agencies.Its purpose is to facilitate the achievement of the NNI vision
by laying out guidance for agency leaders, program managers, and the
research community regarding planning and implementation of
nanotechnology R&D investments and activities. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, p. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Released in February 2011, the NNI strategic plan is used by
participating agencies to guide coordination of nanotechnology-related
research, training programs and resources. The strategic plan builds on
the four NNI goals by creating objectives to support each goal. (See
Table 4.)
(Table 3: NNI Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives) \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, pp. 23-32
The NNI strategic plan looks forward over the next ten years for
areas to induce greater agency collaboration, such as the
nanotechnology Signature Initiatives: Nanotechnology for Solar Energy
Conversion; Sustainable Nanomanufacturing; and Nanoelectronics for 2020
and Beyond. The strategic plan also calls for leveraging collaborative
interagency opportunities and building an internet-based ``one-stop
shop'' access point for nanotechnology information. ``Moving into the
next decade, meaningful engagement with stakeholders and ongoing
external assessments will strengthen the efforts of the NNI as the
participating agencies move toward realizing the four NNI goals.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, p. 39
Chairman Brooks. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good
afternoon, everyone. Thank you. This is, as you can tell, this
is my first time to chair a Subcommittee. I am a freshman from
the state of Alabama, Mo Brooks. I am going to be needing some
assistance from staff and also Mr. Lipinski from the state of
Illinois.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled Nanotechnology:
Oversight of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and
Priorities for the Future. In front of you are packets
containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth in
testimony disclosures for today's witness panel.
Before we get started not only is this the first meeting of
the Research and Science Education Subcommittee for the 112th
Congress, but it is also, as I stated earlier, my first hearing
as Chairman. It is an honor and a pleasure for me to Chair the
Research and Science Education Subcommittee for this Congress
and is a position I do not take lightly.
As such, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Lipinski.
I want you to know that I will endeavor to serve all Members
fairly and impartially, and I will work to ensure that the
Subcommittee on behalf of the American people performs its
legislative oversight and investigative duties with due
diligence with regards to matters within its jurisdiction
throughout the 112th Congress.
It is imperative that we take seriously our charge to make
sure that the agencies and programs under our jurisdiction are
worthy of the public support.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement. First, let
me thank each of our witnesses for joining us today, and in
particular, I would like to give a special thank you to Dr.
Clayton Teague. From what I understand tomorrow not only marks
your eighth anniversary as Director of the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office, but it will also be your
last day in that role. I am sorry I will not have the
opportunity to work with you in this capacity but would
certainly like to thank you on behalf of the Subcommittee for
your dedication and service to this Nation. Thank you.
Then into my statement. Nanotechnology represents a great
deal of promise for the future of the U.S. economy, both in
terms of leaps and bounds in the scientific knowledge base and
in terms of potential products and employment opportunities as
the technology continues to mature. Many believe it has the
potential to be the next industrial revolution leading to
significant social and economic impact. Nanotechnology is
already prevalent in our lives. It is in sunscreens and
cosmetics, batteries, stain-resistant clothing, eyeglasses,
windshields, and sporting equipment. The development of
nanomaterials that are stronger, lighter, and more durable may
lead to better technology for items such as bulletproof vests
and fuel efficient vehicles. Advances in nanomedicine to
diagnose and treat diseases, as well as deliver drugs with
fewer side effects, are literally just over the horizon. Many
are already in clinical trials.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative or NNI is the United
States government's effort to coordinate the nanotechnology
research and development activities of the Federal agencies.
While nanotechnology is not a new scientific field, it remains
an emerging technology. It is my understanding that neither
this Subcommittee, nor the full Committee for that matter, has
held a hearing focused on the NNI since early 2008, primarily
because the House passed an NNI Reauthorization Bill in both
the 110th and 111th Congresses, only to see them die in the
United States Senate. Regardless, much has happened in the past
three years, including a new PCAST Assessment and the issuance
of a strategic plan. This hearing today provides us with an
opportunity to get feedback on those documents and have a
discussion about national priorities for this technology.
In addition, we will also examine the President's fiscal
year 2012 NNI Budget Supplement, which represents funding
requests from the 15 federal agencies investing in
nanotechnology. The request includes a more than an $11
million, excuse me. More than a $200 million increase or 11
percent from fiscal year 2010 enacted levels, including
significant increases for environmental, health and safety
areas, and nano-manufacturing. In these difficult budget times,
Congress needs to be sure that all federal investments will
work to strengthen the economy, including our investments in
nanotechnology.
I look forward to hearing the testimony to be presented
today and to the beginning of what I hope is a fruitful
discussion on U.S. nanotechnology investments and priorities.
And, again, thank you for joining us today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brooks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Mo Brooks
Good afternoon and welcome. Again, let me thank each of our
witnesses for joining us today.
Nanotechnology represents a great deal of promise for the future of
the U.S. economy, both in terms of leaps and bounds in the scientific
knowledge base and in terms of potential products and employment
opportunities as the technology continues to mature. Many believe it
has the potential to be the next industrial revolution leading to
significant social and economic impact. Nanotechnology is already
prevalent in our lives; it is in sunscreens and cosmetics, batteries,
stain-resistant clothing, eyeglasses, windshields, and sporting
equipment. The development of nanomaterials that are stronger, lighter,
and more durable may lead to better technology for items such as
bulletproof vests and fuel efficient vehicles. (With gas prices soaring
isn't that a welcome thought?) Advances in nanomedicine to diagnose and
treat diseases as well as deliver drugs with fewer side effects are
literally just over the horizon; many are already in clinical trials
(as we will hear today).
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is the U.S.
government's effort to coordinate the nanotechnology research and
development activities of the Federal agencies. While nanotechnology is
not a new scientific field, it remains an emerging technology. It is my
understanding that neither this Subcommittee, nor the full Committee
for that matter, has held a hearing focused on the NNI since early
2008, primarily because the House passed an NNI reauthorization bill in
both the 110th and 111th Congresses, only to see it die in the Senate.
Regardless, much has happened in the past three years, including a new
PCAST Assessment and the issuance of a Strategic Plan. This hearing
today provides us with an opportunity to get feedback on those
documents and have a discussion about national priorities for this
technology.
In addition, we will also examine the President's fiscal year 2012
NNI budget supplement, which represents funding requests from the 15
federal agencies investing in nanotechnology. The request includes over
a 200 million dollar (11 percent) increase from FY 10 enacted levels,
including significant increases for environmental, health and safety
areas, and nano-manufacturing. In these difficult budget times,
Congress needs to be sure that all Federal investments will work to
strengthen the economy, including our investments in nanotechnology.
I look forward to hearing the testimony to be presented today and
to the beginning of what I hope is a fruitful discussion on U.S.
nanotechnology investments and priorities.Again, thank you for joining
us today.
Chairman Brooks. And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Lipinski
for an opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Brooks, and I want to
congratulate you on being made the Chair of this Subcommittee.
I served as Chair of the Subcommittee last year. It is a very--
we do a lot of important work here. I really think that
research is critical, our scientific research is critical to
the future of our country, and science education clearly also
is critical to our future. So I am looking forward to working
with you on the committee, and I think that we can get a lot of
good things done, starting today with one of my favorite
subjects of nanotechnology.
Not only are nanotech products and science fascinating in
their own right, but investments in this area have already
resulted in job creation in my state and across the Nation. I
firmly believe the potential for return on a relatively modest
federal investment is many times what we have already
witnessed.
I am fond of saying and have said this countless times here
in this committee, that at one point I drank the nanotech Kool-
Aid to believe that it really is the next industrial revolution
as the Chairman had mentioned. And it may have been when I
visited Chad Mirkin's lab at Northwestern University about five
years ago. Mr. Moffitt knows it very well. I was amazed by what
could be done on the scale of a single atom. In nanotechnology
there is now a branch of engineering that simply did not exist
23 years ago when I was getting my degree in mechanical
engineering at Northwestern.
By controlling individual atoms we are creating new
materials, products, companies, and jobs. It is not just
material sciences or semiconductors. Companies like Mr.
Moffitt's Nanosphere, which emerged from Dr. Mirkin's lab ten
years ago, are succeeding because nanotechnology is helping us
understand biology at the cellular level. We are now seeing
applications that were not even imagined 11 years ago when the
National Nanotechnology Initiative was first created.
The range of potential applications is broad. It will have
enormous consequences for electronics, energy transformation
and storage, materials, and medicine and health to name just a
few.
The Science Committee recognized the problems of
nanotechnology early on, holding our first hearing more than a
decade ago to review federal activities in the field. The
committee was subsequently instrumental in the development and
enactment of a statute in 2003 that authorized the interagency
National Nanotechnology Initiative, the NNI. As the Chairman
said, we have passed three times since the House in 2008 a
reauthorization of NNI, and we passed it in a bipartisan
manner. Unfortunately, all three times they died in the Senate.
Not the only things that did.
But I hope that working together, Chairman Brooks, we will
have the opportunity to take up a reauthorization once again
this Congress and maybe the fourth time will be the charm.
I do not think that the NNI requires major revisions, but I
do think there are opportunities to formalize some of the
recommendations we have received in the last few years from
PCAST and the National Academies on how to strengthen the
program even further without any additional costs.
Our bill has been about making smarter use of the money we
are already spending, not necessarily about spending more. I
welcome recommendations from our witnesses today on how we can
continue to improve upon the existing program.
I am particularly excited about the Administration's
Signature Initiative in sustainable nano-manufacturing, and I
look forward to hearing how the agencies are responding to
PCAST's recommendations to ensure that this initiative is
successful, such as by developing coordinated milestones,
promoting strong educational components, and creating public,
private partnerships in nano-manufacturing.
I would like to spend my last couple minutes talking about
something else. In our invitations to the witnesses we did not
ask you to submit testimony specifically on environmental,
health and safety, or EHS research. That must be part of any
comprehensive nanotechnology research strategy, but hopefully
we can engage in some discussion on this topic during the Q&A.
It is important for the successful development of
nanotechnology that potential downsides can be addressed from
the beginning in a straightforward and open way. We know too
well that negative public perceptions about the safety of
technology can have serious consequences for its acceptance and
use.
I hope to hear from our industry witnesses about their
thoughts on this issue, and it is certainly not the purpose of
fear mongering. It is for purposes of really clearing up any
misconceptions that are out there and making sure that nothing
new that we are doing here in nanotechnology is going to have a
negative impact on the environment, health, or safety.
The NNI has always included activities for increasing the
understanding of these aspects of nanotechnology, but I believe
that EHS research did not receive sufficient attention or
funding for many years. I am concerned about the lack of a
well-designed and executed EHS research program.
I look forward to hearing from Dr. Teague about the
strategy that is, I understand is scheduled to be released in
the coming days on EHS, and I am looking forward to hearing how
it incorporates the comments of experts from both academia and
industry.
And on that note I wanted to echo Chairman Brooks in
thanking Dr. Teague for his work. He has been with NNI almost
since the beginning, and I know that your expertise is going to
be missed.
Once again, I am very happy we are having this hearing
today, and I look forward to all the witness testimony and the
Q&A, and I think you all for being here today and thank you for
the extra time here this week.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Dan Lipinski
Thank you Chairman Brooks, for yielding, but more importantly,
thank you for holding this hearing today. It's been exactly three years
since the committee last held a hearing on nanotechnology, so I'm happy
we're returning to one of my favorite topics. Federal investments in
nanotechnology research have already led to job creation in my state
and across the nation, and I believe the potential for return on our
relative modest federal investment is many times what we've already
witnessed.
I'm fond of saying that I ``drank the nanotech kool-aid'' the first
time I visited Chad Merkin's lab at Northwestern. I was amazed by what
he could do at the scale of a single atom. In nanotechnology there is
now a branch of engineering that simply did not exist 23 years ago when
I was getting my degree in mechanical engineering. By controlling
individual atoms we can create new materials, products, companies, and
jobs.
And it's not just materials science or semiconductors. Companies
like Mr. Moffitt's Nanosphere, which emerged from Dr. Merkin's lab 10
years ago, are succeeding because nanotechnology is helping us
understand biology at the cellular level. We are now seeing
applications that were not even imagined 11 years ago when the National
Nanotechnology Initiative was first created. The range of potential
applications is broad and will have enormous consequences for
electronics, energy transformation and storage, materials, and medicine
and health, to name just a few examples.
The Science Committee recognized the promise of nanotechnology
early on, holding our first hearing more than a decade ago to review
Federal activities in the field. The Committee was subsequently
instrumental in the development and enactment of a statute in 2003 that
authorized the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative - the
NNI.
We have passed a widely supported, bipartisan update to the NNI
bill in the House three times since 2008. Unfortunately, all three
times the bill died in the Senate. But I hope, Chairman Brooks, that we
will have an opportunity to take up an NNI Reauthorization bill once
again in this Congress. Maybe 4th time is a charm?
I don't think the NNI requires major revisions. It seems to be
working pretty well. But I do think there are opportunities to
formalize some of the recommendations we have received in the last few
years from PCAST and the National Academies on how to strengthen the
program even further, without any additional costs. Our bill has been
about making smarter use of the money we are already spending, not
necessarily about spending more. I welcome recommendations from our
witnesses today on how we can continue to improve upon the existing
program.
Today's hearing is a broad overview of the NNI program and its
benefits to our economy and society. I am particularly excited about
the Administration's signature initiative in sustainable
nanomanufacturing, and I look forward to hearing how the agencies are
responding to PCAST recommendations to ensure that this initiative is
successful, such as by developing coordinated milestones, promoting
strong educational components, and creating public-private partnerships
in nanomanufacturing.
But I would like to spend my last couple of minutes talking about
something else. In our invitations to the witnesses, we did not ask you
to submit testimony specifically on environmental, health, and safety -
or EHS - research that must be part of any comprehensive nanotechnology
research strategy. But hopefully we can engage in some discussion on
this topic during the Q&A.
It is important for the successful development of nanotechnology
that potential downsides be addressed from the beginning in a
straightforward and open way. We know too well that negative public
perceptions about the safety of a technology can have serious
consequences for its acceptance and use. I hope to hear from our
industry witnesses about their thoughts on this issue. However, this is
about more than just perception.
The simple fact is the science base is not now available to pin
down what types of engineered nanomaterials may be harmful. We don't
yet know what characteristics of these materials determine their
effects on living things or on the environment. Nor do we even have
standards and measurement tools for the full range of relevant or
potentially relevant characteristics.
The NNI has always included activities for increasing understanding
of the environmental and safety aspects of nanotechnology. But I
believe that EHS research did not receive sufficient attention or
funding for many years. While I applaud the current Administration's
increased emphasis on EHS, I remain concerned about the lack of a well
designed and effectively executed EHS research program. I understand
that a new EHS strategy is days away from being released. I look
forward to hearing from Dr. Teague about that strategy and how it
incorporates the comments of experts from both academia and industry.
Finally, before I yield back, I'd like to express my gratitude to
Dr. Teague for his 8 years of service to the NNI and to our country. I
learned yesterday that he will be retiring. Tomorrow, I believe. Dr.
Teague has been with the NNI almost since its beginning, and I know his
expertise will be missed.
Once again, I am very happy we are having this hearing today. I
look forward to all of the witness testimony and the Q&A, and I thank
you all for being here today. I yield back.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
Now, before I introduce the witnesses, I would like to
yield a few minutes to the distinguished Chairman of the
Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Mr. Hall of Texas.
Chairman Hall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your good work and your hard work and your long
hours of work and your subcommittee, and also I thank you for
telling us about Clayton Teague and his history and the long
service he has rendered. About 41 years ago I started in public
service as a state senator and then 31 years ago I started up
here, so we started out about the same time. You look a lot
younger than I do, but we thank you.
And this is a very important committee, and this is, I
think, nanotechnology and the priorities and the initiatives
and everything for the future is very important. It is much
more important than these empty chairs here indicate, but we
are at an urgent time in this Congress now when we are trying
to decide whether to pass a budget or CRs to put the government
off and keep them from shutting down. A lot of people just want
to let them shut down and forget about it, but I think with the
leadership of this Chairman and this Committee you are onto the
subject and issue that is very vital to us, and that offers a
great, great service to us for the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for what you do, and thank you all
for giving your time it takes to get here and to prepare for a
hearing and to get back to your work. God bless you. Thank you.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time I would like to introduce our witness panel.
Dr. Clayton Teague is Director of the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office for the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
Dr. Jeffrey Welser is the Director of the Semiconductor
Research Corporation's (SRC) Nanoelectronics Research
Initiative, or NRI. The SRC conducts research on behalf of the
semiconductor industry and the Semiconductor Industry
Association or SA--SIA. Dr. Welser is on loan to the NRI from
IBM.
Dr. Seth Rudnick is a medical doctor and Chairman of the
Board of Directors for Liquidia Technologies, a nanotechnology
company located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina--I
might have to ask you about whether you are for NC State, North
Carolina, or Duke, I am a Duke guy, so be ready--that develops
highly-precise particle-based vaccines and therapeutics for the
prevention and treatment of human disease.
Dr. James Tour is a Professor of Chemistry, Computer
Science, and Mechanical Engineering and Material Science at the
Smalley Institute of Nanotechnology at Rice University.
Mr. William Moffitt is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Nanosphere, Inc., a nanotechnology-based healthcare
company offering diagnostic testing technologies housed in
Northbrook, Illinois.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each, after which the Members of the Committee
will have five minutes each to ask questions.
At this point we recognize our first witness, Dr. Clayton
Teague, the Director of National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office. As I do so, please, everyone should be aware that we
are scheduled to have votes before long, and at some point we
will have to recess for those votes to be taken, at which point
we will resume thereafter.
So, Dr. Teague, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF CLAYTON TEAGUE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION OFFICE (NNCO)
Dr. Teague. Chairman Hall and Chairman Brooks, Ranking
Member Lipinski, first of all, thank you for your kind words
about my service. It is very much appreciated. It has been my
distinct privilege and honor to serve as the NNCO Director.
It is also my distinct privilege to be here with you today
to discuss the NNI and the contributions of Federal agencies to
sustaining U.S. leadership in nanoscale science, engineering
and technology.
For more than a decade, the NNI has set the pace around the
globe for enabling ground-breaking interdisciplinary research,
innovation, and infrastructure development in the
scientifically and economically powerful domain of
nanotechnology. As the primary interagency program for
coordinating federal research and development in this field,
the NNI has catalyzed remarkable advances in electronics,
medicine, energy, manufacturing, and many other areas.
Integrated with these R&D efforts to advance nanotechnology has
been world-leading research by NNI member agencies to
understand and address the environmental, health, and safety
aspects of nanotechnology.
Starting in 2001, the NNI has developed into an engine of
innovation that has drawn 25 federal agencies into fruitful
collaboration resulting in their investing a cumulative total
of over $14 billion in this fast-moving area. The NNI Strategic
Plan, which was delivered to you in February, provides a
description of how the NNI adds value to all participating
agencies.
I want to note at least two things about the plan's
inclusion of two new subjects. First, specific objectives for
each of the plan's four goals, a first for this strategic plan,
and second, three important signature initiatives for
interagency focus and alignment of resources.
Agencies are proposing about $300 million in the 2012
budget drawn from their agency budgets for these signature
initiatives in order to accelerate progress in areas of
national importance.
The President's 2012 budget provides $2.1 billion for the
NNI. These investments will advance our understanding of
phenomena and nanoscale and enhance many of the things that
Chairman Brooks just laid out for us; our ability to engineer
nanoscale devices and systems to address areas such as
renewable energy, next generation electronics, and sustainable
manufacturing.
Let me briefly show you a few examples, and if the slide
would come up, of how nanotechnology is revolutionary. One is
carbon nanotubes. You can think of them as super-thin sheets of
carbon, just one atom thick, rolled into microscopic tubes or
straws. They are extremely strong and lightweight and are
showing great potential in important structural and electronic
applications.
Shown here is an application of carbon nanotube-based
materials, the second--go back to the first one, please, to
build a large, lightweight, 52-foot long boat that can travel
2.5 miles per gallon. Comparably-sized conventional boats can
travel only one-fifth of that distance per gallon of fuel.
In the next slide and in the sample being passed among the
committee, you can see a test sample using similar
nanomaterials for potential use in bullet-proof vests that have
a high resistance to penetration, yet are far lighter than any
other currently-available material. Note that in this case a
test shot of a high-speed, nine millimeter metal jacketed
bullet did not penetrate this sample that is only 1 millimeter
thick.
A third example comes from the medical domain where
nanotechnology is showing great promise for disease diagnosis,
cancer treatment, and drug delivery. This slide shows a novel
nanotechnology-based method for revealing the amount of artery-
choking plaque inside a blood vessel. Red and yellow represent
higher levels of plaque. Low levels are represented in blue and
green.
The before and after images illustrate the efficacy of not
only the medical treatment but also the imaging tool. Such
imaging tools can enable faster and cheaper development of
life-saving drugs.
Multiple sources have now come to the conclusion that these
and other nanotechnology-enabled products will be valued at up
to $3 trillion by the end of the decade with major
ramifications for jobs. A study funded by the National Science
Foundation projects that 6 million nanotechnology workers will
be needed worldwide by 2020, with 2 million of those jobs in
the United States.
The United States is, however, not the only country to
recognize the potential of nanotechnology. At least 60
countries now have national nanotechnology strategies with the
European Union 27 countries outspending the United States.
Perhaps more important the spending increases in some countries
such as Russia, China, and South Korea are considerably greater
than here in the United States.
A recent analysis of the number of nanotechnology patents,
publications, and citations show that our leadership is being
strongly challenged. This could put our national security at
risk since technological superiority is a foundation of our
national security strategy.
I see us now at a crossroads. With continued support of the
NNI the U.S. will play a major role in what is unfolding as the
next economic and technological revolution. Without it, the
United States could fall behind in this extremely important
race.
So while the U.S. is currently a global leader in this area
of technology, it is crucial that our place--pace of investment
be maintained.
I would like to conclude on a personal note. I have
interacted with this Committee since 2003, throw five
Congresses and two different Administrations. As I leave this
post I want to sincerely thank this Committee for all its
strong leadership, commitment, and support of federal
investments in nanotechnology that you have provided throughout
this period.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have, and
thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Teague follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. E. Clayton Teague, Director, National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO)
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the
Committee, it is my distinct privilege to be here with you today to
discuss the National Nanotechnology Initiative and the contributions of
Federal agencies to sustaining U.S. leadership in nanoscale science,
engineering and technology.
For more than a decade, the National Nanotechnology Initiative or
NNI has set the pace around the globe for enabling ground-breaking
interdisciplinary research, innovation, and infrastructure development
in the scientifically and economically powerful domain of
nanotechnology. As the primary interagency program for coordinating
Federal research and development in nanotechnology, the NNI has
catalyzed remarkable advances in electronics, medicine, energy,
manufacturing, and many other areas, enabling a broad spectrum of
applications that range from the evolutionary to the extraordinary.
Integrated with these R&D efforts to advance nanotechnology has been
world leading research by NNI member agencies to understand and address
the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanotechnology,
intended to simultaneously protect public health and the environment
and to promote nanotechnology commercialization.
Starting with a roughly $500 million investment by half-a-dozen
agencies in 2001, the NNI has developed into an engine of innovation
that has drawn 25 Federal departments and agencies into fruitful
collaboration resulting in their investing a total of over $14 billion
cumulatively (2001 to 2010) in one of the world's fastest-moving areas
of science and engineering. As described in the 2011 NNI Strategic
Plan, the NNI provides an excellent and effective platform for
communication, coordination, and collaboration. It adds great value to
the member agencies, their missions and responsibilities.
The President's 2012 Budget provides $2.1 billion for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in 15 agency budgets, an increase of
$217 million over the 2010 funding level. These investments will
advance our understanding of nanoscale phenomena and our ability to
engineer nanoscale devices and systems that address national priorities
and global challenges in such areas as renewable energy, next-
generation electronics, and sustainable manufacturing consistent with
the President's A Strategy for American Innovation.
At the same time, the NNI investment sustains vital support for
fundamental, groundbreaking R&D and research infrastructure including
world-class science centers, networks, and user facilities, as well as
education and training programs that collectively constitute a major
wellspring of innovation in the United States.
Nanotechnology 101
Nanotechnology deals with the science of the very, very small. A
nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, or roughly the width of ten
atoms lined up in a row. A sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometers
thick. All told, nanotechnology is the understanding and control of
matter at nanoscale dimensions-meaning approximately 1 to 100
nanometers in width-including imaging, measuring, modeling, and
manipulation.
At those scales, quantum phenomena begin to dominate the behavior
of materials and, unlike at larger scales, properties such as a
materials size can determine its electrical, optical, magnetic, and
thermodynamic behavior. As a result, ordinary materials may exhibit
extraordinary properties, giving rise to materials that are far
stronger than any other known material yet lighter than aluminum; self-
cleaning paint; lightning-fast electronic components; highly efficient
devices for collecting and storing energy; molecular structures that
can sense environmental contaminants; and injectable agents that can
track and kill tumors.
One last characteristic I'd like to note about nanotechnology: it
is, by definition, an interdisciplinary area of study. Scientists
across historically separate disciplines of chemistry, physics,
materials science, biology, and engineering find themselves working
shoulder to shoulder in this emerging field-the sort of cross-
fertilization and collaboration that helps drive some of the
extraordinary innovation being generated in this field.
Let me focus in a little more detail on two areas of application
that are illustrative of nanotechnology's great potential: materials
science and biomedicine.
Nanotechnology has arguably demonstrated its most significant
advances in the realm of materials technologies. The archetypal example
is the carbon nanotube, discovered over two decades ago. These
nanotubes are extremely light weight, strong man-made carbon molecules
with many other useful mechanical, electrical, chemical, and optical
properties. Carbon nanotubes-think of them as super-thin sheets of
carbon, just one atom thick, rolled into microscopic tubes or straws-
exhibit unique structural properties (they are light and strong),
electrical capacities (they can conduct electricity more efficiently
than many metal wires), and optical quirks (they can be designed to
photoluminesce when they detect tiny amounts of targeted materials). As
such they are already showing great potential for a broad range of
applications in the fields of materials science and electronics, and
are already in use for radiation- resistant data storage devices.
Application of carbon nanotube-based lightweight and strong
materials have already produced large (52 foot long) boats that have
fuel consumption rates of 2.5 nautical miles per gallon as opposed to
the 2 gallons per nautical mile consumption rate of comparably sized
conventional boats. Bullet proof vests with higher resistance to
penetration and that are far lighter than any currently available are
another example of using these materials. Other nanomaterials are
resulting in commercially available quantum-dot based light-emitting
diode light sources that have a light color comparable to incandescent
lights yet have a light output efficiency six times that of
incandescent lights.
In the biomedical domain, nanotechnology is already helping medical
researchers and clinicians develop real-time imaging and detection of
biological targets at cellular and even molecular levels. But the goal,
and the potential, is to go further than that. One of the ultimate
goals of what is today being called ``nanobiotechnology'' research is
the development of multifunctional nanoscale platforms that are able to
simultaneously detect molecular changes in the body that are indicative
of a disease; deliver a drug or a combination of drugs with
unprecedented control and high specificity; and then monitor the
effectiveness of the drug delivery through imaging or some other
modality such as monitoring of a biomarker for the disease. Such
multifunctional platforms can also lead to major developments in
personalized medicine with individualized therapies (for example, by
providing more effective treatments with minimal adverse reactions).
Multiple sources have come to the conclusion that these and other
nanotechnology-enabled products will be valued at up to $3 trillion by
the end of the decade. \1\ Such potential economic growth will depend
on developing the necessary workforce. A study funded by the National
Science Foundation projects that 6 million nanotechnology workers will
be needed worldwide by 2020, with 2 million of those jobs in the United
States. NNI member agencies are responding to this need by sponsoring
educational and training programs at universities, community colleges,
and vocational schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lux Research, Nanomaterials State of the Market Q3 2008:
Stealth Success, Broad Impact (Lux Research, Inc., NY, NY, July 2008)
and Roco, Mirkin, and Hersam, Nanotechnology Research Directions for
Societal Needs. (WTEC, 2010)
The State of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
As previously mentioned, nanotechnology R&D is inherently
multidisciplinary and its rate of progress depends on strong
interagency communication, coordination, and collaboration to leverage
expertise throughout the Federal government. Since 2001, Federal
agencies have been combining and coordinating their efforts to
accelerate discovery, development, and deployment of nanotechnology to
further both agency missions and the broader national interest.
Congress recognized the importance of a coordinated Federal program for
nanotechnology R&D in 2003 with its enactment of the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Public Law 108-153), which
authorized in law the structure of the NNI, its missions, and its
responsibilities.
Today the NNI involves the nanotechnology-related activities of the
25 agencies shown below, 15 of which (in bold) have specific budgets
for nanotechnology R&D, as described in the NNI Supplement to the
President's 2012 Budget:
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Transportation (DOT, including the
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Department of
Health and Human Services)
Forest Service (FS, Department of Agriculture)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH, Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention)
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA,
Department of Agriculture)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST,
Department of Commerce)
National Institutes of Health (NIH, Department of
Health and Human Services)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS, Department of
Commerce)
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Labor (DOL, including the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, OSHA)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of the Treasury (DOTreas)
Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, Department of the
Interior)
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, Department
of Commerce)
The NNI is managed within the framework of the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC), the Cabinet-level council by which the
President coordinates science and technology policy across the Federal
Government. The Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET)
Subcommittee of the NSTC's Committee on Technology coordinates
planning, budgeting, program implementation, and review of the
initiative. The NSET Subcommittee is composed of representatives from
agencies participating in the NNI.
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), which I
lead, acts as the primary point of contact for information on the NNI;
provides technical and administrative support to the NSET Subcommittee;
supports the subcommittee in the preparation of multiagency planning,
budget, and assessment documents, including an annual supplement to the
President's budget; develops, updates, and maintains the NNI website,
http://www.nano.gov; and provides public outreach on behalf of the NNI.
The NSET Subcommittee has established four working groups to
support key NNI activities that the subcommittee recognizes will
benefit from focused interagency attention:
Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN)
Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications
(NEHI)
Nanomanufacturing, Industry Liaison, and Innovation
(NILI)
Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communication
(NPEC)
The NNI Strategic Plan is the framework that guides the
nanotechnology R&D and innovation efforts of the 25 NNI member
agencies. The most recent Plan, released in February 2011, aims to
ensure that advances in nanotechnology R&D and their applications to
agency missions continue unabated in this emerging field. It
facilitates achievement of the NNI vision by laying out targeted
guidance for agency leaders, program managers, and the research
community regarding planning and implementation of nanotechnology R&D
investments and activities. Informed by feedback and recommendations
from a broad array of stakeholders and extensive interagency
deliberation, the Strategic Plan represents the consensus of the
participating agencies as to the high-level goals and priorities of the
NNI and specific objectives for at least the next three years. It sets
out the vision of ``a future in which the ability to understand and
control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and
industry that benefits society.''
The NNI was created to efficiently and effectively manage
innovative research for economic benefit, national security, and the
greater public good. Toward this overall NNI vision, the plan specifies
four goals aimed at achieving that overall vision:
1. Advance a world-class nanotechnology research and
development program.
2. Foster the transfer of new technologies into products for
commercial and public benefit.
3. Develop and sustain educational resources, a skilled
workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools to
advance nanotechnology.
4. Support responsible development of nanotechnology.
For each of the goals, the plan identifies specific objectives for
achieving these goals. The plan also lays out eight NNI investment
categories (``Program Component Areas'' or PCAs), each aimed at helping
to achieve one or more of the above goals. Since the PCAs were
established in 2004, they have helped to organize and track categories
of NNI investments:
1. Fundamental nanoscale phenomena and processes
2. Nanomaterials
3. Nanoscale devices and systems
4. Instrumentation research, metrology, and standards for
nanotechnology
5. Nanomanufacturing
6. Major research facilities and instrumentation acquisition
7. Environment, health, and safety
8. Education and societal dimensions
In addition, to accelerate nanotechnology development in support of
the President's priorities and the recently revised A Strategy for
American Innovation, OSTP and the NNI member agencies have identified
three Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives that are part of a new model
of specifically targeted and closely coordinated interagency, cross-
sector collaboration designed to accelerate innovation in areas of
national priority. The three initial nanotechnology signature
initiative topics are: Sustainable Nanomanufacturing; Nanotechnology
for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion; and Nanoelectronics for
2020 and Beyond. Agencies are proposing more than $300 million in the
2012 Budget for these signature initiatives, drawn from their agency
budgets. (More information on each of the initiatives can be found in
the Strategic Plan and the FY 2012 NNI budget supplement.)
The interagency task forces supporting each signature initiative
have identified thrust areas within each of the proposed initiative
topics and have identified specific agency programs that are involved.
Finally, each nanotechnology signature initiative task force has
selected key research targets for each thrust area associated with
near-and long-term expected outcomes, to help evaluate progress on an
ongoing basis. The NSET Subcommittee anticipates incorporating
participation and input from industry and other stakeholders on current
and future nanotechnology signature initiatives.
In order to inform Congress, Federal agencies, and the American
public about the Federal Government's interagency, coordinated efforts
in nanotechnology, the NNCO annually publishes an NNI supplement to the
President's budget and makes it publicly available soon after the
February release of the President's budget. The NNI Supplement to the
President's 2012 Budget summarizes NNI programmatic activities for 2010
and 2011, as well as those proposed for 2012. NNI budgets for 2010-2012
are presented by agency and by Program Component Area. NNI investments
represent the sum of the nanotechnology-related funding allocated by
each of the participating agencies. Each agency determines its budget
for nanotechnology R&D in coordination with the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),
and Congress.
The NNI Supplement to the 2012 President's Budget Request provides
full details of agency proposals for their NNI investments, as well as
information on the use of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and
Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) program funds to
support nanotechnology research and commercialization activities. The
supplement also discusses activities that have been undertaken and
progress that has been made toward achieving the four goals set out in
the NNI Strategic Plan and highlights external reviews of the NNI and
how their recommendations are being addressed.
The NNI also benefits from extensive oversight by the Congress and
by external groups. The recent March 2010 report by the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), functioning in
its role as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP), provides
an objective overview of the effectiveness of the NNI to date and lists
recommendations for strengthening the program and maintaining U.S.
leadership in this field internationally. Many of these recommendations
for the NNCO are already being implemented.
OSTP and NNCO actions to respond to the NNAP recommendations
include: 1) the FY 2011 NNCO Budget includes a new position for an
Industrial and State Liaison with primary responsibilities to enhance
communications between the NNI member agencies and the business
community and between the NNI member agencies and the regional, state,
and local nanotechnology initiatives; 2) the NNCO Director is
negotiating with the National Research Council (NRC) to include some
components of the NNAP recommendation that the NNCO should track
relevant metrics to measure the outcomes and impacts of NNI programs
into the next assessment of the NNI (the NRC is requested to: ``Assess
the suitability of current procedures and criteria for determining
progress towards NNI goals, suggest definitions of success and
associated metrics.''); 3) OSTP has designated two new appointments at
the NNCO--the NNCO Director to serve as the Coordinator for Standards
and the NNCO Deputy Director to serve as Coordinator for EHS Research;
and 4) as called for in the 2010 NNI Strategic Plan, the NNCO is
working with NNI member agencies to create and maintain a database of
resources available from the Federal government to public and private
sectors.
The NSET Subcommittee member agencies discussed but did not agree
with the NNAP recommendation to fund NNCO at about $5 million annually,
or 0.3 percent of agency contributions to the NNI. Instead, as NNCO
Director I proposed staffing and actions to address those
recommendations that are within the roles and responsibilities spelled
out in the Memorandum of Understanding establishing the NNCO and in the
21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act.
In closing, the United States must continue to lead the way in
nanotechnology and emerging technology innovation. The Nation's
economic growth and global competitiveness depend on it. The NNI
reflects a firm Federal commitment to broad-based support of
integrated, coordinated R&D on nanotechnology applications and
implications, which will help America out-innovate, out-educate, and
out-build the rest of the world.
This concludes my general overview of the NNI, including the NNI
Supplement to the President's 2012 Budget, the most recent assessment
of the NNI by the NNAP, and the updated NNI Strategic Plan. I will now
proceed to address the specific questions that were posed to me in the
formal letter from the chairman inviting me to testify at this hearing:
Committee Invitation Letter Questions
Question 1: Why are Federal investments in nanotechnology R&D of
importance to the U.S.? What fields of science and engineering continue
to present the greatest opportunities for breakthroughs in
nanotechnology, and what industries are most likely to be affected by
those breakthroughs in both the near-term and the longer-term?
Nanotechnology has the potential to profoundly change our economy
and improve our standard of living, in much the same way as information
technology advances have revolutionized our lives and the economy over
the past two decades. While some nanotechnology products are beginning
to come to market, many major applications for nanotechnology are still
5-10 years away. Private investors look for short-term returns on
investment, generally in the range of 1-3 years. Consequently,
Government support for nanotechnology research and development in its
early stages is required to ensure that the United States can maintain
a competitive position in the worldwide nanotechnology marketplace
while realizing nanotechnology's full potential. Increasing investments
in nanotechnology R&D by NNI participating agencies also reflect the
potential for this research to support diverse agency missions and
responsibilities.
This funding has a remarkable return on investment when viewed in
terms of expected job creation and the potential for significant
economic growth. As mentioned earlier, a study funded by the National
Science Foundation projects that 6 million nanotechnology workers will
be needed worldwide by 2020, with 2 million of those jobs in the United
States . Multiple sources have come to the conclusion that
nanotechnology-enabled products will be valued at up to $3 trillion by
the end of the decade . Nanotechnology will continue to create many
jobs requiring college degrees and higher education, but it also will
create jobs that can be filled through training and vocational
programs, including community colleges and two-year degrees. In fact,
many nanotechnology companies report that they are hiring Ph.D.s for
routine characterization jobs, which could be more suitably filled by
skilled technicians. In response to this growing need, community
colleges across the country are launching nanotechnology programs, with
currently around 60 such programs nationwide.Federal investments also
mirror the efforts being made through regional, state, and local
nanotechnology initiatives across the country. Since the inception of
the NNI, a number of highly successful regional and state initiatives
have been developed in the U.S. and continue to thrive today. There are
currently more than 30 active regional, state, and local nanotechnology
initiatives in the U.S. , many of which participated in a 2009 NNI
workshop on regional programs. The consensus at the workshop was clear:
regional and state initiatives are counting on the leadership of the
NNI to help drive a nationwide effort in nanotechnology.
The Federal Government does not single out any particular fields of
science and engineering or industries that are most likely to benefit
from the nanotechnology advances. However, in a study commissioned by
the NNI, Lux Research has identified four industry sectors most likely
to be impacted by nanotechnology in the near term:
Advanced healthcare and pharmaceutical applications,
which are slowly entering the market
The transportation sector--including automotive,
airplane, and shipping--which offers a huge potential for
nanotechnologies, particularly nanotechnology-enabled
composites and electrical materials
Manufacturing, industrial materials, and consumer
products (including everything from nanotechnology-enabled
lubricants to nanoporous insulation to carbon nanotube-
reinforced fishing rods)
The electronics industry, which highlights some of
the most broadly adopted nanotechnology-enabled products and
processes, and where long-term research is underway (in close
cooperation with the NNI) that could enable major new advances
that are a decade or more away.
Question 2: What is the position of U.S. research and development
in nanotechnology relative to that of other countries? What key factors
influence U.S. performance in the field, and what trends exist among
those factors?
The United States is not the only country to recognize the
tremendous economic potential of nanotechnology. At least 60 countries
now have national nanotechnology strategies and policies . Estimates
from 2008 showed the governments of the European Union (EU) and Japan
invested approximately $1.7 billion and $950 million, respectively, in
nanotechnology research and development. The governments of China,
Korea, and Taiwan invested approximately $430 million, $310 million,
and $110 million, respectively . This compares to 2008 U.S. Government
spending of $1.55 billion , placing us second to the E.U. countries. In
a more recent report, Lux Research has estimated that government
investments by the European Union and several of its member countries
combined totaled more than $2.6 billion in 2010, compared to $2.1
billion in the United States (Federal and state/local governments
combined, presumably).
More importantly, all the data now points to an undeniable trend.
While U.S. funding for nanotechnology has been steadily increasing,
other countries are significantly ramping up their investments. In the
case of China, the increase in investments in nanotechnology is
virtually exponential. Furthermore, recent analyses of the number of
nanotechnology citations, patents, and publications show that we are
very quickly being surpassed by other nations in an area where, until
recently, we had a strong lead . This has the potential of putting our
national security at risk, since technological superiority has been a
foundation of our national security strategy since World War II. We are
now at a crossroads; with the continued support of the NNI, the U.S.
will play a major role in what is unfolding as the next economic and
technological revolution; without it the U.S. is likely to fall behind
in this race.
Question 3: What is the federal government's role in facilitating
the commercialization of nanotechnology innovations as compared to
private industry? How would an early regulatory regime affect the
growth of the nanotechnology commercial industry?
A1: Industry has the primary responsibility for commercialization
of nanotechnology innovations. However, the Federal Government does
have roles to play in facilitating this, including the following:
TFunding basic research in nanoscale science and
technology, to keep the pipeline flowing with new innovations
for consideration by industry.
TWorking closely with industry to accelerate the
development of applications of nanotechnology that are critical
to the national interest, particularly with respect to
manufacturing, energy, medicine, national defense and homeland
security. Hence mission agencies such as the Department of
Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Energy, and NASA are increasingly seeing opportunities for the
application of nanotechnology to their agency missions, and are
supporting both basic and applied research towards realizing
those opportunities. NSF and other agencies have developed
research and education programs to support nanotechnology
innovation and partnerships with industry, such as the
Nanoelectronics Research Initiative.
TFunding research on the health and safety aspects of
nanomaterials and working with industry to facilitate safety in
the workplace.
TProviding a clear regulatory pathway that industry
can follow in pursuing the commercialization of nanotechnology
innovations. To the extent practicable, Federal regulation and
oversight should provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate
new evidence and learning and to take into account the evolving
nature of information related to emerging technologies and
their applications. For example, NIH and FDA have a new
underway that is designed to move medical products through the
translational pipeline to the marketplace more rapidly and
efficiently.
TPromoting fair international trade in
nanotechnology-enabled products and processes.
TSupporting the protection of intellectual property
both domestically and internationally, i.e., through the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
TProviding funds for small businesses to take
advantage of nanotechnology innovations, through the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business
Technology Transfer Research (STTR) programs.
TServing as an ``early adopter'' of key
nanotechnology innovations, e.g., in the application of carbon
nanotubes to satellite power cables, ballistic protection, and
weight reduction, where initial purchases by the Government of
high-value-added nanotechnology products can help to create the
opportunity for later development of commercial markets for
similar products.
TFunding the development of novel nanomanufacturing
technologies that could be applied to a wide variety of
commercial products, and where the lack of appropriate mass-
production techniques would otherwise preclude large-scale
markets for these products.
TWorking closely with industry to conduct joint
roadmapping and R&D activities targeted at key areas of
precompetitive nanotechnology research and applications, to
bring expertise from industry, academia, and government
laboratories collectively to bear on ``hard problems''
currently impeding the development of large-scale national
security applications or commercial markets.
TEstablishing and/or sustaining user facilities,
cooperative research centers, and regional initiatives to
provide industry, and in particular small business, with
opportunities to accelerate the transfer of nanoscale science
from discovery to commercial products.
A2: Transparent, consistent, and scientifically-based regulations
decrease uncertainty about the economic opportunities. Well-designed
regulations, which minimize uncertainty, promote product development
and commercialization, a fact often confirmed by industry. Last month,
March 2011, the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy
Coordination Committee (ETIPC) released a memorandum to the heads of
executive departments and agencies outlining broad principles to guide
the development and implementation of policies for oversight of
emerging technologies at the agency level. In addition to ensuring that
regulation and oversight of emerging technologies be based on the best
available scientific evidence, the principles also state that where
possible, regulatory approaches should promote innovation while also
advancing regulatory objectives, such as protection of health, the
environment, and safety.
At present, the NNI regulatory agencies continue to review their
existing authorities against our current scientific understanding of
the human and environmental impact of size and emergent properties of
nanoscale materials. They are employing existing product evaluation
strategies where appropriate, and modifying them if necessary, to
ensure the safety of the American people. Regulatory agencies are also
working with their industrial stakeholders to assist them navigating
the nanotechnology regulatory landscape.
Additionally, the revised and soon-to-be-released NNI
Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Research Strategy was developed
not only to protect public and occupational health and the environment
but also foster technological advancements that benefit society. The
regulatory agencies shared leadership for development of the EHS
research framework with the research agencies. These actions, in
combination, are designed to minimize scientific uncertainty, maximize
regulatory authority, and promote growth of the U.S. nanotechnology
commercial industry.
Question 4: What is the workforce outlook for nanotechnology? What
is the federal government's role and how can it, along with
universities; help ensure there will be enough people with the relevant
skills to meet the Nation's needs for nanotechnology research and
development and for the manufacture of nanotechnology-enabled products?
As mentioned above (Question 1), a recent study funded by NSF has
concluded that approximately 6 million nanotechnology workers
(researchers and manufacturing workforce) will be needed worldwide by
2020, of which 2 million will be in the United States.
The Federal Government's roles in helping meet these needs include
the following:
Funding research that in turn supports graduate
education. (Industry representatives have commented to us that
they view this as the primary way in which NNI-funded research
benefits industry, by filling the pipeline with future
nanotechnology researchers who will be available for industry
to hire when they are needed.) As the question implies, this
requires working in strong partnerships with universities.
Including nanotechnology as part of a federal-wide K-
12 and postsecondary STEM education strategy that includes
rigorous curriculum development, dissemination and evaluation.
Working with the National Science Foundation and the
Department of Education to develop innovative nanotechnology
education approaches to disseminate this curriculum widely
across the United States, for local schools systems to consider
using in their classrooms.
Conducting public outreach and education activities
that generate excitement about science and technology, from the
exciting advances in S&T that are currently being enabled by
nanoscale science and technology to advances in S&T in general,
thus encouraging students to take up careers in science and
technology. NSF will support ``Nanoscale Informal Science
Education'' and ``Nanotechnology in Society'' networks to reach
public and professional communities in the U.S.
Working with the NSF, Department of Education, and
Department of Labor to create new approaches and disseminate
information about career opportunities specifically in
nanotechnology research and manufacturing, to attract students
to pursue these opportunities.
Working with NSF and other agencies to support the
National Nanomanufacturing Network for nanomanufacturing
research and education; developing new nanoscale materials and
processes, and nanoinformatics.
Expediting the issuance of visas to foreign students
and guest workers with specialized experience in
nanotechnology. (Industry representatives have cited this as
among their biggest issues in maintaining successful
nanotechnology R&D and manufacturing operations in the United
States.)
Establishing clear guidelines for safe handling of
nanomaterials by both research and manufacturing workers. The
United States is a leader in this respect currently, especially
with the groundbreaking work of NIOSH in publishing voluntary
guidelines. It is vital that the United States continue to lead
in this area, as it does in many other areas of industrial
hygiene.
I thank this Committee for its strong leadership, commitment, and
support of Federal investments in nanoscale science and engineering.
And I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Teague.
Our next witness is Dr. Jeffrey Welser.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY WELSER, DIRECTOR, NANOELECTRONICS RESEARCH
INITIATIVE, SEMICONDUCTOR RESEARCH CORPORATION AND
SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY ALLIANCE
Dr. Welser. Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me today
and for your continued commitment to advancing science and
technology, especially as we struggle with difficult fiscal
challenges.
Semiconductor chips are in everything from computers and
smart phones to medical devices and LED lights. They are making
the world around us smarter and more efficient. They are also
economically vital to the Nation. In 2010, U.S. semiconductor
companies generated over $140 billion in sales, representing
nearly half the worldwide market and making semiconductors the
Nation's largest export industry.
Our industry directly employs over 180,000 workers in the
U.S. and another six million American jobs are made possibly
semiconductors. Studies show that semiconductors and the
information technologies they enable represent three percent of
the economy but drive 25 percent of the economic growth.
Remarkable success in the semiconductor industry is due to
continuously technological advances built upon robust research
and development. U.S. semiconductor companies invest on average
17 percent of revenues in product-related research and
development, among the highest of any industry.
Just as critical, however, is long-term fundamental science
research, which is largely performed at universities funded by
the Federal Government. The university research supplies the
knowledge from which all companies benefit and which no one
company can afford alone. Publicly-funded long-term research
and privately-funded product-related research are different,
yet complimentary.
We are now in the cusp of an exciting new era enabled by
nanotechnology. NNI has played a key role over the past decade
in accelerating progress in many scientific disciplines. In the
coming decade the NNI should be called upon and authorized to
maintain U.S. leadership by continuing the broad discovery work
while coordinating federal efforts in areas of promise both for
scientific breakthroughs and large economic impact. One of
these areas, nanoelectronics, is key to the future of the
semiconductor industry.
We are quickly approaching the fundamental limits of
current semiconductor technology. We need to find entirely new
devices to continue advancing technology, and this will require
new discoveries in the fundamental science that NNI supports.
Hence, maintaining funding in nanoelectronics research has
never been more important for the economy, for high-paying
jobs, and for the Nation's ability to innovate and compete
globally. The nation that is first to discover and develop the
necessary nanotechnologies, that is the next switch, will lead
the nanoelectronics era just as the U.S. has led the
microelectronics era for the past 50 years. Countries around
the world recognize this and are investing accordingly.
Continued U.S. leadership is far from assured.
To attack this challenge the SIA and SRC form the
Nanotechnology Research Initiative (NRI), a public-private
program that funds research at universities in partnership with
federal and state agencies. NRI supports goal-oriented,
fundamental research across many scientific fields and strives
to harvest the results quickly. Two federal agencies, NIST and
NSF, are key partners in NRI. Robust budgets of these agencies
and other research agencies that support nanoelectronics are
critical.
Beyond the research breakthroughs, funding university
scientific research educates our technology workforce. A
pipeline of science and engineering graduates is critical to
keeping and growing the businesses that will rebuild the
economy. Indeed, several states are supporting NRI as
nanoelectronics offers an opportunity to grow a new industry
around their university base.
I have a few recommendations for strengthening the NNI and
ensuring U.S. leadership in nanoelectronics. First, Congress
should reauthorize the NNI and in particular support the
Signature Initiative on Nanoelectronics for 2020 and beyond.
Congress should adequately fund the participating agencies and
ensure they prioritize nanotechnology research when facing
difficult budget choices.
Second, NNI agencies should coordinate and leverage
investments of industry consortia and states to get the most
out of every dollar spent.
Third, in other areas of nanotechnology research topics
with broad, long-term economic potential should have priority.
We also encourage NNI agencies to form additional public-
private initiatives like the NRI.
I want to close with this point. NNI funding of
nanoelectronic research produces the new ideas, as well as the
talented scientists and engineers critical for driving
America's innovation economy and for solving society's biggest
challenge in medicine, security, and energy. The
nanoelectronics industry will be in the U.S. only if we choose
to support the research necessary to discover these new
technologies first.
Success will only come from the combination of the best
science from the universities, the mission focus of the
industrial and government labs, and consistent funding from the
government for the fundamental science and from industry for
translating these breakthroughs into new products.
In the five minutes I have been talking to you the
semiconductor industry made over 600 trillion transistors.
Silicon Valley grew from innovation built on federal research.
What companies will populate the new Nanoelectronics Valley?
The question is not whether this place will exist but where it
will be.
I thank you and look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Welser follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Jeffrey Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics
Research Initiative
Introduction
My name is Jeffrey Welser and today I'm testifying on behalf of the
Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI), Semiconductor Research
Corporation (SRC), and Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). I'd
like to thank Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, and other
members of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education for
inviting me to testify before you. Thank you for your commitment to
science and technology and nanotechnology advancement. Your Committee's
role in providing a vision that ensures the technological leadership
needed to drive economic growth to build America's future has never
been more important than it is today, when we are faced with an
unprecedented fiscal challenge which will require difficult decisions
in every area of Federal spending.
Your Committee fostered the ecosystem that enabled innovation-
driven economic growth and high tech job creation in the past. By
insuring we are spending limited Federal resources wisely to maintain
that ecosystem, you will also enable entire new industries for the 21st
Century. The subject of today's hearing, nanotechnology research, is a
foundation for those future industries.
In a time of limited resources, it is crucial to insure adequate
support for those areas of research that have proven to be drivers of
the economy and job growth broadly and long-term. I come here today
representing major organizations in the area that has arguably been the
most important driver of the U.S. economy over the past half-century,
built on America's world-leading research and university capability:
semiconductor electronics--or as they are commonly referred to, chips.
The Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI), which I direct, is a
consortium that supports university research in novel computing devices
with the goal of enabling technology advances that will carry the
semiconductor industry beyond the approaching limits of the current
silicon-based technology. NRI leverages industry, university, and
government funds (local, State, and Federal) to support research at
U.S. universities, driven by industry needs, to ensure that the United
States will be the world leader in the nanoelectronics revolution,
reaping the economic and security benefits that leadership provides.
Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) is the premier industry
consortium that invests in university research to solve the technical
challenges facing the semiconductor industry and to develop technical
talent for its member companies. SRC and its subsidiaries manage
several semiconductor research programs, including NRI. Since its
founding nearly three decades ago, SRC has managed in excess of $1.2
billion in research funds, supporting nearly 9,000 students and 2,000
faculty at 257 universities, resulting in more than 50,000 technical
documents and 373 patents. In 2007, SRC was awarded the National Medal
of Technology with a citation recognizing the unique value of this
organization: ``For building the world's largest and most successful
university research force to support the rapid growth and 10,000-fold
advances of the semiconductor industry; for proving the concept of
collaborative research as the first high-tech research consortium; and
for creating the concept and methodology that evolved into the
International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors.''
The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) is the voice of the
U.S. semiconductor industry, America's largest export industry over the
last five years and a bellwether of the U.S. economy. Semiconductor
innovations form the foundation for America's $1.1 trillion dollar
technology industry affecting a U.S. workforce of nearly 6 million.
Founded in 1977 by five microelectronics pioneers, SIA unites more than
60 companies that account for 80 percent of the Nation's semiconductor
production. SIA seeks to strengthen U.S. leadership in semiconductor
design and manufacture by working with Congress, the Administration and
other industry groups. SIA works to encourage policies and regulations
that fuel innovation, propel business and drive international
competition in order to maintain a thriving semiconductor industry in
the United States.
Executive Overview
The U.S. technology-based economy in general, and the semiconductor
industry in particular, relies heavily on the pipeline of new
scientific ideas, breakthroughs, and highly-trained students that can
only come from the broad research enabled by consistent Federal funding
of the U.S. university system. Within that spectrum of research, the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has played a key role in
accelerating progress at the leading edge of nanoscale science and
engineering-an area that is critical to the future of the semiconductor
industry. As you consider the NNI and its future, the main points that
I want to leave you with are as follows.
1. Nanoelectronics is a priority for the economy, for high
paying jobs, and for the nation's ability to innovate and
compete in the future. As Congress works to reduce the Federal
deficit, it must give priority to those expenditures that
create the long term economic growth and jobs that will expand
our tax base and raise our standard of living.
2. Strong university research correlates geographically with
leading edge technology development and flourishing technology
businesses. If the United States is to lead in nanoelectronics,
it needs a robust university research effort in
nanoelectronics. Government and private sector funded
university research should be done in a coordinated or, better
yet, collaborative manner.
3. The electronics industry is facing a challenge similar to
the 1940s, when vacuum tubes were replaced by semiconductor
chips. The nation that is first to discover and develop the key
nanotechnologies-i.e., the next logic ``switch''-will lead the
nanoelectronics era, much like the United States has led the
microelectronics era for the past half century. This fact is
recognized by countries around the world and U.S. leadership is
far from guaranteed.
4. NRI is an industry-driven consortium that funds a
coordinated program of university research in partnership with
Federal and State government agencies. Thanks in large part to
NRI, the United States is the current leader in nanoelectronics
at this early stage. But the challenges are great and the
global competition is growing.
5. Funding university scientific research educates our
technology workforce. A pipeline of science and engineering
graduates is critical to growing and keeping the very
businesses that will help to rebuild the economy. Funding for
the NNI and other scientific research ensures the pipeline is
adequately filled. NRI-funded students also have meaningful
interactions with industry mentors, which enhance their
education, expose them to career opportunities, and allow them
to contribute productively once they graduate.
Recommendations for strengthening the NNI and ensuring the United
States' leadership in nanoelectronics:
1. The Federal government should continue its support for the
National Nanotechnology Initiative, especially in the
``Signature Initiative'' on long-term nanoelectronics research.
2. Congress should reauthorize the NNI and the participating
agencies, to make clear its desire to see nanotechnology
research remain a priority by the agencies that fund science
and engineering research today.
3. The NNI agencies that are part of the nanoelectronics
Signature Initiative should leverage each other's investments
and those of NRI, to get the most out of every dollar spent.
4. The participating agencies should develop interdisciplinary
nanotechnology initiatives that are supported by multiple NNI
agencies and that support significant national priorities (as
outlined in the NNI Supplement to the President's Budget for
2012, the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan and as called for by PCAST in
its 2010 assessment of the NNI).
5. In choosing research priorities, NNI agencies and the
interagency coordinating bodies should give strong
consideration to the potential long-term economic impact of the
research area, with key positive indicators being:
(a) Support of a broad research agenda that will create
enabling breakthroughs for a large market segment, rather than
choosing to focus on just one or two specific technologies
(b) SEarly engagement of industry to facilitate rapid
transfer of knowledge and ideas from university scientific
research into the hands of those who can use them in commercial
applications.
Federal investment in Nanoelectronics research is priority for
continued U.S. economic growth
Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter on the
scale of atoms and molecules. Nanotechnology is making it possible to
build machines on the scale of human cells and create materials and
structures from the bottom up, building in desired properties.
Nanotechnology and research supported by the NNI is impacting many
industries, but I would like to highlight the enormous impact the
investment in nanoelectronics in particular could have on the future of
the semiconductor industry and the potential scale of that impact on
the U.S. economy.
Semiconductor industry of today
From its beginnings in the 1940s, the semiconductor industry has
grown to become the largest U.S. exporter over the last five years (see
Appendix 1a). In 1980, worldwide semiconductor revenues were under $20
billion. This year that figure will exceed $300 billion. American
semiconductor companies alone generated $144 billion in sales--
representing nearly half the worldwide market in 2010. In the United
States, there are 182,200 jobs directly associated with the domestic
semiconductor industry and the average annual salary is $99,622.
The remarkable growth in semiconductor jobs and revenues through
the years has been made possible by continuous technological advances
based on the semiconductor transistor; it is the ``switch'' that
creates the ones and zeros in our digital world and is the fundamental
building block in electronics. Transistors are in the ``chips'' that
permeate modern life, enabling computers, smart phones, the internet,
national defense applications such as night vision goggles and unmanned
aircraft, video entertainment, automobile systems such as antilock
brakes and traction control, medical imaging devices, factory robotics,
and countless other uses (see Appendix 2b). Advances over the last 60
years have led to smaller and smaller transistors, which in turn have
enabled dramatic increases in performance and function, and decreases
in cost. The increase in the number of transistors per computer chip
(or decrease in the size of an individual transistor) by a factor of
two approximately every 18 months is known as ``Moore's Law''.
The ability to make chips smaller, better, and cheaper has had
enormous economic impact beyond the semiconductor industry itself. For
example, semiconductors enable 6 million jobs in the U.S. including
software engineers, network administrators, home entertainment system
installers, medical imaging technicians, ATM service personnel, and
desktop publishers. This figure does not include all of the jobs that
are made more productive by IT-pharmacists who check drug interactions,
real estate agents who use computer listings and virtual tours, and on-
line retailers, to name just a few. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson
has noted, ``The economics of Information Technology (IT) begin with
the precipitous and continuing fall in semiconductor prices.''
Professor Jorgenson attributed the rapid adoption of IT in the United
States to driving substantial economic growth in the nation's gross
domestic product since 1995, concluding, ``*from 1995-2005],
Information Technology industries have accounted for 25 percent of
overall economic growth, while making up only three percent of the GDP
(see Appendix 3b). As a group, these [IT] industries contribute more to
economy-wide productivity growth than all other industries combined.''
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dale W. Jorgenson. ``Moore's Law and the Emergence of the New
Economy'' in ``2020 is Closer than You Think''; 2005 SIA annual report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phenomenal advances in semiconductor technology and the ability
of the U.S. industry to remain the world leader flows from the unique
U.S. ``innovation ecosystem'', comprising university, industry, and
government scientists and engineers performing a range of complementary
research and development activities. On the industry side, U.S.
semiconductor companies invest an average of 17% of revenues in
product-related R&D, which totaled about $25 billion in 2010. This is
one of the highest percentages for any industry. Coupled with capital
expenditures of 11% of sales, our industry invests nearly 30% of its
revenues to drive future growth. Even in the midst of decreasing
revenues in the recession, SIA member companies sustained their R&D
investments.
Whereas industry carries out primarily near-term research and
development, the long-term fundamental science research that underpins
new technologies is largely performed at universities that are funded
principally by the Federal government. University or ``basic'' research
adds to the body of knowledge from which all companies benefit and
which no one company can afford alone. In addition, university research
is the means by which scientists and engineers are educated and trained
for careers in technology. University research and education are
inextricably linked; one would not exist without the other.
The Federal government also funds scientific research to meet its
own needs, for example in the area of national security, often paying a
premium to be the first customer. But in multiple instances, such
investments have led to whole new industries. As noted by the
President's Information Technology Advisory Council, ``Since World War
II, the Federal government has funded advanced information technology
research to meet its own requirements, which have ranged from critical
national-defense applications to weather forecasting and medical
sciences. Federal funding has seeded high-risk research and yielded an
impressive list of billion-dollar industries (the Internet, high
performance computers, RAID disks, multiprocessors, local area
networks, graphic displays, etc.).'' \2\ The Federal government played
a similar role in the area of semiconductors, funding the development
of early integrated circuits for missile and other space applications
where the weight of the current electronic technology was prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future,
President's Information Technology Advisory Committee Report to the
President, February 24, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique among all industries, the semiconductor industry has taken
steps to connect its internal science and engineering research to the
academic sector by forming and funding the Semiconductor Research
Corporation (SRC). Through SRC, the industry supports university
research that is pre-competitive; totaling $240 million from 2005 to
2010. SRC includes several research initiatives that address different
aspects of the industry's long term research needs. SRC brings together
industry and academic experts thereby insuring feedback during the
course of the research and technology transfer. In the process, SRC
supports 1500 students annually.
Nanoelectronics industry of tomorrow
The semiconductor industry by any measure has been hugely
successful. But today's transistor technology is approaching
fundamental physical limits that will prevent further improvements; and
technological and economic advancement that has been fueled by Moore's
Law for the last fifty years could slow to a trickle. You might ask,
``Why do we need even more capable technology?'' Imagine a future in
which a child with diabetes no longer has to prick her finger to check
her glucose or get insulin shots thanks to an implanted artificial
pancreas; when smart tools and sensors enable a highly efficient
electric grid that saves billions of dollars in wasted energy costs and
avoids the need for new power plants based on non-renewable energy; or
powerful systems to design and manufacture new materials for radically
lighter, yet safer, cars and planes. Each of these is a grand challenge
for science and engineering, but underlying them all are
nanoelectronics-the devices that will make our future world smart and
efficient, and without which many solutions will remain out of reach.
In addition to commercial applications, there are countless
benefits to U.S. national security. ``Taking nanotechnology seriously
could single-handedly change the future for the better,'' wrote Dr.
James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation in a recent op-ed.
``Washington can build a military with cutting-edge capabilities at
affordable cost, while laying the groundwork for a U.S. nanotechnology
industry.''
Many of today's IT products and infrastructure were enabled by
early-stage research at the Department of Defense (DoD) decades ago.
``Today's iPads and iPods are descendents of the chips created for the
Minuteman,'' concludes Carafano.3 3 James Jay Carafano: U.S. must gird
for war in very small places. Washington Examiner. December 12, 2010.
In fact, we are in a race to find a replacement technology for the
transistor-to address technological needs and challenges, and to do so
first. U.S. researchers made the discoveries that led to the
microelectronics industry, thanks to early support for research and
development by the Federal government. The United States continues to
dominate the development of new technology, due in large part to
continued Federal support for scientific research. But today, many
other countries have made it a goal to attract and build semiconductor
businesses. When faced with generous financial incentives to locate not
only manufacturing but also research facilities overseas, one factor
that is in favor of locating operations in the United States is access
to the best university faculty and student researchers.
Cutting funding for agencies that participate in the NNI
neutralizes one of the main reasons why companies that will rely on
nanotechnology advances stay in the United States. It cuts funding for
current students and discourages future ones. And it threatens American
leadership in an industry that seemingly every nation is doing its best
to see take root within their own borders.
Nanoelectronics will create future jobs, contribute to budget deficit
reduction
As Congress works to create high-paying jobs and reduce the Federal
budget deficit it must give priority to expenditures such as
nanoelectronics research that create long term economic growth and
greater productivity. As mentioned above, today's semiconductor
technology enables 6 million U.S. jobs directly and many more
indirectly. Semiconductor technology has made computing and
communications faster and less expensive, and nanoelectronics will
continue these trends. Leadership in nanoelectronics research will
allow U.S. companies to be first to market, creating entirely new
industries and categories of jobs throughout the manufacturing and
service economy. If the past is an indication of the future,
nanoelectronics will contribute significantly to GDP, thereby expanding
the tax base and helping to reduce Federal deficits.
While it may be tempting to cut Federal nanotechnology research
budgets as part of an overall reduction in the Federal deficit, such
across-the-board, arbitrary reductions would be shortsighted. Continued
support for nanoelectronics research should instead be seen as an
important element in any long-term Congressional Federal budget deficit
reduction strategy.
NRI is leading the way in collaborative research in nanoelectronics
The Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) is a consortium
within the SRC that leverages contributions from industry,
universities, and governments (local, State and Federal) to fund
collaborative research at thirty-five U.S. universities (see Appendix
4d). NRI is focused on the key challenge for continuing the progress in
semiconductor electronics which has fueled the world economy for the
past 50 years: finding the next ``switch'' and thereby keeping the
United States at the forefront of the nanoelectronics revolution.
NRI funds multi-disciplinary research in physics, chemistry,
materials science, and engineering that addresses fundamental problems
standing in the way of progress toward ``real world'' applications. The
consortium is open to any U.S.-based company and potentially useful
technologies that emerge are efficiently shared with all team members.
NRI not only funds the university research, it coordinates among the
universities and between industry and academia, avoiding duplication
and encouraging collaboration.
NRI research is extremely early stage, and like most scientific
research, it is unlikely to become part of a commercial product for ten
years or more. Such long-term, high-risk research is typically funded
by the Federal government. Yet NRI industry members (GLOBALFOUNDRIES,
IBM, Intel, Texas Instruments, and Micron Technology) contribute
millions of dollars each year because of the importance of the research
to their long-term future. They also dedicate company researchers to
work alongside the university researchers, helping to accelerate
progress even at the beginning stages of the research and to insure
strong technology transfer paths are in place for the future.
NRI is partnering with the Federal government
In addition to having members from industry, NRI partners with
Federal agencies whose missions align with NRI's. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which has a mission to
promote U.S. innovation and industrial advancements, co-funds the
university research and contributes in-house resources (staff and
facilities). The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary
funding agency of physical science and engineering university research
and funds a number of Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers related
to nanoelectronics. NRI provides additional support and engages Center
researchers in annual reviews and web-based workshops and seminars. In
2011, NSF and NRI will jointly fund about 10 nanoelectronics research
teams that meet the selection criteria of both organizations. All of
these partnerships have been enabled by the strong support and focus
the NNI has brought on to nanoelectronics.
The NRI partnerships with NIST and NSF make sense. Without Federal
funding for scientific research, there would be devastating
consequences for the NRI mission. And bringing together industry,
university, and government scientists and engineers benefits all
parties. University researchers are more aware of the diverse, longer-
term challenges faced by industry. Industry stays abreast of academic
research and develops relationships with top-notch faculty. Government
scientists and program managers understand future industry needs and
can thereby enhance the value of their own research missions.
In addition to jointly funding research with NRI, the Federal
government has built and maintained the world's best university system
through the NNI and its broader research initiatives. American research
universities produce graduates with advanced degrees who lead the world
in innovation-creating new products, new businesses, and even new
industries. NRI's modest and targeted investments are effective-and in
fact are only possible-because of the ongoing Federal support for
university research broadly. Sustained Federal support for science and
engineering research is absolutely vital if government-university-
industry initiatives like NRI are to succeed.
Technology transfer is built into NRI
A benefit of NRI is the seamless transition of research results
from the university researchers to NRI member companies. Because
industry has ``skin in the game'', industry representatives are more
engaged-providing feedback during the course of the research and taking
results back to others in the company. In addition, as students
graduate and are hired, they bring with them detailed understanding of
the research. This approach has worked well. NRI is hopeful that
agencies that support nanoelectronics research in addition to NIST and
NSF will also elect to join.
Supporting research supports education and workforce development
In fact, NRI has two primary outputs, both of which are valuable to
member companies and to the greater science and technology enterprise.
One output is the research results, which researchers are allowed to
make public and disseminate broadly. The other is the students who
perform the research as part of their studies and who are highly sought
after as employees upon graduation. Graduates are well prepared and are
able to contribute to nanoelectronics research and development once
hired.
NRI-funded students are not obligated to take a position with a
member company, although many do. NRI graduates also take positions as
university or government researchers, or in other parts of the private
sector. Through its publications, presentations, and graduates, NRI is
benefiting a much larger segment of the U.S. economy than just its
members.
NRI and NNI leading edge science and engineering research produces new
ideas and people that are critical to American innovation in the
critical area of nanoelectronics.
SRC and SIA applaud the NNI Signature Initiative on ``Nanoelectronics
for 2020 and Beyond''
NNI has taken steps to focus some of its investments in areas of
potentially high impact. The 2011 NNI Strategic Plan includes a goal
to, ``develop at least five broad interdisciplinary nanotechnology
initiatives that are each supported by three or more NNI member
agencies and support significant national priorities.'' In addition,
NNI identified nanoelectronics as one of its Signature Initiatives in
the 2011 and 2012 budget requests.
We are pleased that the NNI agencies recognize that the field of
nanoelectronics has the potential for significant economic
contributions. As the leading nanoelectronics research entity, we look
forward to working with other ``target agencies'', in addition to NSF
and NIST, to coordinate and collaborate on research that will provide
the greatest value and lead to the greatest progress.
Finally, we appreciate the recommendation by the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in its 2010
assessment of the NNI that the, ``Federal Government should launch at
least five government-industry-university partnerships, using the
Nanoelectronics Research Initiative as a model.'' We trust that this is
also a recommendation for continued participation in NRI.
Other factors influencing the U.S. semiconductor industry's ability to
compete internationally
While providing Federal funding for pre-competitive nanoelectronics
research will enable the industry to compete tomorrow, there are a
number of additional immediate challenges to maintaining U.S.
leadership in semiconductors today. The industry depends on a highly
skilled workforce and therefore improvements to the STEM education
system are necessary in the long-term. In the short-term, we must
reform our immigration system to allow bright foreign nationals that
graduate from U.S. universities in STEM fields to stay here after they
graduate. These innovators create jobs for Americans as they develop
small businesses or create entire new product lines. Tax and regulatory
policies are equally important factors that businesses consider when
deciding to expand operations and add jobs.
Throughout the world, governments have identified the semiconductor
industry as a strategic industry because of its implications on
economic growth, societal welfare, and national security (see Appendix
5e). These same governments have implemented policies and structured
investment incentives with the aim of significantly growing
semiconductor manufacturing and R&D in their countries.
Conclusion
Our nation faces a challenge that can be compared with the
transitions that occurred from vacuum tubes to the transistor and on to
integrated circuits and to large scale semiconductor systems. The
United States led the semiconductor industry through these challenging
transitions. We led because of our public and private research
strengths and our formidable university research infrastructure. It
required substantial investment of Federal funds to create the first
semiconductor diode, initially for military use. Those investments
launched the entire IT industry, which has driven the economy ever
since. We led because entrepreneurs incorporated this research into
products that created new industry segments. And the Federal government
played a critical role all along the way.
Today, the U.S. semiconductor industry has nearly fifty percent of
the $298 billion worldwide market share. Sustained research funding,
along with sensible tax, trade, workforce, education, and regulatory
policies are all factors that influence the semiconductor industry's
ability to compete internationally.
In a globalized economy, research must begin far in advance of the
technological transitions we will encounter. Luckily, we know the broad
outline of some of these challenges, and by funding research in
nanoelectronics, Congress will lay the bedrock for new U.S. jobs and
industries of the future, much like those that were enabled by the
transistor age. We are creating something wholly new with untold
potential, and this research is taking place here in this country
through the NRI and other SRC programs, our public-private
partnerships, and nanoelectronics focused programs at NSF, NIST, DoD
and the Department of Energy.
Future nanoelectronics-enabled products will be designed and
manufactured in the United States if we choose to be the region that
discovers and markets these new technologies first. The latter is
largely dependent upon making strategic choices today and acknowledging
that nanoelectronics infrastructure and scientific research provide our
nation the best return on its tactical and strategic economic
investments.
In the middle of the last century, Silicon Valley grew from
innovation built on Federal research. What are the names of the
companies that will dot the horizon of the new ``Nanoelectronics
Valley?'' The question is not whether this place will exist, but rather
where will it be.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Welser.
Next we have Dr. Seth Rudnick.
STATEMENT OF SETH RUDNICK, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES
Dr. Rudnick. Mr. Brooks, Mr. Lipinski, thank you very much
for allowing me the opportunity to address the committee and
talk about nanotechnology and as you can guess as a physician I
am going to direct most of my discussion to medicine.
You have heard that substantial funds have been addressed
to many different agencies which have, in turn, affected many
different companies and products around the United States and
the world. It is a huge and growing part of our economy, and I
am going to talk about that little red corner that is medicine.
In nanotechnology medicine has transformational impact, and
by that I mean the ability to change the way we address
disease, the way we treat disease, the way we diagnose it, and
the way we prevent it. Therapeutics that ran from targeted
delivery of drugs, to cancer, to avoiding particular toxicities
of drugs by changing the way they traffic through the body, all
of that has been already proven by new nanotechnology drugs,
some of which are actually on the market today. Ultimately our
goal is always to increase safety in efficacy, and
nanotechnology is a lever, a very important lever in doing
that.
There are other areas, including the prevention of disease,
that I think are equally well addressed, vaccines being a
primary example of that. Nanoparticles are synthetic carriers.
They allow particular areas of the body to be inoculated with
antigens and adjuvants, potent ways of getting the body to
recognize a particular viral or bacterial disease and treat it.
This is a next generation of biotechnology. It is, again,
already in the clinic and, in fact, my company, Liquidia, has
had its first safe clinical trial completed late last year.
We believe that not only will we be able to be safer and
more effective, but the ease of manufacturing using
technologies that, in fact, derived from microelectronics are
an important part of driving the costs down such that vaccines
will be far more useful to the third world and not just the
first world.
You will hear more about diagnostics and imaging from one
of the other speakers, but the ability to rapidly detect new
disease, to multiplex, to look at large numbers of population
markers, and to identify the risk of disease early is something
that is critical to medicine and is being transformed by
nanotechnology.
The reason that nanotechnology has become so useful in
medicine is because the scale of nanotechnology is now
addressing biologically-relevant sizes. In the 1970s
nanotechnology, which is microelectronics at that point, was
addressing scale at the red blood cell size. Today we are
already down to the molecular size, and we have passed through
bacterial and viral sizes during this last two decades.
By being able to address and traffic those areas we now
understand mechanisms of disease that were heretofore
untouchable. But not only did we need to address these, we
needed to be able to manufacture something that could address
these at the proper scale, and that ability to take the etching
off a semiconductor plate, put it onto a film, and manufacture
at the scale that a newspaper press operates at or a photo film
press operates at, which is many thousands of feet per hour,
has led to Liquidia's manufacturing. And again, I was going to
use the hundreds of trillions analogy, but that one piece of
film that is in the lower right corner actually represents
hundreds of trillions of vaccine particles that can be used
that are treating disease.
I would like to tell you that we, in fact, now have the
ability to address almost every size and shape based on the
microelectronics etching of particles down to 30 nanometers, 40
nanometers, right at the edge of what microelectronics can
etch. This is a representation of a series of shapes that we
use in research, or in treatment, or in diagnostics. You can
see that many of these shapes actually incorporate multiple
colors, and those represent different drugs, different
adjuvants, or different antigens that are being administered
for a particular disease.
We can change the softness or hardness, the modulus or the
porosity. We can change how particles actually float into the
lung. You can see over in the right-hand side of that slide
particles that look just like pollen. All of this is enabled by
technology that has actually originated out of the NNI.
There is one regulatory agency that is quite used to
handling nanotechnology. You may be aware that the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs in this field, has
looked at diagnostics in this field, and has had an incredibly-
positive interaction with not only our company but many
companies in trying to move this technology forward, and as an
example, the recent clinical trial that we completed was done
in a year and a half from concept to first therapeutic
intervention. I think the FDA has shown its ability to handle
the technologic challenges of nanotechnology and done so in a
very positive fashion with industry.
I would like to thank all of the agencies out of NNI that
have contributed to the University of North Carolina. To answer
your question I am a heel, but we appreciate greatly the
opportunity to speak here today and to have--answer questions
as they arise.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rudnick follows:]
Prepared Statement by Seth Rudnick, M.D., Chairman, Board of Directors,
Lsiquidia Technologies
Key Points of Testimony
Commercialization of Nanotechnology
The investment in nanotechnology by the NNI and
private industry has confirmed that nano-enabled products are a
means to solving some of humanity's most vexing challenges and
a critical driver of future economic growth.
To translate this investment into viable products and
new industries, manufacturing R&D must go hand-in-hand with
scientific discovery to ensure that U.S. manufacturers can
quickly transform innovations into processes and products.
Due to the historic emphasis on funding and
commercialization of inorganic nanomaterials, there is an even
larger gap to commercialization for nanotechnology in life
science applications.
Nanomedicine technologies have tremendous potential
for transformational results--disruptive changes over and above
current methods and strategies for healthcare, with wide-
ranging implications on how we detect, prevent and treat
disease. To maintain the dominant position of the U.S. in
healthcare innovation and quality of life, we must close the
gap from proof-of-concept to commercial viability for
nanomedicine platforms.
Nanotechnologies must be brought to market
responsibly; meaningful nanoparticle standards to assess
physio-chemical properties of nanomaterials for environmental
and health implications are necessary for sustainable product
development.
Recommendations
Increase the support of nanomanufacturing
initiatives. We are in strong agreement with the PCAST
recommendation to increase the focus on nanomanufacturing to
accelerate technology transfer to the marketplace.
Ensure that nanomedicine platforms are included
within the Signature Initiatives of the NNI.
Support the development of reference materials, test
methods, and other standards that provide broad support for
industry production of safe nanotechnology-based products. We
strongly support the establishment of a ``particle foundry'' to
meet these needs.
Strengthen the NNCO to ensure the breadth of
investments and advancements in nanotechnology R&D are
translated into viable commercial products.
Liquidia's PRINTr nanotechnology platform
The proprietary PRINT nanofabrication technology was
pioneered at the University of North Carolina and is being
commercialized by Liquidia Technologies, a small venture-backed
company in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The PRINT technology offers unprecedented control of
particle size, shape and chemistry in a highly consistent and
scalable roll-to-roll manufacturing process.
Liquidia is currently focused on commercializing
applications in vaccines, inhaled therapeutics and oncology.
The company's first product was successfully introduced into
Phase 1 clinical trials in Q4 2010.
Written Statement
We are in strong agreement with the general recommendations by
PCAST focused on Program Management, Outcomes and EH&S. In particular,
strong leadership through the National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office (NNCO) is needed now more than ever to coordinate the broad
investments and outcomes and to ensure the investments in
nanotechnology innovation can be successfully transformed into
commercial products. Liquidia's current efforts towards commercial
implementation of our nanotechnology platform is the direct result of
the strong support that the NNI has received to date.
Let us summarize what we have been able to accomplish as a direct
result of our previous support from various agencies through the NNI as
well as provide some thoughts and refinements regarding specific
aspects of the PCAST recommendations.
Introduction to Liquidia's PRINT Nanotechnology Platform
Many innovations have emerged from the NNI to date, especially at
the interfaces between disciplines. Indeed our particular
nanofabrication innovation has been to co-opt the lithographic
manufacturing technologies from the microelectronics industry and apply
them to making new vaccines and medicines. This work was pioneered in
the Department of Chemistry at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill (UNC) and Liquidia Technologies, Inc., a start-up company
spun out of UNC (www.liquidia.com). The technology trademarked as PRINT
(Particle Replication in Non-wetting Templates) marries the slow, yet
highly precise batch based process used to make integrated circuits
with the volume production of the film and printing industry. This
creates a proprietary, US-based roll-to-roll manufacturing process
useful for making vaccines and therapeutics that are in nanoparticle
form. The PRINT manufacturing platform offers unprecedented control of
particle size, shape and chemistry in a highly consistent and scalable
roll-to-roll manufacturing process. The UNC team is funded by NIH, NCI,
NSF, DOE, DARPA and ONR and the Liquidia Team has been largely venture
financed (Canaan, NEA, and others) with a few significant grants
awarded from NIST ATP and TIP programs. Just recently, Liquidia
received the first ever equity investment by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation in a for-profit biotech company. Liquidia has a focus in
vaccines (influenza, malaria, cancer, etc), respiratory diseases (COPD,
PHT, CF, Asthma) and oncology, and successfully introduced its first
product into Phase 1 clinical trials in Q4 2010. As such, we believe
PRINT is the first nanotechnology platform that is now cGMP compliant.
Specifically for nanomedicine, the ability to manipulate size,
shape, chemistry and modulus of nanomaterials can have wide-ranging
impact on how we diagnose and treat disease. New abilities to tune
these features can provide researchers with a more thorough
understanding of ``how'' and ``why'' cellular and organ systems react,
allowing scientists to build highly efficient tools that can safely
operate inside the body. New technologies that have the power to
control size, shape, and other functionalities are currently being
developed and have shown remarkable promise, but significant investment
in scaling-up and producing engineered nano-structures in a cGMP
environment is necessary to bring innovations to commercial reality.
What the latest advances in the field brings is the precision necessary
to improve safety and to engineer new products with enhanced
capabilities. This is exactly what the regulatory agencies have asked
for: Increased reproducibility and precision, which is readily
accomplished via Liquidia's PRINT technology.
Recommendations and Refinements to the PCAST Report
With this perspective and background, we have the following
comments that we would like to make:
Unmet needs to advance the field of nanoscience and technology
Nanotechnologies must be brought to market
responsibly; meaningful nanoparticle standards to assess
physio-chemical properties of nanomaterials for environmental
and health implications are necessary for sustainable product
development.
There is a need for ``qualified'' nano- and micro-
materials with control in particle size, shape and chemical
composition and that are available at a scale useful for a
broad range of scientific studies. The need for such
``qualified'' materials is different than the need being
fulfilled by the nano-standards being developed by NIST which
are mainly useful for very high-end technology needs, like the
calibration of measurement instrumentation. Rather,
``qualified'' materials are materials that are almost of the
same quality as the standards being developed by NIST but meet
additional specifications to allow for utility across
differentiated industries, including larger quantities at lower
costs than that associated with NIST calibration standards.
Additionally, a set of well characterized materials
(environmental and health studies) that accurately represent
the types of nanomaterials that are incorporated into products
is needed to address many of the concerns voiced by the public.
While EH&S research has always been a focal point for the NNI,
we need to ensure that the nanomaterials used for this research
are the same classes of materials used for consumer products
and are tested in a relevant context.
Liquidia's PRINT technology is one example of a
breakthrough in particle manufacturing (40 nm in size and
greater) that allows complete control in particle size, shape
and chemical composition. The PRINT technology is particularly
useful for generating a host of organic nanomaterials, a unique
capability that is crucial for evaluating life science
applications. Because of the roll-to-roll nature of the PRINT
manufacturing process, one can allow researchers to have access
to materials in meaningful volumes useful for many real world
studies that NIST calibration standards are not suitable for.
For example, important studies are needed and could be
accomplished if ``qualified nano-standards'' were available
such as aerosol standards (for inhalation studies, particulate
distribution studies in cities and buildings, etc);
environmental standards (for ground water fate studies, etc)
and organic materials for in vivo biodistribution studies.
It is recommended that the NNCO consider the
establishment of a Nanoparticle Foundry much in the way that
the Department of Energy through Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory established the Molecular Foundry. The establishment
of the Nanoparticle Foundry would address a key bottle neck for
the generation of ideas and would play an important role in
establishing our Nation's preeminence in nanomanufacturing
which is crucial to establishing and growing jobs in the U.S.
Unmet needs for commercialization of nanoscience and technology
Nanomanufacturing is the means through which the
Nation will realize the benefits of nanotechnology. A major
opportunity exists to leverage the past ten years of NNI
research platforms and establish programs to translate this
knowledge into viable products through the advancement of
nanotechnologies. Nanomanu-facturing R&D must go hand-in-hand
with scientific discovery to ensure that U.S. manufacturers can
quickly transform innovations into processes and products and
that the investments made to date can be realized in the form
of revenue and job creation
Currently, private investment in nanotechnology is
hesitant, weighing the risks of this relatively new field where
considerable investment has already taken place in academia,
which has yet to fully validate and deliver cost-effective and
commercially viable platforms. Government funding in
Nanomanufacturing is needed to realize the investments that
have already been made. Bridging the gap from proof-of-concept
to commercial viability will provide the risk mitigation needed
to encourage the private sector to support and further develop
nanomedicine platforms.
Nanomanufacturing developments need to strongly focus
on manufacturing issues unique for the applications in the life
sciences. Based on the current recommendations and NNI
strategic plan, the nano manufacturing foci are largely devoid
of materials and processes destined for use in life sciences.
Targeted, government-driven funding can make a
crucial difference in the scale, breadth, and time horizon of
industry-driven R&D for nanomanufacturing. In the US, the
largest funding opportunities that seed commercialization
activity are the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. These
programs are extremely limited in the terms of time and budget
needed to support innovation in technology infrastructure.
Transitioning a prototype process to a viable commercial scale
is an effort that requires capital expenditure and timelines
well beyond that of the SBIR and STTR programs, which in most
cases offer a $100K phase I effort for a 6-month to one year
effort. In addition, many nanotechnology based businesses are
venture backed, requiring significant capital for pre-clinical
or proof-of-concept studies prior to revenue. These companies
are often not eligible for SBIR and STTR programs due to
ownership requirements.
The regulatory pathways for nanomaterials should be
made explicit; the pathways should be scientifically based and
it should be made clear which of the current regulatory
pathways are already adequate for commercial approval. The
issue is particularly applicable to therapeutics by the FDA but
are inclusive of other agencies as tools become available
One of the more important non-nano specific issues
that need to be addressed to facilitate the development of such
industries of the future is the U.S. Patent Office. The USPTO
is bogged down, with timelines to patent issuance being longer
than ever in history. Such delays cause uncertainties and
uncertainties inhibit private and corporate investments in new
companies. This inefficiency is in stark contrast to recent
announcements in China and other foreign competitors who are
massively increasing the funding of their patent offices for
rapid turnaround and issuance.
In conclusion, nanotechnology has the undeniable potential to
create entirely new industries and products that will positively impact
our environment as well improve the quality of life and prevent
disease. But we cannot just innovate, we need to scale our inventions
to realize this potential, creating jobs and economic prosperity.
Perhaps no one has stated this more clearly than Andy Grove recently in
an op-ed in Bloomberg News:
Startups are a wonderful thing, but they cannot by themselves
increase tech employment. Equally important is what comes after that
mythical moment of creation in the garage, as technology goes from
prototype to mass production. This is the phase where companies scale
up. They work out design details, figure out how to make things
affordably, build factories, and hire people by the thousands. Scaling
is hard work but necessary to make innovation matter. Andy Grove, July
1, 2010
Thank you for considering our comments.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Rudnick. Better luck to
both of us next year.
Up next we have Dr. James Tour. Dr. Tour.
STATEMENT OF JAMES TOUR, PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, COMPUTER
SCIENCE AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND MATERIALS SCIENCE, RICE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Tour. Thank you. I have the good fortune of being able
to teach in the Departments of Chemistry, the Department of
Mechanical Engineering and Material Science, and also Computer
Science because nanotechnology bridges across all of those
areas. I have over 400 research publications and 50 patents on
diverse nanotechnology products, ranging from high performance
materials to ultra small electronic devices, targeted
chemotherapy delivery agents, and nanomachines.
Today I will underscore the threat of foreign competition,
the need for continued support to basic nanotechnology, and
continued support for transitions into nano-manufacturing to
ensure U.S. jobs and preeminent global competitiveness.
Nanotechnology is about the study of the very small, a
range between the molecular size and the cellular size. Some
examples from my own lab are on the slide. A light-powered
nano-car is in the lower left box. Thirty thousand of these
cars can fit on the diameter of a human hair. They are for
manufacturing in the future, 50 years from now, where we will
do bottom-up manufacturing.
For example, if we want to make the table, we go down, we
find a big tree, we cut it down, and we make a table. That is
not the way we will be manufacturing 50 years from now, but we
will be able to build bottom up, just like nature's enzymes do
it. Machines bringing in molecules for direct construction of
the table.
We need to work now to be the leaders in 2060, but
nanotechnology is also upon us today. The top middle box shows
an oil well blowout preventor that are eight times tougher than
the typical ones because they have carbon nanotubes in them. I
founded a company in Houston that now makes these toughened
rubber materials so that nano-manufacturing is with us today.
I am the son of immigrants who came to the U.S. right after
World War II. My parents instilled in their children a love for
this country. My father used to tell us that the U.S. was the
greatest country in the world, and I still believe he is
correct.
I say to tell you what is now at risk. With governing
bodies rightly seeking to trim budgets, there is consideration
of deep cuts in basic research for nanotechnology. Some are
unaware that nano-manufacturing is about to spawn entirely new
segments that will rise from the current 150,000 American jobs
to 800,000 jobs by 2015. The U.S. has benefited from the best
brains in the world coming to our shores for the past many
years. People's intellects are our best asset, and by God's
grace we have been the recipients of the world's top brains.
Those brains have caused us to win the nuclear race, the space
race, and the Cold War. U.S. higher education and research is
the apple of America's eye and the envy of the world.
Alarmingly, however, foreign competition is now on our
shores, successfully wooing the best and brightest away with
assurances of funding for basic research and support for
transitions to manufacturing. In the past 14 months I have been
invited to Singapore with a second trip planned this summer,
and I have had more than a dozen visits from Singaporean
representatives interested, including twice from the Economic
Development Board of Singapore, interested in building me a lab
in Singapore, funding my lab there, and having some of the new
nanotechnology companies founded there with their capital
backing and a much lower tax burden than offered in the U.S.
I have also been approached by Russian, Chinese, and
Japanese officials. Welcome to my world of global competition.
American researchers are industrious and self-driven. We
have been trained that way. If we cannot get our science
funding and transition into the--in the U.S., we will go
abroad, and top researchers will not wait for a decade for
recovery. The brain drain has already begun, and it will
continue at an alarming pace within the next 1 to three years
if access to research and development funds become sparse.
If American researchers start going abroad, the impact of
the brain drain would be devastating to near and long-term
economic development in the U.S. Federal funding for
nanotechnology beyond the discovery phase is also needed to
spawn the transitions from the laboratory to the manufacturing
stage. This can be done using a competitive grants process that
keeps the government from choosing its favorites and permits
competition through grants applications analogous to the
competitive SBIR and STTR Programs.
In closing, let me underscore we are not finished with
basic research and translational development in nanotechnology.
The programs must continue. Foreign competition is at our
doorsteps to capitalize upon and divert the country's lead in
nanotechnology that will underpin the manufacturing of this
century.
And I want to thank you for your service to this country,
and I would be honored to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tour follows:]
Prepared Statement by James M. Tour, Ph.D. Richard E. Smalley Institute
for Nanoscale Science and Technology Rice University
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski and Members of the
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education; I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on three aspects of
nanotechnology of great importance to the nation, Rice University and
myself. My name is James Tour. I am the T.T and W.F. Chao Professor of
Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science and Professor of Mechanical
Engineering and Materials Science in the Richard E. Smalley Institute
for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in Houston,
Texas. I have over 400 research publications and 50 patents on
nanotechnology topics ranging from high performance materials, ultra-
small electronic devices, targeted cancer delivery agents, and
nanomachines.
I come before you today to address three critical concerns:
1. Foreign competition,
2. Federal funding beyond the discovery phase, and
3. Paths to commercialization.
Overview of the Smalley Institute
Rice University is the location where C60, known as
Buckminsterfullerene, was discovered in 1985 by Richard Smalley, Robert
Curl and Harold Kroto and their team of students. That discovery, more
than any other single discovery, is credited with the genesis of
nanotechnology, and that single discovery led to three Nobel Prizes in
Chemistry. The Smalley Institute at Rice University is now one of the
premier research facilities in the world that supports and promotes
researchers who use nanotechnology to tackle civilization's grand
challenges--energy, water, environment, disease, education--by
providing experienced and knowledgeable leadership, a solid
administrative framework, world-class scientific infrastructure, and
productive community, industry, and government relations. Rice
University owns more licensed nanotechnology patents than any other
university in the world.
The Smalley Institute interacts with the private sector at several
levels. We interact with major corporations (such as Lockheed Martin
Co.) directly at a high level by forming centers (such as the Lockheed
Advanced Nanotechnology Center of Excellence at Rice, or LANCER) to
perform basic research in multiple projects which address significant
technical challenges faced by the corporate scientists and engineers.
LANCER, now in its fourth year, has funded six initial projects, at an
overall level of funding of about $1.5 million per year. The Rice/
Lockheed partnership has resulted in over 200 Lockheed engineers and
scientists being trained at Rice during week-long courses on
nanotechnology. The Smalley Institute is currently working on two or
three additional corporate relationships that have the potential to
reach the same funding and partnership level as LANCER.
The Advanced Energy Consortium (AEC) is a second example of
corporate funding that the Smalley Institute helps to foster,
independent of any government support. The Smalley Institute and the
University of Texas at Austin started the AEC, joining ten major oil
and gas companies together at a level of funding of $10 million per
year, starting in January 2008. Rice has benefited from AEC funding at
about $2 million year for direct research projects to explore the use
of nanotechnology down hole in characterizing oil and gas formations
and increasing production from those fields. In addition to the above
examples, the Smalley Institute assists in connecting individual
companies with individual Rice researchers to perform sponsored
research projects .These projects range from a few thousand to
$500,000, and cover a wide range of nanotechnology fields.
In the area of philanthropic funding, the Smalley Institute also
serves as the advocate for fund-raising from both individuals and
foundations to support Rice's infrastructure of research as well as
direct funding of research, especially in terms of undergraduate,
graduate student, and postdoctoral fellow funding, both immediate use
and endowed funds. We have raised funds to build buildings (Dell
Butcher Hall, the first dedicated nanotechnology building in the world
that was completed in 1997), help hire and endow talented new faculty
members, buy research equipment, support meetings and workshops and
seminars, and encourage nanotechnology education. We also provide
local, national and international outreach activities to advance
nanotechnology through lectures, short courses, and even classes in our
continuing studies department.
Key Nanotechnology Issues
As our country struggles to emerge from the recession, the most
important issue to the public is jobs. Nanotechnology is an enabling
technology that, if supported and developed adequately, will usher in
the next industrial revolution and create hundreds of thousands of new
jobs and make products that are more competitive globally. According to
a presentation by Clayton Teague, Director of the federal National
Nanotechnology Initiative, the nanotechnology industry currently
employees over 150,000 Americans and that number is expected to grow
significantly. It is estimated that there could be as many as 800,000
direct jobs in nanotechnology by 2015. That is less than four years
from today. These are highly skilled, highly paid jobs that result in
long-term sustainable economic development for the countries that
support them. As the Internet revolution propelled our economy in the
early 90s, nanotechnology can be the major driver of economic growth
over the next two decades. The U.S. needs to make important decisions
now to ensure that this growth occurs in the United States where it can
be of greatest benefit to U.S. citizens who provided the resources to
fund this technology.
When we talk about nanotechnology, we are not talking about
something in the future, but something that exists today.
Nanotechnology is used now in electronics, energy, medicine, cosmetics
and materials. At Rice University, we incorporate carbon nanomaterials
into high-strength composites that produce lighter and more conductive
materials that can be used as lightweight body armor for our troops or
in electrical wiring. We inject gold nanoparticles directly into the
bloodstream of patients to target and kill cancer cells. Carbon
nanoparticles are also being used to make printable radio frequency
tags that will displace barcodes and permit real-time inventory in
warehouses. Nanofilament-based silicon will also usher in the post-
flash electronic memories that will drive handheld communication and
entertainment devices used today. Graphene, single-atom-thick sheets of
carbon grown from table sugar and a nanotechnology application can be
used for touch-screen displays on, for example, cell phones. This would
allow the entire phone to be rolled up like a pencil to insert in your
pocket. These are not technologies expected in the future. These
technologies are being used today and U.S. workers, the same ones whose
taxes paid for the technology development, can manufacture and produce
these products if the U.S. government continues to support and fund
nanotechnology research and commercialization at an adequate level. My
personal life story testifies to the positive impact of federal funding
for education, research and commercialization of technology. I am the
child of immigrants who came to the U.S. seeking a better life and, as
we worked for it, we found it. My Ph.D. and laboratory research was
subsidized by federal research grants. While I am thankful for a
government that has created opportunity for me and many others to make
world-changing and life-saving discoveries, I am gratified that these
discoveries also create a demand for high quality education, produce
high-paying jobs, attract global talent, revolutionize manufacturing
and solve difficult problems. All of these benefits to the U.S. will be
lost if we fail to address the following three issues:
1. Foreign competition,
2. Federal funding beyond the discovery phase, and
3. Paths to commercialization.
Foreign Competition
Foreign governments compete for nanotechnology human talent,
research and manufacturing because these things are the key to global
competitiveness. The primary areas of competition are:
Basic research discoveries that lead to scientific
papers and then to Intellectual Property, such as patents,
Hiring and funding of nanotechnology researchers, and
Commercializing and investing in nanotechnology
enterprises.
The U.S. leadership role in each of these areas is threatened
because other countries are aggressively implementing national
strategies to acquire this technological advantage and then compete
against us.
The U.S. is currently the intellectual leader for nanotechnology--
representing close to 30 percent of all patents held and 23 percent of
all scientific papers published internationally. In addition, the U.S.
government is also the largest investor in nanotechnology, investing
close to $5.7 billion in 2008. However, other nations are beginning to
close the gap. According to the March 2010 P-CAST report, from 2003 to
2008, U.S. public and private investments in nanotechnology grew at 18
percent annually, while global investment grew at 27 percent annually.
In addition, U.S. government investments in nanotechnology R&D were
overtaken by European Union in 2005 and by Asia in 2008 (primarily
Japan, China and South Korea). In fact, the executive summary of the P-
CAST warns:
``..the United States stands to surrender its global lead in
nanotechnology if it does not address some pressing needs. Key among
those is a need to increase investments in product commercialization
and technology transfer to help ensure that new nanotech methods and
products make it to the marketplace, and the need to strengthen
[National Nanotechnology Initiative] commitments to explore in a more
orderly fashion environmental, health, and safety issues.''
Foreign interests will continue to invest in both the basic science
and application of nanotechnology. Now is not the time for the U.S. to
surrender its leadership position just as the results of our research
investments are moving to commercialization.
Federal Funding Beyond the Discovery Phase
In order to preserve our leadership role, we must support federal
nanotechnology funding beyond the discovery phase. Federal funding of
basic research must continue because many companies are no longer
conducting basic research. In order to continue this basic research, we
must pay students because we have to pay them-they do not line up
outside science and engineering departments as they do for medical and
law schools. This federal support for scientists and engineers has a
successful track record over the past 50 years as evidenced by the U.S.
superiority in the Cold War, agricultural advances, energy development
in the ultra deepwater and in shales and the space program to name just
a few achievements.
It is an exciting time for nanotechnology because we are now moving
from the initial discovery stage to corporate development labs,
nanomanufacturing and emerging markets. This is the stage in technology
development when the U.S. can begin to realize a return on our
nanotechnology investment if we continue to support and fund
nanotechnology research and commercialization at an adequate level. The
Federal Government has a specific role in two major areas of
nanotechnology: nano-manufacturing and the environment.
The key to a successful shift to commercialization of
nanotechnology is through nano-manufacturing. Nano-manufacturing takes
the basic science of nanotechnology and uses it in the production of
nanoscaled materials. If we do not adopt and deploy an aggressive
strategy to encourage the growth of nano-manufacturing immediately, we
will find ourselves losers to China, India, Russia, Singapore and other
places where government funds and supports the use nano-manufacturing
to create jobs and wealth. As the U.S. manufacturing sector continue to
shed jobs and as these jobs move abroad, nano-manufacturing is one
bright spot of opportunity where the U.S. has the potential to be a
world class global competitor.
In the past 18 months, I have been invited to Singapore once with a
second trip planned this summer (both business class flights). I have
had more than a dozen visits from Singaporean representatives,
including two visits from their Economic Development Board. The purpose
of these visits was to encourage me to do my work in Singapore. I have
been promised a lab and funding to do my work there. In addition, I
have been promised capital backing and a lower tax burden than the U.S.
if I launch new nanotechnology companies there. I have also been
approached by Russian, Chinese and Japanese representatives. In the
past two weeks alone, officers from both Toshiba and Mitsubishi have
been in my office. This is global competition and it is the realm in
which we nanotechnology researchers work. I do not say this to add a
threatening tone to this testimony. Rather, I share this information to
provide some context in which to view my recommendations. American
researchers are industrious and self-driven. If they cannot get our
science funded and transitioned here, they will go abroad. And top
researchers will not wait a decade for recovery. The brain-drain has
already begun, and it will continue at an enormous pace within the next
1-3 years if access to research and development funds are reduced.
Progress will continue, and it is my hope that the U.S. will be the
beneficiary of that progress. If American researchers start going
abroad, the impact of the brain-drain would be devastating to near and
long-term economic development in the US.
Environmental stewardship is also an area where the Federal
Government needs to play a role in the post-discovery phase of
nanotechnology development. Uniform and transparent environmental
regulations are critical to the future growth of this industry. The
government needs to encourage commercialization with sound science-
based environmental stewardship, without creating unnecessary
regulatory hurdles that are not supported by sound science. Nothing can
stifle economic growth faster than regulatory uncertainty. Universities
and companies need a framework to address this uncertainty. Without it,
, we will struggle through this next stage. The NNI helps to provide
this guidance across the 25 different agencies that touch
nanotechnology. As nano-manufacturing develops rapidly worldwide, there
is a need for a reasonable regulatory framework that protects human
health and the environment.
The Federal Government has been a crucial partner in the discovery
of nanotechnology. We must now use the nanotechnology tools funded by
U.S. citizens to provide U.S. jobs and make U.S. products more
competitive in the global market. This can be done through federal
support for the commercialization of nanotechnology through support to
universities and the private sector to move these technologies to the
market and to the consumer.
Paths to Commercialization
Federal funding for nanotechnology beyond the discovery phase is
needed to spawn the transitions from the laboratory to the
manufacturing stage. This can be done through Private-Public
partnerships where a competitive grants process keeps the government
from choosing its favorites, and permits competition through grants
applications analogous to the competitive Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
programs that merge universities with small companies for the
transition from research to development and manufacturing.
We only need to look at Texas for a few examples of some successful
efforts in business -government nanotechnology partnerships. One
company that I founded is NanoComposites Inc. NanoComposites make
tougher elastomeric materials using carbon nanotube composites for
items such as oil-well blowout preventors that are eight times tougher
than existing systems. The development was funded, in part, through the
Emerging Technologies Fund (ETF) of the State of Texas. That funding
saw the Company though a period of transitional research where the
application of the basic science to real systems was too risky to be
considered for private sponsorship. Now, a major oil service support
company has seen the efficacy of the process and invested heavily in
NanoComposites. This is an example of a Private-Public partnership.
Outside of the ETF, the State of Texas also helps fund cutting edge
research through the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute (CPRIT).
CPRIT began with $3 billion in bonds to fund groundbreaking cancer
research and prevention programs and services in Texas. CPRIT's goal is
to expedite innovation and commercialization in the area of cancer
research and to enhance access to evidence-based prevention programs
and services throughout the State. This is a model that is working
successfully in Texas and something the Federal Government should
review to build upon its success.
Federal and state competitive funding for nanotechnology research
has been wildly successful. We attract the best researchers in the
world to our universities and these researchers, their institutions,
and U.S. companies hold the largest number of nano patents in the
world. We are now equipped as a country to deploy these technologies to
make our businesses more competitive globally. However, continued
federal funding in the post discovery phase is necessary to capture the
value of what we have achieved thus far. If we reduce funding and
commitment to nanotechnology during this critical juncture, this
decision would be the equivalent of dropping out of a race voluntarily
when you are in first place.
The Way Forward
In order to achieve these goals, the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) should be reauthorized to help guide the industry
through transition. Currently, the NNI budget supports nanoscale
science, engineering, and technology research and development (R&D) at
15 agencies with 10 additional participating agencies. NNI helps to
align these agencies so that they can work in a coordinated way to move
this technology from discovery to commercialization. A new
reauthorization will allow the Federal Government, universities, and
the private sector to work to find creative ways to bring these
promising technologies to the market more quickly and economically. In
the absence of reauthorization, these agencies will be focused in
different directions and the industry will struggle to transition into
the next stage while other countries continue to close the existing
gap.
Conclusion
As Congress and the country wrestles with ways to encourage job
growth in a global economy, nanotechnology is moving from basic
discovery to commercialization. It is in this transition that we can
begin to realize significant economic development and job creation. Our
country is no longer the manufacturing leader in the world--we now
outsource most of our manufacturing jobs overseas -but this does not
have to be the case with nanotechnology. The U.S. is currently the
intellectual leader in this promising field of discovery, but if we
fail to make the investments needed today, then other countries will
and we will begin to see the outsourcing of nano-manufacturing jobs
overseas. Our government has made significant investments into this
promising technology and now is not the time to walk away or diminish
our financial commitment. I know that during these times of tight
budget priorities must be made with funding. We have the opportunity to
reclaim our manufacturing base that helped to build this great country.
There is too much at stake to do nothing and other countries are
already closing the gap. The issue before you is about economic
development and a commitment to ensure that the United States remains
the intellectual leader, driver and recipient of the economic benefits
of this growing technology I close with the three priorities I urge the
Subcommittee to address:
1. Foreign competition,
2. Federal funding beyond the discovery phase, and
3. Paths to Commercialization.
Thank you for your time. I would be honored to answer your
questions.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Dr. Tour.
We have received a notice of votes, and this is our game
plan. Mr. Moffitt, if you are comfortable that you can make
your remarks in five minutes, I have been informed that we have
got a series of two votes, and as soon as your remarks
conclude, we will go into a recess. We will vote, and then we
will resume the hearing 10 minutes after the beginning of the
last vote.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MOFFITT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NANOSPHERE, INC.
Mr. Moffitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am comfortable that
I can do that in five minutes or less. So thank you, Chairman
Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, and distinguished Members of
the committee.
I am here today to speak with you about your health. Your
health, the public health, and the health of our economy, all
underwritten by nanotechnology.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this
committee and to stress upon you the importance of NNI and how
crucial that has been to the success and the commercial success
of my company. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Nanosphere, Incorporated. I am also a member of the
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association on whose behalf I
testify as well. In full disclosure, I am a former science
teacher and a Duke Blue Devil.
Nanosphere is an 11-year-old company formed about the same
time as the origination of NNI. We are a company that
manufactures, develops, and markets an advanced molecular
diagnostics platform for testing both in human health or
infectious diseases, pharmacogenetics or personalized medicine,
if you will, and in the area of ultra-sensitive protein testing
for the earliest detection of advanced diseases such as
cardiovascular disease and cancer. We also manufacture a bio-
security system that detects the slightest trace of bio-
terrorist threat agents in water and is field deployable around
the globe, anywhere that it is needed, on a moment's notice.
It is the extraordinary properties of nano-particle
technology that enable us to achieve these breakthroughs in
human genetic testing, pharmacogenetics, and ultra-sensitive
protein testing. We created life-saving tests for tens of
dollars. It could be sold for tens of dollars as opposed to the
hundreds and thousands of dollars we hear today about genetic
tests. All of this is in the format of a system that can be
moved right to the patient's side, can be installed in the
average community hospital or any medical setting, and be used
when and where the physician needs results to these crucial
tests.
I want to spend a second and acquaint you with a couple of
these. One of these is a test that is based on an established
bio-marker. A bio-marker is the fingerprint of a disease. It is
the earliest telltale sign of heart disease. It has been used
to diagnose heart attacks in emergency rooms for 25 or 30
years. Through nanotechnology we have found two new uses for
this tried and true marker.
One is the earliest detection of early-onset cardiovascular
disease, and the other just discovered in the last 6 months is
the use of this same marker to be able to monitor the progress
of chronic heart failure patients and adjust their therapy more
appropriately, therefore, improving their health and also
reducing re-hospitalization, re-hospital admissions for them.
So all of these lifesaving technologies can be brought right to
the bedside in the hospital, if you will, by virtue of
nanotechnology.
We also has the ability to test for septic shock, the
bacteria and the organisms that cause sepsis, not in three days
as would take today, but in two hours, therefore, moving a
critical diagnosis farther much faster so that the appropriate
therapy can be started earlier. This also have implications for
exposure of antibiotics to the rest of the organisms in the
world and resistant strains that are continuing to be a problem
for public health.
I could go on and on with the things that we have done, but
let me tell you this would not exist if it had not been for
NNI. The efforts that have funded those agencies and the
coordination there have helped tremendously in funding our
company. The leverage in our company has been tremendous. Five
or $6 million in federal grant aid was put into Nanosphere,
which has augmented that with another $200 million plus in
private and public equity financing. A 40 to one leverage ratio
for the government dollar invested.
This has been a success story so far, and we believe it
will continue to be one. We would not have crossed that Valley
of Death, if you will, had it not been for the NNI and
government funding, which supports the transition of core
science into commercializable technologies.
This company has created jobs. We are small but growing. We
are 115 strong today, but in years to come we will be hundreds,
and we will be thousands in size, and these are high-tech jobs.
Eighty-five percent of our employees have college degrees or
advanced degrees. The average salary in our company is over
$85,000, and that is if you take the top level off.
So we are creating the kinds of jobs that underwrite the
economy in this country. Our greatest challenge is employees,
workers. I think we all are aware of the crisis we face in STEM
education, the crisis in this country, and we cannot underscore
that enough.
Let me by-- let me close, I know I am going over here, by
simply saying that we also realize and recognize that the
competition we get from foreign investments and nanotechnology,
they are closing the gap on us rapidly. We cannot stress that
enough.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moffitt follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Moffitt, President & Chief Executive
Officer, Nanosphere, Inc.
SUMMARY
The National Nanotechnology Initiative provides
crucial funding to revolutionary ideas and enables private
enterprise to find and invest in promising technologies and
companies.
These technologies can represent important
breakthroughs in crucial industries such as healthcare and
defense.
The market is efficient at funding and
commercializing viable technology into useful products, so long
as those technologies have sufficient funding to make it
through the ``valley of death.''
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is the primary
tool that Congress has available to make sure that promising
technologies like these make it through the ``valley of death''
and into the marketplace.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is also a
direct investment in high-paying, highly-skilled American jobs.
Companies like Nanosphere can bring their technology
to the marketplace relatively quickly--in our case, we went
from research laboratory to marketplace in only ten years.
The U.S. nanotechnology industry faces challenges in
the U.S. labor pool as well as other countries' aggressive
investments in nanotechnology, particularly healthbased
research.
Nanosphere is committed to the responsible
development of nanotechnology, particularly with regard to any
environmental, health and safety issues related to the
development of this new technology, and will leverage
nanotechnology research to solve potential challenges.
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Lipinski, and distinguished Members
of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify
before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee's Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, regarding how the National
Nanotechnology Initiative has been crucial to my company's success.
I am the President and CEO of Nanosphere, Inc., which is a member
of the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association, on whose behalf I am
also testifying. Nanosphere is an eleven yearold company based in
Northbrook, Illinois, that is revolutionizing the way diseases are
diagnosed and bio-security risks are discovered using nanotechnology.
Nanosphere develops, manufactures and markets an advanced molecular
diagnostics platform, the Verigene System, for ultra-sensitive protein,
human genetic and infectious disease detection. This easy-to-use and
cost-effective platform enables simple, low cost, highly sensitive
testing on a single platform available to any medical setting anywhere
in the world. Nanosphere has also developed mobile bio-security systems
that can detect biological agents--such as anthrax, plague and other
pathogens--in a local water supply. This system is field-deployable to
any potentially threatening hotspot or U.S. embassy anywhere in the
world.
Both of these systems rely on nanotechnology to make these
breakthroughs possible. For instance, one of the greatest benefits
nanotechnology has delivered to the market is speed to diagnose a
patient. Our technology, which enables tests to be performed right at
the site of patient care as requested by the patient's physician,
generates critical diagnostic information when and where it is
required. We have eliminated the high cost and complexity of genetic
tests for human inherited disease, pharmacogenetics (or personalized
medicine) and infectious diseases through the use of breakthroughs in
nanotechnology. Nanotechnology has enabled us to develop a molecular
diagnostics platform that operates in a very simple format that
eliminates the need for highly specialized labor. Moreover, the
underlying cost of the consumable test cartridge is very inexpensive,
which allows for pricing that is in line with any number of other
routine diagnostic tests. This means that a life-saving test can now
cost a patient tens of dollars as opposed to hundreds or even thousands
of dollars and these new, more sophisticated molecular diagnostic tests
can be easily integrated into mainstream medical care without
additional financial burden on our health care system.
Nanotechnology also allows for earlier detection of life-
threatening diseases. Harnessingnanotechnology, we have developed a
diagnostic procedure that provides advanced detection for human protein
biomarkers--or the ``fingerprints'' of disease--that is simply not
possible using other technologies. For example, we have in development
a test for cardiovascular disease which has already proven to be far
more sensitive in detecting heart attacks and acute coronary syndromes
than traditional technology. Recent data also suggest that this assay
has great value in monitoring patients with chronic heart failure,
allowing doctors to more accurately adjust a patient's therapy for this
life threatening condition. Nanosphere has also developed the ability
to detect recurrent prostate cancer following treatment years earlier
than tests available without using nanotechnology. Today, the best
weapon to fight cancer is early detection. Our products using
nanotechnology make early detection possible and affordable.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is the primary tool that
Congress has available tomake sure that promising technologies like
these make it to the marketplace. This Initiativeprovides crucial
funding to revolutionary ideas and enables private enterprise to find
and investin promising technologies and companies.
Simply stated, without the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
Nanosphere might not exist. Nanosphere is a product of university-based
research funded by NSF, NIH, and DARPA, among others. Since its
inception the company has received approximately $5-6 million in
government grant funding, which has been leveraged to an additional
$200 million in private and public equity financing, a 40 to 1
investment ratio. Early government funding was critical to the long-
term future and success of Nanosphere and the realization of
significant advances in medical diagnostics.
The market is efficient at funding and commercializing viable
technology into useful products. However, in order for forward-thinking
companies with promising technologies such as ours to succeed, the
basic technology must be nurtured until it reaches a market-sustainable
level. And once federal funds support a technology to the point where
it is ready to commercialize, the marketplace provides venture capital
to the best products. Our company has raised about forty dollars of
private venture capital and public institutional equity investment for
every one dollar of public funding to commercialize our molecular
diagnostics platform. That one public dollar, though, was provided at a
crucial time for any product trying to make it past the so-called
``valley of death'' for new technology. Venture capitalists are ready
to invest in technologies that can get across the ``valley of death''
and be commercial successes. But economies built on basic research,
such as the U.S. technology economy, cannot be sustained without robust
government support for promising new technologies.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is also a direct investment
in American jobs. NNI-supported technologies are often commercialized
by small businesses that excel at making those technologies useful in
the marketplace. These companies employ highly-paid researchers,
scientists and technology experts in order to develop their new
products. As these companies grow, their workforces expand to include
sales professionals and administrative personnel.
We have brought our technology from the university research bench
to commercial reality in less than ten years. As our company continues
to grow, we generate incremental jobs. Today we employ over 115 people
and expectations are that we will grow to several hundred over the
coming years. These are high tech jobs with more than 85% of our
employees holding college and advanced degrees. Our average salary
exceeds $85,000. Companies like Nanosphere are a key growth factor in
the nation's economy. These high-paying jobs employing professionals
here in the U.S. simply would not exist without basic support for
nanotechnology being developed in laboratories across America.
In this regard, one of our greatest challenges is the available
labor pool. This Committee is well-aware that we face a STEM education
crisis. The NNI provides a strategy to help address that crisis and
generate the highly skilled workforce that companies like Nanosphere
need in order to compete in the global marketplace.
The U.S. nanotechnology industry also faces the challenge of
foreign competitors making significant progress in nanotechnology
research. Large foreign companies as well as start-up enterprises are
capitalizing on major advances in nanotechnology to create new products
and new economic growth opportunities for their respective countries in
the health-care arena. We face stiff competition from China, Germany,
Korea, and Japan. Competitors in those countries are patenting at a
furious rate, and the investments of these four countries in
nanotechnology, especially as it applies to human health, exceeds total
investment by the U.S. The governments are proactively investing in key
areas like nanomaterial-enabled diagnostics and therapeutics because
they know these advances have a chance to define their economy for
decades to come.
In addition, these countries are strategically finding ways to
decrease the gap between invention and commercialization. Indeed, they
are generating central arteries of development and commercialization by
establishing institutes and centers of excellence in key subareas of
nanotechnology, including energy, materials, electronics, bio-
nanotechnology, and many subareas of medicine. Learning from the best
practices of these competing countries could prove valuable to further
refining the NNI.
Like the other members of the Nanobusiness Commercialization
Association, Nanosphere is committed to the responsible development of
nanotechnology, particularly with regard to any environmental, health
and safety issues related to the development of this new technology.
One of the key components of the National Nanotechnology Initiative is
learning how nanoparticles interact with the environment around us. As
our company's success with developing new health technologies
demonstrates, nanotechnology more often than not provides the solution
to environmental, health and safety problems. However, as we make these
new discoveries, we can learn more about the impact of nanoscience,
identify any risks that may develop, and determine solutions
accordingly.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee today.
I look forward to responding to any questions you may have.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Moffitt. Based on our
conversations with Mr. Lipinski, the Ranking Member, and
myself, we are going to recess. I would anticipate we will be
back somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 25 minutes. It is a
series of two votes. The Members should be back 10 minutes
after the last vote starts to be cast.
We are in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Brooks. My wife is a math teacher. She would have
loved to have had that kind of response using a gavel.
Well, I thank the panel for their testimony, reminding
Members that committee rules limit questioning to five minutes.
The Chair will at this point open the round of questions, and
the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Before I begin my five minutes, though, I have the consent
of the minority to go ahead and resume. From what I understand
Congressman Lipinski is on the way back and should be with us
shortly.
The first question for Dr. Welser, in your testimony you
state that nanoelectronics can contribute to deficit reduction
in three ways; increasing jobs, wages, and expanding the tax
base, lowering the cost of computing to the government, and
increasing economic productivity, and as you can imagine in the
context of the battle that we are now in Washington, we have
unsustainable budget deficits, we have basically three
approaches or a combination of those three that we can use. One
is to cut spending dramatically, one is to increase taxes
dramatically, or a third way is to grow the economy, which
naturally will generate additional revenue.
So if you would, can you please expand on these ideas? How
can Congress build on these concepts?
Dr. Welser. Yeah. Thank you very much for the question. I
think that obviously the most important factor that the
nanoelectronics provides is the ability to grow the economy,
and it is not just the chip industry but everything else that
gets enabled around it.
One of the reasons the exponential increase in revenues has
occurred at the semiconductor chip level is because when
something gets smaller, it doesn't just get faster. We can make
whole new products, so you have smart phones or GPS or embedded
sensors or drug delivery systems in the body, all enabled, new
markets and industries enabled by increasing the scale of
nanoelectronics.
So I think that is the number one thing that happens, and
then the jobs, of course, that go with that continue to then
grow the economy as well.
On the other side, for productivity and efficiency, if you
look at the cost of computing over time, the iPad that we have
today has the computing power of basically a super computer
from the late '90s, so if you would try to do the kind of
calculations and things that we want to do with the super
computer then, you can now do it by buying an iPad.
So there is a huge increase in productivity that you get
for your dollars and computation. I think these two are
probably the main ways that we can contribute, but obviously, I
think just having more electronic capability also ends up
assisting people in their jobs in all sorts of fields.
Chairman Brooks. And on the chance that any of the other
witnesses would also like to address that question, you are
free to.
Seeing none, Dr. Tour, your testimony discusses the
importance of federal investments in nano-manufacturing and
public-private partnerships. In addition, you state that the
continued federal commitment to basic research at universities
and companies helps to mitigate the investment risk for those
looking to enter the marketplace.
Certainly you are aware of the budget and deficit decisions
facing Congress. In looking at the fiscal year 2012 budget and
what is already a finite pot for federal investment and will
likely be even smaller the next year, which area do you believe
is more important for federal investment; basic research or
nano-manufacturing, and if your answer is both, which it may
very well be, then where in this field do you recommend we find
the savings that we absolutely must find in order to enhance
our expenditures in other areas?
Dr. Tour. Well, if the number is X number of dollars would
be committee, a portion of that X should go to both. So there
should be a portion of X in the transition in nano-
manufacturing, but we have got to have the basic research,
because basic research is not done, but we have got to be able
to have the funds also to transition them. And there are
mechanisms to do that, SBIR, STTR grants, which are already in
place, these sort of mechanisms to do that. But if we just take
X and we take a portion and we put it into both.
Chairman Brooks. And this question is for, first for Dr.
Teague, but if anyone else wants to chime in afterwards, feel
free.
Dr. Teague, I believe it was your testimony that related to
us what other nations were spending on nanotechnology research
and development, basic research, things of that nature. In your
judgment how much does the United States need to commit to this
field in order to remain competitive?
Dr. Teague. I wish I had an immediate answer to that. I can
tell you that we have looked at the amount of funding that is
going into nanotechnology R&D by other countries. Probably the
one that currently is in the lead is the overall European Union
and the member states of the European Union. Rough estimates
are that in 2010, they will be investing something like $2.6
billion in nanotechnology R&D. This is one year of their new
framework that they are investing.
So I think that they are certainly the leaders in the world
as of major economy in investing in nanotechnology R&D. The
other countries are coming up very strong. It is really quite
difficult to estimate how much funding is really in place in
places like Korea, Japan, and China because one of the biggest
reasons it is difficult to estimate how much they are investing
is typically they don't publish a lot of numbers in terms of
the labor costs of what--when you see estimates of funding. You
will see mainly what they invest in equipment, new research,
and things of that nature. So the numbers that you often see
for China, Korea, and Japan, they often do not reflect labor,
because that is assumed that it is just there.
So if we wanted to keep competitive with the European
Union, which I think is frankly one of the fastest-moving
economies in the world, our estimate this year with the request
for 2012 is 2.1 billion. European Union already had in 2010,
2.6 billion. That would be the comparison that I would look at,
and I think, my judgment is when you start looking at
publications, publication citations, and things of that nature
the fastest-growing countries there are probably--is probably
China. If you look at the graphs of our publications and our
publication citations, and you look at those of China, ours is
leveling off some, and theirs are growing exponentially.
So those are the two countries that I would really look at
as very, very competitive if I were trying to make an estimate.
I would hesitate to give you a hard number, but I would look at
those two comparisons very carefully.
Chairman Brooks. Does anyone else wish to share an opinion
or a judgment concerning how much you believe we should be
investing in nanotechnology in order to be competitive?
Dr. Tour. I think in light of the current budget and where
we are, we certainly don't want to decrease what we have been
coming in at. I think that that would be devastating to the
progress of nanotechnology to suffer with any decrease.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you. Now I recognize Ranking Member,
Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moffitt, I want
to commend you on the remarkable success of Nanosphere in just
11 years, and I noted in your testimony you talked about
receiving $5 to $6 million in government grant funding, I
believe, in those 11 years, which was a leverage of an
additional $200 million in private and public equity financing,
giving a 40 to one investment ratio.
I just wanted to ask all of our panelists, throw this out
there, the--what type of--what has been your experience with
leveraging grant money in order to have further--getting
private investment into business?
Anyone want to--Dr. Rudnick.
Dr. Rudnick. So I think it is of great interest from the
perspective of international health that the Gates Foundation
invested $10 million in Liquidia this past month, and they did
so because of the drive to be able to supply populations of the
world that can't have vaccines today with new and more
importantly improved vaccines.
I think the ability to get that Gates money to be stemmed
directly back to the initiative and the funding that came
through NIST and other agencies to Liquidia over this last five
years, I think it is imperative to have that kind of leverage
and to continue to have that kind of leverage, at least in
healthcare.
Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else? Dr. Tour.
Dr. Tour. What I have seen with the companies that I have
started, it is, for example, with Nano Composites, it has been
around seven years, the company. The company was just, a large
part of it was bought by a major party now, and it has been
about eight to one ratio, but, again, this is seven years. I
heard you mention with Mr. Moffitt 11 years, and this is part
of the problem with nanotechnology. It doesn't come
immediately. This transition takes time, and without the
government standing behind us to bear this, it is very hard to
get the investment that will ultimately come, and for us it was
seven years before a major player come in. Seven or eight
years.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Moffitt.
Mr. Moffitt. Thank you for the kind comments. I think I
would remiss if I didn't point out to the committee while there
is a 40 to one leverage in the money that has been invested
into Nanosphere, the ultimate return on investment here is the
cost savings that we get in our public health system and the
costs that we eliminate or reduce in our--in the healthcare
system in this country, and indeed, ultimately, others will
benefit around the world.
But I can even point already to some examples of where our
products are sitting in a position to be able to cut hospital
readmissions simply by better treatment of the patient when
they are in the first place, or pharmacogenetics, the term we
use in this industry, personalize medicine, the ability to
ensure that the drug that is being given to the patient is, in
fact, the right drug, one that is not going to be harmful to
them or one that is going to be effective for them.
And there are already examples there of where a simple
genetic test before somebody goes on the drug Coumadin, a blood
thinner, Warfarin-based material, if you will, and there were
about six million people in this country that are on it, and it
has a significant adverse side effect in the first few days on
a certain percentage of that population. A study that was done
two years ago by a Mayo Clinic in Medco, showed that you could
reduce hospital admissions by 30 percent after taking that drug
if you simply performed this simple, little, inexpensive
genetic test before dosing it.
So I think the long-term payback here is much, much greater
than 40 to one.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, and I want to throw out one more
quick question here.
Mr. Moffitt, you stated we face stiff competition from
China, Germany, Korea, Japan, and others who have strategically
found ways to decrease the gap from invention to
commercialization, and that is a big issue that we face, not
just in nanotechnology but in other technologies and other
research that we are conducting here.
What are some of the best practices, just whoever wants to
comment, some best practices we can take from other countries
to refine our NNI?
Mr. Moffitt. I think one of the best practices I have seen
has been the formation of, I guess our term in this country
would be centers of excellence, but I would call it more like
arteries or pipelines, centers that are charged not only with
the basic research but moving it onto translational development
of products that are focused on specific industries, such as
healthcare and perhaps even more focused on specific niches in
healthcare.
For example, the nano-cancer centers that have been funded
in this country. I think more of that kind of effort where we
not only just fund the basic research, but we fund the ultimate
development and application of it, focused on core problems in
our country.
Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else want to comment on that?
Dr. Welser. Just make a brief comment from the
nanoelectronics side. When we were setting up the NRI, one of
the things that determined where we were putting some of these
centers was the willingness of the states to putting in money,
not just for the research and infrastructure of the
universities but your neighboring innovation parks, incubator
labs, that could then take results that come out and rapidly
try to put them into products, which is particularly important
when you are doing basic research because it doesn't always
impact the industry or the area you thought it was going to. So
certainly our companies are very rapidly picking up the results
that come out that can affect us on the nanoelectronics side,
but you can have other collateral results in sensors or
communication areas that perhaps startups would want to go
after instead.
So I think having that kind of environment around
universities makes a big difference.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay.
Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
Next we have Congressman Harris from Maryland.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
to all the Members of the panel for being patient with us to go
and make those votes and come back and let me just--and this is
a fascinating topic because obviously a lot has changed in
medicine since I went to medical school, Dr. Rudnick and Mr.
Moffitt. The--but I have to ask, the first question is at some
point you have to move the basic science. At some point
industry will be ready to pick this up, and for instance, in
the electronics industry, I mean I know the balance sheet of
some of the large semiconductor companies. I mean, why aren't
they--there are so many benefits to them of doing this, why
does the government have to fund any of that anymore?
I mean, at some point you have to push--you cut the
umbilical cord, and you know, industry should do this, and
maybe Dr. Welser and Dr. Rudnick, I mean, at what point do we--
can we cut the umbilical cord on these things?
Dr. Welser. Well, we certainly do pick up the research in
the R&D. As you heard, we put about 17 percent of our revenue
into product-related R&D, and if you look back over time,
certain areas that we used to rely on university research and
breakthroughs to go through we no longer rely on that. We do it
ourselves.
My area of research and my Ph.D. in the early '90s was
strain silicon, and that was a lot of very fundamental research
on materials. We didn't understand how to use it, and now it is
in our production lines, and we are constantly making
improvements on it, and we don't fund research in that back in
the universities for a large extent or ask the government to do
it either, because it is an area that we can now handle on our
own.
I think the reason that the government needs to be involved
still at the basic level for even something like
nanoelectronics is we constantly need to move to the next
device, the next material, and that requires screening huge
number of potential materials and ideas and structures that
maybe aren't even in the materials that we use today.
So that requires an investment that no company on its own
can afford to do, and although we ourselves in industry put
about $60 million a year into industrial, into university
research on this, that is not enough to go after all the
different materials that are possible. We have to focus those
dollars on those things that we think can have the most promise
going forward.
Dr. Rudnick. On the medical front I think it is interesting
to look at what happened at Liquidia. About five years ago the
company was started. It was started with an idea that a little
piece of film could have these nano-sized pores etched into it,
and literally you could rub another piece of film over it, fill
those pores, get drug substance out that was appropriately
sized and shaped.
To take that from that concept that started the company and
developed manufacturing that now can literally produce hundreds
of thousands of feet of film per month filled with particles
was about $25 million and about four years.
If the government hadn't stepped in and supplied some of
the money through NIST to get that manufacturing ramped up, I
doubt that venture capital would have been attracted to it. It
would have been too early, too difficult, and there was no
other place to go and get that level of resource to move it
along except for that NIST funding for nano-manufacturing.
Mr. Harris. I have just a follow up on that but now that
industry I think is going to realize the value of this, again,
at some point, and I don't know. I mean, it could be a broad
enough field that we should just always spend the same amount
of money and look into different areas, but with regards to
screening products the pharmaceutical industry which also has a
pretty good balance sheet, I mean, they do the screening of
their drugs on their own. I mean, they do the same thing. They
screen hundreds and hundreds of chemical compounds to find the
one that is the next blockbuster drug.
So,that is the only question I have, and very briefly,
because Mr. Moffitt, you actually suggested that, I think in
one of your answers that we should go actually beyond basic
science and actually fund some of these things and get it
further out, but I would say that--is that correct? Is that
kind of what you had suggested, because to me the appropriate
role of the government is to do something that no private
individual would do, and to be honest with you, I had a little
reticence. You know, the trouble with academic research, I love
it, I did it, is that it is public domain. I mean, the Chinese
have the access to the academic research that we fund, to be
honest with you, which is different when industry does it, and
it becomes something that is intellectual property that stays
here in the United States.
So, Mr. Moffitt, if you could just follow up on that?
Mr. Moffitt. It is a comment about crossing what I think
everyone refers to as the Valley of Death. Once the basic core
academic research is done, how do you translate that into
something? If the folks doing the basic research don't have a
vision and idea for what this could become, then there needs to
be a vehicle for making that happen.
I think the venture capital community in this country is
very efficient at picking the winners from the losers, and they
are ready to put the significant, at-risk capital to work in
the earliest stages, but there is a gap between those two. And
what I refer to there, and I think it is a best practice that
is occurring in some of our competitors around the world,
competitive countries around the world, is they are finding a
way to close that gap up, and they are doing it with either
partnerships, private and public, or additional funding from
government resources.
Again, targeted to very specific problems that are there.
But--so it is all about getting the technology to the point
where industry, the venture capital community can recognize the
pathway forward from there. And then I think at those points
they are happy to take it forward.
Mr. Harris. And if I could just, Mr. Chairman, just briefly
follow up, just very briefly, observation is that some of the
states, Maryland included, have said that is fine, but we could
provide some of that venture capital to do that bridging to
conventional venture capital, the difference being is when it
becomes successful Maryland is making back some money, because
we are actually bridging the venture capital.
Mr. Moffitt. And there are good examples of that. Maryland
is one state. There are other states where there are programs
in place to help connect that link, if you will, and the
payback is in the economies of those states.
Mr. Harris. Well, not only payback in the economy but also
a true physical dollar payback.
Mr. Moffitt. Sure. Return on investment.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, and I don't know, Chairman, Dr. Tour
I think wants to follow up a little, and then I will yield back
the balance.
Dr. Tour. Could I make one comment?
Mr. Harris. Please.
Dr. Tour. The reason why we need to pay students to do
research is because we have to pay them. Students line up at
medical schools and law schools to pay their way through. They
don't do that with science. They haven't done that with science
for 50 years. We do that as a Nation because we feel it is
valuable to train students in science and engineering. We pay
them because we have to.
I will give you an example. We were doing pure basic
science, didn't know where it was going, graphene oxide. As
soon as we saw the way it plugged filters, then we talked with
our friends in the oil industry in Houston and starts going
down hole to make cleaner drilling holes so that we get less
infiltration.
So it is the basic science that has to be done to spawn the
new ideas that are then going to be transitioned, and it is not
all in the public domain. I have 50 patents all through the
university. So that--because of the Bi Dole Act is given to the
university. The university then has the power to license that
out, and I agree with you. We first file the patent, then,
boom, we publish the paper. So we do both.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you. The Chair next recognizes
Congressman Clarke from Michigan.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to pick up on the
line of questioning especially those issues raised by the good
gentleman from Maryland, but I just want to preface my
questions that I do not have an ideological agenda or position
I am trying to push right now through this questioning.
I am going to ask you the questions for one reason. I would
like to know the answers, and anyone can respond, but I am from
metro Detroit. I am acutely aware of the fact that we need to
create more jobs, and we got to do it faster. So how can we
accelerate the commercialization of nanotechnology, and what do
you think would be the most, not necessarily proper role but
effective role for us to invest our tax dollars in this
process?
And the reason why I ask this, especially in light of Dr.
Tour's written testimony and verbal here, that outlined the
strong global competition for U.S. researchers, that truly
concerns me, on top of the fact that you have a lot of foreign
students who are graduating from our great research
universities, one of which is in the area that I represent,
Wayne State University, yes, I am plugging them. And then those
graduates end up going back home and not staying in the U.S. We
want to try to keep them here, but that is a matter of
immigration policy.
But still also for the same objective so that we can be
truly competitive, and I want us to be number one in this area
of commercialization, creating jobs in nanotechnology.
That is the end of my speech in essence. My question is
genuine, though. How do we best leverage federal tax dollars to
create more jobs in nanotechnology and create them quicker?
Dr. Rudnick. May I start to answer that question? I don't
know that I can fully answer it.
Chairman Brooks. I think he left it up to any of the five
who want to jump at the mic first.
Dr. Rudnick. One thing that I think can be extremely
helpful is for the government to recognize that there are
positive and negative influences that they exert, and the
setting of standards for the development of nanotechnology I
think is a critical area, and whether you call them
environmental and health standards or you call them
manufacturing standards or whatever you choose to put behind
them, the government can through NNI help to set positive
standards to frame the types of examination that nanotechnology
particles, for example, will have to make sure that there are
standards available to people if they need to test and
investigate.
And that is something that if it doesn't happen, if the
national standards are not set and enforced in a reasonable and
functional, the way the FDA practically does it for drug
products, I think there is always the risk that things will
slow down, and I would hate to see that happen, and so that is
just one perspective and one small corner.
The idea of having foundries that can manufacture these
particles for anyone to use and test and know that they are
getting the same thing time after time, I think is a very
useful NNI response.
Dr. Welser. I would also like to add I think there is value
to having these for the public-private partnerships. The NRI in
particular when we started it was sort of an experiment for the
industry in that this was research that was really quite far
out for us, something that we normally didn't get involved
with, but we saw the urgent need with this transition coming up
in the industry to start doing some funding on it, and we found
that even though we were funding chemists, physicists, material
scientists doing very basic work, having the industrial
assignees working with them, we could identify ideas much more
quickly that looked that they might actually solve a problem we
would have or look like it could actually go do something
different.
So rather than having that be just a pure science result,
we could more rapidly say, well, let's take the science, learn
the science, and also think about how you would apply it.
Mr. Clarke. This is at the basic research level?
Dr. Welser. Very basic research level.
Mr. Clarke. Okay.
Dr. Welser. So, for example, graphing material, there was a
physicist down at U.T. Austin who had come up with an idea for
making room temperature excitons, I am sorry, made excitons,
great idea, didn't mean a whole lot. We asked him, well, could
it ever be done at room temperature, he never even though of
that, went and looked at it and said, actually, it could. It
could be one of the first room temperature excitons. It is a
great science result. If it is true, it actually could make a
device that would be a thousand times less energy than our
current CMOS transistors. So obviously of clear interest to us.
So we are hoping that that kind of interaction, even at the
early stages, can identify things that we could move more
rapidly.
Dr. Tour. I think that money is always a great incentive,
and if we want to push these out faster, one of the things that
we could do is to say, when I am speaking to an industrial
entity to say, look what I have got, if you start to invest in
this to do this transition of this nano-material into your
business, there are certain laws that would give you different
tax structure during this phase that are particularly enhancive
to, would particularly enhance this system, this particular
type of research.
And whether it be 15 cents that the U.S. Government would
put in on the dollar that the company would put in or if it
would be some other type of incentive in this way.
Mr. Clarke. Dr. Tour, I know my time is up, this is very
important. Is there a way that you could get me some bullet
points of these types of proposed incentives that could work at
different stages of the process?
Dr. Tour. Absolutely.
Mr. Clarke. I really appreciate it, and I am Hansen Clarke
from Detroit.
Dr. Tour. Okay.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you.
Dr. Teague. May I add a few comments from the federal
program, please? Yes. All right. I just wanted to point out
that within the new NNI Strategic Plan that there are two
aspects of it that I think move in the direction that several
of the Congressmen has spoken about.
One is the three signature initiatives that I talked about.
These signature initiatives are really aimed at moving maybe
towards slightly the next stage but still being in basic
research, but they are really aimed to focus upon a number of
common areas that are seen as being of high economic importance
and national importance, and trying to align the resources of
all the 25 federal agencies, at least those that have interest
in those signature initiatives, to move towards the direction
of maybe not, certainly not commercialization, but certainly to
try to make the next stage, moving towards the application
areas and to some degree trying to move the technology that
came out of exploratory research into some of the next stages
that Dr. Welser and some of the other ones have spoken about.
That is their principle aim is to align the resources of
those interested federal agencies toward common thrust areas
and toward common targets that identified and all the agencies
that are working, agencies working on it have agreed.
The second thing that I would point out is that within the
EHS Research Strategy the principle goal of that EHS Research
Strategy is to both look at simultaneously the safety as far as
human health is concerned and as far as the environment is
concerned, but also to make sure that the commercialization of
things are not limited and are actually boosted by this trying
to focus on environmental health and safety aspects of
nanomaterials.
Many people have said that one of the potential greatest
barriers to commercialization of nanotechnology products is
concern about the environmental health and safety. So I think
that this focus by the agencies, particularly those in the
regulatory community, to focus on both the safety aspects of it
as well as the advancement of the technology and the
commercialization of the technology, it is really quite an
important move by the agencies to assist and to aid
commercialization and technology advancement.
So I would encourage you to really take some look hard at
all three of the signature initiatives and to the new EHS
Research Strategy once you have it in your hands.
Chairman Brooks. Before we get to our next member,
Congressman Tonko, I am going to add that we have a little bit
of time for additional questions, so should any member want to
ask some more, just let me know, and we will have a second
round.
With that we have Congressman Tonko of New York.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you and our
ranker for what I think is a very important discussion. Let me
thank our panel for the guidance that you are providing.
I represent the capital region of New York, which is the
third fastest growing hub of science and tech jobs, high-tech
jobs, a lot of it driven by the investment we have made in
nanoscience. So I totally respect the impact that it can have
favorably on our economy.
Dr. Welser, in your testimony you mentioned that the NRI
research is extremely in early stage, and like most scientific
researches it is unlikely to become part of a commercial
product for ten years or more. Is there any concern that that
ten-year delay in a commercial product will have a negative
impact on the semiconductor industry?
Dr. Welser. Yes, certainly. I think that we are after this
right now because we know in about ten years we will have no
other alternatives, but there is a long way to go in the next
ten years. Just making the current technology we are constantly
struggling to make things smaller and smaller, and that is
really, of course, what scaling has all been about.
And particularly in the patterning side of things, this
is--there are some huge roadblocks ahead. We have been using
what they call 193 nanometer light for quite awhile. We really
need to move to smaller wavelengths. We are making features now
in the order of 30 nanometer, so EUV, extended UV is a major
focus right now of work within industry consortia and with
government partners. Semi Tech in your area, of course, is a
leader on this as well, and that--the solutions are not there
yet. It is not only just making it work, but there is still
materials work that needs to be done, understanding how to get
light sources that can work, and on top of that we also think
ultimately we need to think about patterning with other methods
and combining that with things like directed self-assembly or
other mechanisms.
So there is a long way to go just to make sure our current
technology continues forward.
Mr. Tonko. And what role, I mean, what can we best do to
move the EUV concepts along? I mean, it seems as though it is
going to be a very pricy investment, but there obviously should
be a partnership with the government I would hope.
Dr. Welser. I absolutely agree. I think that, particularly
if you consider the competition out there, the other countries
already, of course, are striving to get more and more of the
FABs over there. Very fortunately, of course, Global Foundries
has recently chosen to put a FAB in the U.S., which is, I think
points to the fact that all of our companies really would like
to have FABs in the U.S. if the business environment is right
and if we can be close to hubs where the R&D is going on.
So having a partnership with the government for this
incredibly expensive development that needs to go on and
research on the basic materials that are there is the only way
we will remain competitive with the other countries that are
putting that money in.
Mr. Tonko. It frightens me that whoever gets that
investment as a nation will be controlling the job count out
there, and while everyone is bulking up with investment, we are
talking about de-funding, which is a frightening thought.
Dr. Teague, do you agree with those recommendations made by
Dr. Welser, and could you also incorporate your comments on the
signature initiative in terms of how it could help us pull us
into the right direction here toward that effort?
Dr. Teague. I definitely agree with Dr. Welser's comments
on the need for that, and I think that if you look at,
particularly the signature initiative on nanoelectronics for
2020 and beyond, these are, I think, quite well aligned with
some of the directions and the emphasis and the needs that are
needed for advancing these next electronics.
I might just point out that we have four thrust areas
within the Nanoelectronics Signature Initiative, and I think
that they are quite well aligned with a lot of the directions
that the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative by the SRC and the
electronics industry is taking.
If I may just read those, and he might, Dr. Welser might
comment on them, the first one of the thrust areas is exploring
new and alternative state variables, architectures, and modes
of operation for computing. I know this--I am quite confident
this is very parallel to what the NRI is doing.
Merging nanoelectronics with nanophotonics and exploring
carbon-based nanoelectronics, exploring nanoscale processes and
phenomena for quantum information systems, and national
nanoelectronics research and manufacturing infrastructure
network that is university based in their overall
infrastructure.
We currently are trying to, as I say, align the activities
of the main agencies which are concerned with this, the
National Science Foundation, the National--NIST, DOE, and DOD
in these areas.
The next step that I think will be taken with the signature
initiatives is to start interacting more with private industry
for a possible public-private partnerships but mainly to try to
make sure that what the agencies are doing, what they are
funding is aligned with, to some degree, what is happening out
in industry.
Mr. Tonko. I note that I am running out of time, but if you
could get back to me personally or to the committee about how
to grow the public drive, the general public, to push
nanoscience. So many times that is what is needed in our
culture. You have other cultures that are pushing investment in
science and technology. We seem to be concentrated on
entertainment and sports cultures and are lulled, we are
somewhat lethargic about investing in science and technology.
If any of you as panelists here could advise us on how we can
engage the public to drive the advocacy for investment in this
area, I would love to hear that.
Dr. Teague. I couldn't agree with you more on that. After
working with it, as I indicate, for the past period that I have
been, the engagement of the public and mounting their interest
in the nanotechnology, both in terms of its potential and in
terms of the knowledge of it, efforts are being made to make it
be a safe technology right from the start is something that I
think we truly need to make sure the public fully understands
and hopefully accepts rather than being potentially afraid of
it.
Mr. Tonko. Uh-huh. Well, as a kid I saw that general
passion of the Nation to be the first to land a person on the
moon. I would love to see that sort of passion again for
nanoscience.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
I have got three questions. The first one is to Dr. Teague,
the second one would be all witnesses, and the third one would
be for you all to digest and get back to us on.
Dr. Teague, what continues to be the primary concerns about
the environmental health and safety impacts of nanotechnology?
Dr. Teague. I think in terms of the general concern, if you
are talking about the general concern sometimes of the public
or the particular genuine concerns that are held by the
scientific community, people that are involved in toxicology
and the health aspects of nanotechnology, as well as the
potential hazards that might it be posing for the environment,
much of it is still remaining lack of knowledge of how some of
the nanomaterials may potentially cause harm to human health
and to the environment.
The investments by the National Nanotechnology Initiative
member agencies, and I am pleased to say that we have had
joining this year the Food and Drug Administration, as well as
the Consumer Product Safety Commission in investing some in R&D
for nanotechnology.
Our focus and I would say they have been pretty measured,
as well as targeted, and trying to answer these questions and
to come up with increased knowledge about the potential hazards
of nanomaterials is the greatest concern. There has been much
growth, much effort in this direction. I think the NNI and the
NNI member agencies are making great progress. Our investments
in the United States are far beyond any other country in the
world, including the entire European Union, in this area,
trying to understand it.
We have for the entire period of the NNI led the world in
trying to understand these potential hazards of nanomaterials.
The--and I think the EHS strategy lays out a wonderful path
forward in terms of how we will try to address this. The--all
the agencies that have worked on the EHS strategy has really
been laying out a great program to achieve the goals of making
it safe and also being able to advance the technology of nano.
They call it their risk management research framework, and
this overall framework of trying to take account simultaneously
of safety concerns as well as those that are needed for
advancing the technology is, I think, an excellent path that
they have laid out. It has been developed with huge inputs from
the entire community. We have had four different workshops over
the past year to get great input from the experts in the field
of toxicologists to help especially the fields that might be
concerned about environmentalists, to lay out this path.
And so I hope that we can address this particular concern.
Chairman Brooks. This one is for all the witnesses. Are
current federal and private research efforts adequate to
address concerns about environmental health and safety impacts
of nanotechnology, and why does the Federal Government need to
increase spending of EHS activities in the White House budget
fiscal year 2012 by 36 percent over fiscal year 2010 which was
44 percent over fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution?
And that is for whomever of you may wish to address that
issue as to why the need is so great for increased funding on
EHS activities.
Dr. Tour. I don't agree that we need that increase. I would
rather see that increase be put into the basic research because
as basic researchers we are already doing a lot of the EHS.
When we are studying nanoparticle toxicity in our animal models
for therapeutics, we are already gathering a lot of that data.
I have been in companies that are thinking about incorporating
nano, and they already have a lot of the testing that they are
doing as part of their normal regulatory work that they are
doing.
So I am not sure that there needs to be that increase.
Chairman Brooks. Anyone else have any judgment to share?
Mr. Moffitt. I am not an expert. I can't speak to the
increase itself and the detail of the budget, but I would say
this. I do think it would be irresponsible of us in our--in
this industry to continue to develop these products without
understanding the long-term downstream implications of them and
the impacts on these materials that we are making.
And I think if I think about Congressman Tonko's question
about how to engage the public, I think this is an example of
how we help engage the public, which is by reassuring them that
these materials are not dangerous or, in fact, getting the
answers if they are and how to handle them.
Chairman Brooks. Any other insight?
Dr. Teague. May I just add a few comments on that in
response?
Certainly the percentage of increase is from the continuing
resolution in 2011, and from the actual amounts expended in
2010. I think your--I wouldn't question your figures on that,
but I would make sure that everybody is understanding that
these increases still bring the total investment by all the NNI
agencies and the environmental health and safety research still
remains at something like five percent of the overall NNI
investment.
This seems to be quite, as I say, that--and even that level
has been very carefully looked at through a lot of consultation
across the federal agencies, through all the input that I
mentioned through workshops outside, through PCAST
recommendations, through recommendations from the National
Academy of Sciences.
So the current investments and these increases still by
many people in the field think that that is too small, but I
think because of the careful consideration of inputs from a
broad range of stakeholders and from, as I say, PCAST and the
Academy of Sciences, those increases are really quite justified
in consideration of the hazards which many people think need to
be addressed and better understood.
Chairman Brooks. Dr. Welser, excuse me, Welser or Dr.
Rudnick, do you all have an opinion you wish to share? If not,
that is okay.
Dr. Welser. I think I would like to reinforce the two
opinions to the left in the following fashion. I think that I
can't judge the overall amount and the value of that amount,
but I can say that there is a great deal of work that is
already going on in terms of safety of these particle-like
products, and it is being done as part of the medical
development of them, and not sharing that information across
agencies would be a mistake.
And I think that has been one of the great strengths of NNI
which is the sharing of information across agencies has been
strong. I would hope that however the budget is constructed and
however the workshops are constructed going forward that that
continues to be the case.
Chairman Brooks. Thank you. If we provide each of you with
a copy of the text of House Resolution 554, the NNI
Reauthorization Bill from the last Congress, would you please
provide us with feedback for the record? Share with us your
insight on the verbiage that is used and the scope of that
legislation?
All right. We will do that.
Next, Mr. Lipinski, Ranking Member, do you have some
follow-up questions?
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and one area that I
was going to go down, and you did a good job covering in the--
in your questions there, and I certainly just want to echo the
sentiments that we have heard from some of our witnesses about
the importance of environmental, health, and safety research
and the need to be investing in that.
The question I had about computer chips, our current chips
are 32 nanometers. The next generation, maybe next year or
maybe sooner, 22 nanometers. As we approach 10 nanometers,
everything changes, quantum mechanics.
I want to ask Dr. Teague and Dr. Welser what is being done
for research as to what we do next given the importance of
rising computational power, and is there anything more that
needs to be done, anything more that the--can be done by the
Federal Government in helping industry deal with this issue?
Dr. Welser. So I will start if you don't mind since this is
exactly where the NRI is focused. I think we all realize that
while we see a roadmap around 10 nanometers, and no one wants
to predict exactly whether it is 10 or 8 or 5, but somewhere in
along that line, but the current devices, we know that in the
next ten years the reason the NRI is looking out beyond that is
because we know it needs to be completely different at that
point.
At that point it doesn't become about shrinking anymore but
actually about finding a different device, which probably means
different materials, certainly means different physics needs to
be involved because we understand the limits that we are
reaching with our current physics, and it is actually all about
energy and power it turns out. The problem isn't necessarily
that you couldn't go maybe slightly smaller, but the energy
these things utilize, the power density on the chip is just too
large at that point. So finding physics that can reduce that
energy is huge.
So all the things I am listing there and you heard the five
areas that the NNI has also targeted all are about finding
basic new physics and materials to carry this forward, and I
think that it is so critical to do it early because although we
can take it eventually to industry and actually do something
with it that makes it into a product, we have to have a firm
basis that has already been done at the research lab level
before we can really take that in.
Mr. Lipinski. Dr. Teague.
Dr. Teague. I am not sure that I can add a lot to what Dr.
Welser said. I am not an expert by any means on quantum
information systems. What I do hear much and I read much about
the great promise that people see in moving to quantum
information, computing quantum information, communication
systems, and overall quantum logic devices.
For many people these seem to be the long, long range of
what people hope to do. As we run upon the barriers of quantum
mechanic tunneling at the distances that we are talking about,
10 nanometers and below, much of the classical way that we have
looked at building electronic devices, electronic computing
systems, we will run into barriers that we cannot overcome
because we have run into the ends as far as the basic physics
of those kind of systems.
Even there as indicated by these five different ways in
which the agencies have laid out their path forward on
nanoelectronics for our 2020 and beyond, that is one of the
paths that is to be followed and to try to pull together all of
the--and align the efforts of the agencies along those
directions.
The other one is the one that I think the NNR, NRI, and as
well as the agencies are going to be pursuing is looking at
other state variables other than electronic charge. This seems
to be one of the paths that is looking at, looks a lot
promising. For instance, spin systems, using spin as the state
variable rather than the electronic charge is one option that
people are looking at. I am not an expert in this field and
would hesitate to say that that is one of the more promising
ones. There are a lot of others. I think Dr. Welser could maybe
speak much more knowledgably about that, so I would be
interested in his thoughts on that.
Dr. Welser. Well, I am not going to pick a winner here
today. If we knew that, we would go after it, but I will say
the spintronics in the area of carbon electronics clearly show
huge advantage.
I realize one other part of your question was what--are we
doing enough? What more could we be doing? I think one of the
things that does concern me is because of the fact we have been
very careful in terms of where we focus this, we are looking at
just the main transistor switch right now, and that is, of
course, the building block that the entire chip industry is
built on, but going along with that, if we move to spin or if
we move to something completely different, you need to figure
out how you are going to interconnect that, how you are going
to build memory devices that go with that, the architectures
and circuits that go along.
One of the important things about the signature initiative
is it pulls together people who think about circuits and
architecture and memory devices with the people who do
transistors and then the people who do physics and chemistry,
and in getting those people altogether and a critical amass of
funding to enable them to do their research in their areas is
something that I think is crucial to actually finding a
technology and rapidly moving it in rather than waiting until
we find the perfect device and then suddenly say, wait, now we
got to figure a circuit that is going to be used.
So I think that is a real value to these signature
initiatives in these areas.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Dr. Teague. Just one last comment on that. Dr. Welser
mentioned the spin and also with new carbon-based electronics.
The one thing that I think that is very, very much overlapping
between what the government agencies are doing, hopefully there
is great communication with industry, but all of them are
looking at how do the architectures, the basic overall
architecture of the computer change as you move into these new
systems.
Much, much thought to be given to how do you completely
restructure the electronics, reconstruct the entire way that
logic is done in--as you do computing.
Another one that should be considered is the coupling
between nanoelectronics and nanophotonics. Light-based aspects
of the computing architectures are also beginning to play a
major role in even current computing systems.
Mr. Lipinski. Very good. Thank you.
Chairman Brooks. Well, there go those bells again.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and
Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee
may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will
ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional comments from the Members.
The witnesses are excused, and this hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Response by Dr. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office (NNCO)
Questions Submitted by Chairman Mo Brooks
Q1. What impacts are environmental, health, and safety concerns having
on the development and commercialization of nanotechnology-related
products and what impact might these concerns have in the future.
A1. The introduction of new technologies and substances into commerce
should be not only economically and socially beneficial, but also have
minimal impact on humans and the environment. Our goal is to avoid
problems that can arise when inadequate attention is given to
environmental, health, and safety (EHS) concerns.
If we are slow to develop the information needed to ensure that we
are producing nanomaterials with minimal adverse impact, there are two
primary ways in which EHS concerns may affect the development and
commercialization of nanotechnology-related products: uncertainty
whether some nanotechnology-enabled products may harm human health and
the environment, and perceptions that regulatory uncertainty is harming
the business environment.
Uncertainty Whether Nanotechnology-enabled Products May Harm Human
Health and the Environment. EHS concerns arise when there is a lack of
scientific knowledge to guide the assessment of the potential risks and
proposed benefits of a new technology on human health and the
environment. To create that scientific knowledge base for
nanotechnology, the NNI agencies whose missions encompass health and
the environment began research to understand the interactions of
nanomaterials with biological systems in parallel to fundamental
materials research and product development as early as 2001. This EHS
research is guided by the NNI Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related
Environmental, Health, and Safety Research. \1\ This strategy
identifies, targets, and accelerates the research needed for risk
assessment, risk management, product development, and science-based
regulation. As research data accumulate and are transferred into
knowledge, design and engineering of nanomaterials is improved and an
increasingly stable climate for development and commercialization of
nanotechnology-related products is established, outcomes that may
increase consumer confidence and product use. The NNI agencies
understand the need to communicate safety information as research data
are developed. The 2011 nanoEHS research strategy, now in final review,
identifies research needs for risk communication. \2\ The NNI Strategic
Plan outlines several 3--5-year objectives under Goal 4: Responsible
Development of Nanotechnology that provides agencies with concrete
steps to develop effective means to engage the public in ongoing
dialogue on nanotechnology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.nano.gov/node/254
\2\ The draft of the 2011 strategy is available at http://
strategy.nano.gov/blog/generic/page/draft-nni-ehs-strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perceptions that Regulatory Uncertainty is Harming the Business
Environment. There is concern about the potential for safety
regulations to slow economic growth. However, transparent, consistent,
and scientifically---based regulations decrease uncertainty about the
regulatory and economic climate.
The NNI regulatory agencies have reviewed their existing
authorities against our current scientific understanding of the human
and environmental impact of size and emergent properties of nanoscale
materials and have determined existing regulatory authorities to be,
for the most part, appropriate to ensure the safety of the American
people. Modifications to existing rules and safety evaluation
procedures will be made only where necessary to ensure product safety.
Regulatory agencies are also working with their industrial stakeholders
to assist them in navigating the nanotechnology regulatory landscape.
US nanotechnology regulatory policy is coordinated through the
White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination
Committee (ETIPC). The committee has developed a set of broad
principles to guide the development and implementation of policies for
oversight of emerging technologies at the agency level and additional
guidance specific to regulatory oversight of nanotechnology is to be
issued. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-
agencies/Principles-for-Regulation-and-Oversight-of-Emerging-
Technologies-new.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In combination, these components of a science-based research and
regulatory approach to nanomaterials and nanotechnology-enabled
products will promote the positive economic climate necessary for U.S.
technological and industrial leadership while protecting public health
and the environment.
Q2. In your testimony, you state that the ``NSET Subcommittee
anticipates incorporating participation and input from industry and
other stakeholders on current and future nanotechnology signature
initiatives''. How will the Subcommittee obtain this input? Will they
target specific industries or use input from a broad sample of nano-
related industries? Was industry and outside stakeholder input utilized
when developing the current signature initiatives?
2a. How will the NSET Subcommittee incorporate participation & input
from industry and other stakeholders on current & future NSIs? How will
the Subcommittee obtain this input? Was industry and outside
stakeholder input utilized when developing the current signature
initiatives?
The Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives (NSIs) mechanism and the
initial NSI topics are the result of an extensive internal Executive
Branch process. The mechanism and three initial topics received strong
endorsement from industry and other stakeholders when they were
publicly released. As this new NSI process enters its next phase of
development, processes for seeking input and participation from
industry and other stakeholders on future signature initiatives are
being explored.
Previous stakeholder input. The NSET Subcommittee's charter
formally designates the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) as the NNI private sector interface. PCAST, in its
capacity as the designated National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel
(NNAP), has reviewed the NNI three times. In its most recent review,
completed in March 2010, PCAST endorsed the concept of the NSIs and the
three initial NSI topics, and then called for development of at least
five such initiatives over the next 2-3 years. The NSET Subcommittee
charter also specifies that the subcommittee may also interact with and
receive ad hoc advice from other Federal advisory bodies and private
sector groups, consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Accordingly, the NSET Subcommittee established three additional
channels for external stakeholder input during 2010, as it was
formulating its updated NNI Strategic Plan (released in February 2011):
(a) an NNI Strategy Portal website (http://strategy.nano.gov), (b) a
formal Request for Information published in the Federal Register, and
(c) an NNI Strategic Planning Stakeholder Workshop, held in July 2010.
The NSIs were regarded positively by participants in all three venues.
Options for future stakeholder input. Several options are under
consideration. First, PCAST (or the NNAP) will continue to serve as the
NSET Subcommittee's primary private-sector interface, and future NNAP
reviews of the NNI will carefully evaluate the NSI process and the
topics that have been selected through it. Second, the NNI Strategy
Portal remains active, and may be re-tooled to seek specific
stakeholder input on the NSI activity and suggestions for future NSI
topics. Third, the February 2011 NNI Strategic Plan states that NNI
will work with industry across sectors to develop technology roadmaps,
or long-term R&D plans, as appropriate, in support of new public/
private partnerships and signature initiatives. This input may take the
form of roadmapping workshops at which industry views will be sought
out, and at which other stakeholders will also be welcome. NIST \4\ and
NSF \5\ have already held two such workshops in support of the
sustainable nanomanufacturing signature initiative. Finally, NNCO has
just created a new Industry and State Liaison (ISL) staff position. The
ISL staff member at NNCO will be tasked with seeking stakeholder input
on signature initiatives as well as other aspects of the NNI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.nist.gov/cnst/thenewsteel.cfm
\5\ http://www.internano.org/nanosystems
2b. Will they target specific industries or use input from a broad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sample of nano-related industry?
2b. The NSIs are targeting issues of national importance, not specific
industries. For the three existing signature initiatives:
The ``Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond'' initiative is focused
on maintaining the economic and national security benefits that
resulted from the sustained improvements in performance and
affordability of semiconductor electronics described by Moore's Law.
Naturally, this has involved working closely with the semiconductor and
electronics industries. The
``Solar Energy Collection and Conversion'' initiative targets
improvement in U.S. energy security, which in turn has major
implications for national security. It also supports research on new
sources of energy that have the potential for reduced environmental
impact.
The ``Sustainable Nanomanufacturing'' initiative endeavors to
retain within the United States a significant portion of the economic
``value added'' from nanotechnology innovations by assuring that these
innovations are not just invented here, but also made in the United
States. A good case in point is the semiconductor industry, which
involves manufacturing at the nanoscale, and which provides many high-
paying jobs in the United States, not just for scientists and engineers
but also for skilled technicians and other manufacturing workers. In
order to establish a realistic scope, this initiative targets
production-worthy scaling of three classes of materials that have the
potential to affect multiple industry sectors with significant economic
impact (carbon nanomaterials, cellulosic nanomaterials, and optical
metamaterials).
For future signature initiative topics, there are no pre-conceived
target industries. The criteria for signature initiative topics are:
They address an area of high national priority, e.g.,
national security, energy independence, or health or are
supportive of other Presidential priorities or the President's
A Strategy for American Innovation.
TThey are ripe for significant advances through
accelerated, targeted research.
Achievement of the research goals requires multiple
agency participation at the programmatic level.
Q3. The FY 12 Budget Request highlights three signature initiatives
related to solar energy, nanomanufacturing, and nanoelectronics. Why is
there a need for signature initiatives? Will a focus on these areas
take away from other much needed nano-related research? Based on the
budget charts for these activities, it appears that this is a new line
item for many agencies, as they are showing zeroes in FY 11 funding. I
feel certain that most of these agencies have been investing in these
areas for years. Can you please explain the discrepancy?
Q3a. Why is there a need for signature initiatives?
A3a. The NNI has been successful at increasing communication and
coordination among U.S. Government agencies involved in nanotechnology
R&D, including multi-agency Funding Opportunity Announcements. The
signature initiatives build on this success by developing a more
integrated and focused mechanism for interagency collaboration. Through
this enhanced coordination, existing agency resources will be leveraged
more effectively, duplication of efforts will be minimized, and goals
accomplished more expeditiously.
Restricted budgets provide a second rationale for an NSI mechanism.
While the NNI has, by most accounts, been a very successful basic
research initiative with numerous NNI-funded innovations entering the
market place, prioritization of the NNI investments into key areas of
significant benefit to the American people will leverage funding more
effectively and structure investments to maximize tangible returns.
We also note that one of the three major issues that the 2010 PCAST
review of the NNI addressed was ``Nanotechnology Outcomes-An analysis
of what the Federal nanotechnology investment has delivered and
recommendations to enhance the outcomes, especially economic
outcomes.'' \6\ PCAST's recommendations in this regard include that the
NNI should ``increase its emphasis on nanomanufacturing and commercial
deployment of nanotechnology-enabled products, and that the agencies
within the NNI must interact and cooperate more with one another to
ease the translation of scientific discovery into commercial
activity''. \7\ The Signature Initiative on Sustainable
Nanomanufacturing directly addresses these recommendations. The other
two initial signature initiative topics also address them; the
objective is to accelerate the development of novel nanoelectronics and
solar energy technologies to the point at which they have the potential
to be competitive in the marketplace and commercially viable. Because
the magnitude of the effort needed to make each initiative successful-
multiple agencies funding both basic and applied research in close
cooperation with industry-and because the expected returns on the
investment are large but difficult for any one company to appropriate,
it is reasonable for the government to support the NSIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,
Report to the President and Congress on on the Third Assessment of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2010, p. viii. (http://
www.nano.gov/node/623)
\7\ Ibid., p. ix.
Q3b. Will a focus on these areas take away from other needed nano-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
related research?
A3b. No. The NNI retains a core of fundamental research that is
essential to maintaining the flow of new ideas into the innovation
pipeline. While PCAST recommended increased NNI emphasis on
manufacturing and commercialization, it also indicated that this should
be done ``while maintaining or expanding the level of basic research
funding in nanotechnology.'' The FY 12 NNI budget request is consistent
with this recommendation: Program Component Areas (PCAs) 1 and 2
(fundamental phenomena and processes and nanomaterials, respectively)
combined still account for a majority of the NNI funding request, while
increased investments in nanomanufacturing (PCA 5) and devices and
systems (PCA 3) are requested.
Q3c. Based on the budget charts for these activities, it appears that
this is a new line item for many agencies, as they are showing zeros in
FY 11 funding. I feel certain that most of these agencies have been
investing in these areas for years. Can you please explain the
discrepancy?
A3c. Yes, some of these agencies have had substantial investments in
areas related to the signature initiative topics for years, however
none of the participating agencies have line items in their budgets for
the Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives. The numbers that are reported
for the signature initiatives in the NNI Supplement to the President's
2012 Budget are crosscuts on other line items. The reason that some
agencies report no funding for FY 11 in this report is that as of the
time the report was prepared, none of the agencies had received their
FY 11 appropriations and therefore many agencies had not allocated
funding to that level of detail. Others interpreted the guidance
differently, and re-allocated funds within their interim FY 11 budgets
towards these priority areas. What is new for the NSIs is the focused,
targeted, interagency collaboration, the specific ``expected
outcomes,'' and the focus on exploiting advances in nanotechnology to
achieve those outcomes.
Q4. With regard to the Signature Initiatives in the FY 12 Budget
Request ( solar energy, nanomanufacturing, nanoelectronics ), why is it
appropriate for the Federal government to identify specific issue areas
for research focus ? How do we not pick technology winners and losers
by doing this? Are these the most critical areas that the Federal
government should be focusing its limited resources? What critical
areas are missing? What other grand challenges do we face with
nanotechnology? What role should the government play in setting ``Grand
Challenges''? What are some examples of ``Grand Challenges'' in
nanotechnology and are we ready to tackle them yet?
Q4a. With regard to the Signature Initiatives. why is it appropriate
for the Federal government to identify specific issue areas for
research focus?
A4a. The U.S. Government has historically prioritized basic research
topics, especially when budgets are restricted. Following the PCAST
recommendation to maintain the NNI's basic research funding, a large
portion of the total NNI investment remains devoted to funding of
investigator-initiated research topics: anyone with a new idea for a
nanoscience or nanotechnology research topic can propose that idea for
funding through the NNI agencies' core programs. However, it is also
appropriate for a portion of the investment to be targeted to national
priorities, especially in areas where the extensive internal NNI review
process has concluded that there is potential for nanotechnology to
have a significant impact on these national priorities, and where the
efforts of multiple agencies are needed to realize this potential.
Q4b. How do we not pick technology winners and losers by doing this?
A4b. Ultimately, the marketplace will pick the technology winners and
losers. The task of the Federal Government is to 1) prioritize research
investments that may have particular promise for commercial or military
applications; 2) support pre-competitive basic and applied research
that will help to mature technologies, products, and services; and 3)
structure investments in a manner that maximizes the potential for U.S.
industry to take advantage of nanotechnology-enabled opportunities.
Q4c. Are these the most critical areas that the Federal government
should be focusing on with its limited resources?
A4c. Yes. As described above under 2d, the three current signature
initiative topics were chosen because the nanotechnology basic research
had matured to the point where materials, platforms, tools, and
approaches are ripe for significant advances through close and targeted
program-level interagency collaboration. Additionally, and as discussed
previously, the potential applications in each NSI topic areas address
major national priorities, and plans are under development to engage
industry and other stakeholders.
4d. What other grand challenges do we face with nanotechnology? What
role should the government play in setting ``Grand Challenges?'' What
are some examples of ``Grand Challenges'' in nanotechnology and are we
ready to tackle them yet?
4d. ``Grand Challenges'' were topics of national importance included in
the original NNI Implementation Plan of 2000. \8\ The NNI investment
strategy no longer includes separately identified ``Grand Challenges'',
in part because many of the original ``Grand Challenges'' fell within
the mission of a single agency. The 2004 NNI Strategic Plan introduced
the seven Program Component Areas (PCAs) to organize and track NNI
investments. The PCAs were revised in the 2007 NNI Strategic Plan to
break the previous ``societal dimensions'' PCA into separate PCAs for
environment, health, and safety (EHS, PCA 7) and education and societal
dimensions (PCA 8). The Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives that were
initially proposed in the NNI Supplement to the President's FY 11
Budget have some elements in common with the original NNI ``Grand
Challenges.'' For example, both mechanisms direct a portion of the NNI
investment portfolio to basic and applied research that targets
specific objectives of national importance. Unlike ``Grand
Challenges'', the new Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives outline more
specific expected outcomes, plans to achieve those outcomes through
multi-agency collaborations, and identification of topics that clearly
fall within the missions or needs of more than one agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its
Implementation Plan, NSTC/NSET Report, July 2000, pp 47-68 (available
at: http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub--resource/nni--
implementation--plan--2000.pdf.)
Q5. It is clear that nanotechnology promises many amazing
breakthroughs while also being surrounded by a great deal of hype,
mostly positive, a little negative. Help me put this in perspective and
get a better sense of the real potential--over the next five to ten
years, how do each of you think nanotechnology will impact our lives
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and our economy?
A5. While we cannot predict the future, the potential of nanotechnology
to revolutionize a variety of industrial sectors and to profoundly
affect our economy and our lives is a near certainty. As Dr. Teague
stated in his testimony, there are a number of breakthroughs and
advances that are already available or will be commercially available
in the near term. For example, nanotechnology-based medicines are now
in clinical trials. Some use nanoparticles to deliver toxic anti-cancer
drugs targeted directly to tumors, minimizing drug damage to other
parts of the body. Nanotechnology is helping scientists make our homes,
cars, and businesses more energy-efficient through new fuel cells,
batteries, and solar panels, as well as through new nanomaterials that
are stronger, lighter, and more durable than the materials we use today
in buildings, bridges, and automobiles.
Nanotechnology has the potential to improve our standard of living,
in much the same way as information technology advances have
revolutionized our lives and the economy over the past two decades. To
frame this more broadly in terms of impact, it hard to quantify the
potential of the emerging field of nanotechnology, just as it is hard
to accurately explain the tremendous impact of the IT revolution.
Consider this: the fact that we have much faster computers, and that we
can quantify exactly how much faster they are, is not in and of itself
an accurate assessment of the impact of the field on our lives or the
economy. It is in what we can do with these faster computers and how
that has changed virtually every part of our society that truly
illustrates that point.
The bottom line is that nanotechnology is expected to be as
ubiquitous as IT. Nanotechnology, by definition, is an enabling
technology that is applicable to virtually every field of science,
technology, and engineering, and as such, it is quickly providing the
ability to fundamentally change the way we create and utilize
everything around us. This case is already true in the electronics
field; if you are not currently using nanotechnology, you are simply
not a competitor in the field.
Nanotechnology funding has a remarkable return on investment when
viewed in terms of expected job creation and the potential for
significant economic growth. A study funded by the National Science
Foundation projects that 6 million nanotechnology workers will be
needed worldwide by 2020, with 2 million of those jobs in the United
States. \9\ A variety of sources have come to the conclusion that
nanotechnology will be between a $1-3 trillion business by 2015. \10\In
fact, just one NNI agency program-the National Science Foundation's
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs)-has contributed to
175 nanotechnology-related startup companies and collaborations with
more than 1200 other companies. This is an indicator of the potential
of NNI investments to stimulate economic activity, and shows a clear
desire on the part of industry to actively collaborate on NNI projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Roco, Mirkin, and Hersam, Nanotechnology Research Directions
for Societal Needs in 2020, Springer, Boston and Berlin, 2010. (http://
wtec.org/nano2/)
\10\ Lux Research, Nanomaterials State of the Market Q3 2008:
Stealth Success, Broad Impact (Lux Research, Inc., NY, NY, July 2008)
and Roco, Mirkin, and Hersam, Nanotechnology Research Directions for
Societal Needs. (WTEC, 2010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government support for nanotechnology research and development is
required to ensure that the United States can maintain a competitive
position in the worldwide nanotechnology marketplace while realizing
nanotechnology's full potential.
Q6. Per my request at the hearing and as you are aware, the House
passed legislation to reauthorize the NNI once in the 110th Congress
and twice in the 111th Congress, only to see it die in the Senate. I
would hope that the nanotechnology research world has changed somewhat
in the past three years since this Committee last held a hearing on the
topic and drafted legislation. Using H.R. 554 from the last Congress as
a basis (attached), please provide feedback by commenting on the merits
of that bill and any areas that you see room for improvement or
changes.
A6. The responses below were developed principally by the NNCO staff in
cooperation with Dr. Teague, OSTP, and the NNI agencies. We thank the
Committee for this question and appreciate the opportunity to comment
on provisions within H.R.554. Our staff is well aware of previous
legislative attempts to reauthorize the NNI, and have performed
periodic analyses of them as these bills have progressed. These
analyses are somewhat lengthy and cannot be fully covered here. Below
we will provide only a summary of the most important points.
In general, H.R.554 contains many positive updates and improvements
to the original NNI authorizing legislation. In particular, we point to
the provisions aimed at enhancing cooperation and partnering of the NNI
with industry and State nanotechnology initiatives, and also the
topical emphases supporting education, commercialization, and
infrastructure.
However, we also feel that many of the provisions establish
programmatic reporting requirements which may prove very burdensome to
NNI agencies, and thus provide a disincentive to continue participating
in the NNI. Specific examples include an expansion in the number and
scope of strategic planning documents and the creation and maintenance
of extensive databases, which may prove costly and have no specific
funding dedicated to them. Additionally, the statement in a number of
provisions of specific topic areas to be researched or reported on may
hinder the evolution of NNI priorities over the coming years.
More specific issues which we have identified with the previous
legislation include:
Recommendation of an independent Nanotechnology
Advisory Panel: The last two Administrations have strongly
recommended that this panel remain a subcommittee of the PCAST,
to keep it integrated with the rest of the scientific advisory
process which advises the OSTP and the President, and to
minimize costs. The previous three PCAST reviews have proven
very valuable and have significantly improved the functioning
of the NNI.
TIP focus on Nanotechnology: This provision requires
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
encourage the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) to fund
nanotechnology programs, and report the details of these
efforts. This statutory emphasis on nanotechnology does not
exist for other technology sectors, and in fact the TIP
emphasis on funding areas of national importance might be
skewed by such a singular provision.
Research in Areas of National Importance: While this
provision may be valuable in principle, the specific phrase
``The Program shall include.'' could impinge on the planning of
a balanced portfolio of research topics in the future. We
recommend the alternate phrasing ``The Program may include.''
Nanomanufacturing Research Program Component Area: As
with the previous bullet, the specific phrasing that the
Nanomanufacturing PCA ``shall contain'' the list of specific
research topic areas may restrict planning of a balanced
portfolio of research topics in the future. Again, we recommend
the alternate phrasing ``The Program Component Area may
include.''
OSTP staff would welcome the opportunity to discuss their views
with the Committee members and staff in greater detail as future re-
authorization legislation is developed.
Questions from Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski
Q1. During his oral testimony, Dr. Tour stated that there is no need
to increase federal investments in environmental, health, and safety
(EHS) risk research because, in his experience, the private sector
already does sufficient testing on their products to meet regulatory
requirements. Do you agree with this statement ? Is industry investing
sufficiently in EHS risk research and testing to protect the public,
the environment, and workers from potential downsides of nanotechnology
? Please elaborate on your answer. Why are federal investments in EHS
risk research under the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) so
important, and why has the Administration increased those investments
over the last couple of years ? How will the new NNI EHS Strategy help
guide the Agencies to integrate and leverage their EHS research ?
Q1a. Do you agree with Dr. Tour's statement?
A1a. Dr. Tour's statement suggests that safety assessment of individual
nanotechnology-enabled products and platforms is sufficient testing for
all aspects of nanoEHS research. This is true if all products fall
under the purview of U.S. regulatory authorities, however many products
and commercial uses of nanotechnology fall outside this scope.
For nanotechnology---enabled products that fall under the
regulatory auspices of FDA, CPSC, USDA, and EPA, existing regulatory
authorities help to ensure the safety of the American people and their
environment. If questions about the adequacy of regulatory oversight
are identified, agencies are able to review those regulations and
testing requirements and modify them, as necessary, to ensure safety.
However, there are many consumer products that fall outside of these
regulatory authorities. Examples include children's toys, air
filtration devices, clothing, and a myriad of electronic devices. The
market for nanotechnology-enabled commercial products is estimated at
up to $3 trillion by 2015, a figure that suggests that many
nanomaterials and nanotechnology-enabled products will fall outside of
the safety testing authorities of U.S. regulatory agencies. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Lux Research, Nanomaterials State of the Market Q3 2008:
Stealth Success, Broad Impact (Lux Research, Inc., NY, NY, July 2008)
and Roco, Mirkin, and Hersam, Nanotechnology Research Directions for
Societal Needs. (WTEC, 2010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous research studies have demonstrated that a change in the
location of a single surface modification on a nanomaterial can alter
its physical and chemical properties, and hence, its behavior in
biological systems. Therefore, there is a need for more generalizable,
basic research about classes of nanomaterials and categories of
biological responses, as well as product-specific safety testing. EHS
research funded by the NNI research-mission agencies includes basic
research that is critical to the development of the nanotechnology
knowledge base that will simultaneously promote product development as
well as applied product-specific testing, to protect public health and
the environment.
Q1b. Is industry investing sufficiently in nanoEHS research?
A1b. Because of intellectual property and confidential business
information rules, it is not possible to estimate with any accuracy the
industrial investment in nanoEHS research. Furthermore, industry
addresses safety issues for its product line and gaps in research
between product lines would develop, thus impeding the development of a
robust knowledge base. Industry has expressed repeated support for EHS
research and for clarity in the regulatory landscape; several
industries have developed hazard assessment programs; and many have
instituted worker protection programs. These programs may have
generalizable components, but they are developed to address a specific
industry's issue and address very specific risk considerations.
Q1c. Why are federal investments (in EHS) important and why have they
been increasing?
A1c. Federal investments in nanoEHS research are critical to the
development of the vast data and knowledge base necessary to perform
the risk assessment and risk management that promotes a positive
nanotechnology business climate and facilitates the responsible
development of nanotechnology. This scope of research--both applied
(product or process specific) and basic--is beyond the scope of what
can be achieved and publicly shared by industry. It is critical to the
successful achievement of all NNI goals-from R&D to tech transfer,
workforce development, as well as use of nanomaterials in green
chemistry and manufacturing, and remediation of the environment, and
for global acceptance of U.S. nanotechnology-enabled solutions and
products, and to U.S. global leadership.
The NNI investment in nanoEHS research has been increasing as
agencies built an early foundation of research that can now be expanded
to achieve the objectives for EHS research laid out in Goal 4 of the
Strategic Plan: Responsible Development of Nanotechnology.
Q1d. How will the new NNI EHS Strategy help guide the Agencies to
integrate and leverage their EHS research ?
A1d. The 2011 NNI nanoEHS research strategy, now in final review before
public release, contains guiding principles to assist agencies'
development of their mission-specific nanoEHS research strategies, and
frameworks within which to shape their implementation plans. \12\ These
principles and frameworks were developed by trans-agency writing teams
and are based on integration of the well-established scientific
constructs of risk assessment and product life cycle assessment,
constructs that cut across agency missions and identify critical
research needs that are shared across agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The draft final nano EHS research strategy is available at
http://strategy.nano.gov/blog/generic/page/draft-nni-ehs-strategy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nanoEHS research strategy also contains principles to target
and accelerate research, such as criteria to select which nanomaterials
to study, guidance to maximize data quality, and mechanisms to partner
with industry and international stakeholders. To promote the continuous
coordination that is essential to ensure the integration of agency
implementation plans, the NSET Nanotechnology Environment and Health
Implications (NEHI) working group established an implementation and
coordination framework that includes: increasing agency participation
in NNI EHS research, refocusing the NEHI Working Group monthly
meetings, coordinating existing and fostering expanded agency efforts
to address priority EHS research needs and identified gaps, and
adaptively managing the NNI EHS Research Strategy as new data and
research needs become apparent.
Response by Dr. Jeffrey Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics Research
Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation
Questions Submitted by Chairman Mo Brooks
Q1. What impacts are environmental, health, and safety concerns having
on the development and commercialization of nanotechnology related
products and what impact might these concerns have in the future?
A1. The semiconductor industry has been building products with nano-
sized features (e.g. the nanoscale junctions of transistors which are
involved in transmitting, processing, and storing information) for some
time with a proven track record of strong environmental, occupational
health and safety commitment and results. These nano-sized features are
etched or otherwise modified into the semiconductor matrix, e.g., a
silicon wafer, and are not discrete engineered nanomaterials, and do
not pose a unique or novel health risk. Today, the use of nanomaterials
in the semiconductor industry is limited to the use of slurries
containing nano-sized particles in chemical mechanical polishing (CMP),
a manufacturing step in the production of semiconductors. However,
these particles are not incorporated into the product, but instead are
used to ``polish'' or ``smooth'' the surface of the semiconductor wafer
during manufacturing.
Although nanomaterials are not used today, the semiconductor
industry and its members are engaged in active research programs to
explore the role of engineered nanomaterials in future semiconductor/
ICT innovations and applications. The semiconductor industry
understands that there are environmental, health, and safety concerns
related to the use of discrete engineered nanomaterials in consumer
products, and that because of the limited information available, there
are uncertainties regarding the potential risks associated with the use
of discrete engineered nanomaterials. The semiconductor industry has
taken proactive steps to respond to this uncertainty. Members of the
semiconductor industry are among the first companies to create safe
work practices and health and safety training for its employees who
work with engineered nanomaterials. The semiconductor industry and its
members are actively supporting and partnering with governmental
agencies, academic institutions, and other organizations to develop the
necessary environmental, health, and safety information that lead to
greater human health and environmental protection, and we are committed
to the responsible and sustainable development of nanotechnology and
use of engineered nanomaterials.
Q2. Are current federal and private research efforts adequate to
address concerns about environmental, health, and safety impacts of
nanotechnology? Why does the federal government need to increase
spending on EHS activities in FY 12 by 36 percent over FY 10 (44
percent over FY 11 CR)?
A2. In light of the potential significance of nanotechnology in future
technological advancement and economic growth, federal support for
research in this area, including EHS impacts, should continue to be a
priority of federal spending. Continued and increased federal support
for EHS activities related to nanotechnology is warranted because the
promise of this technology will be influenced, in part, by the
scientific community's understanding of the EHS impacts of this
technology. The ultimate acceptance by the consumer and the public of
this technology, both in the U.S. and globally, will also be dependent
on the perception of EHS impacts.
The key question for NNI, however, is not simply on the magnitude
of the EHS spending, but rather whether that spending is targeted at
the right areas. Priority should be given to high quality research that
addresses broad needs and nanomaterials with the greatest potential for
impacting health or the environment. NNI also should support efforts to
advance best practices and standards that remove barriers to
commercialization and use.
Q3. It is clear that it is important to improve our understanding of
any environmental, health, and safety issues associated with
nanotechnology and resolve uncertainties related to the regulatory
regime that will govern nanotechnology-related products. What should
our priorities be for research on environmental, health, and safety
issues? How should these priorities be set? What role should the
federal government, academia, and industry, respectively, play in
conducting such research?
A3. Examples of areas that NNI should prioritize include:
Development of tools and methods for accurate
measurement and testing of nanomaterial interactions with
biological systems and the environment. Research on rapid
screening methods (that may both use nanotechnology and can be
applied to characterization of nanomaterials) to reduce the
time, cost, and need for animal testing. The Nanotechnology
Characterization Laboratory is a valuable resource for
evaluation of cancer nanotechnology that advances
characterization techniques broadly.
Engaging in international standards activities
related to nanomaterials definition, characterization, and risk
assessment.
Promoting wide dissemination of information, such as
the Nano Registry of nanomaterials supported by NIH and the
workplace information available from NIOSH.
Focusing implications research (toxicology,
environmental fate and transport, etc.) on materials that are
most likely to find application. Many materials that are the
subject of NNI university research will not transition into
practical application.
Q4. Your testimony states ``with more federal money focused on near-
term--rather than long-term--research projects, the country runs the
risk of under-funding the scientific research pipeline which our
industries rely on for future innovation.'' Please explain the risk
associated with near-term research over long-term research. How can we
ensure dollars are best being utilized in terms of project subject
matter, not simply duration of project?
A4. In general, technology industries invest a large amount into R&D
each year--the semiconductor industry, for example, invests 17% of
revenue on average. The majority of this is necessarily focused on
areas that will have near-term impacts on new products and innovations,
but given the nature of technology research, it has never been able to
fund the scientific research that is needed to form the basis of new
technology innovations. Even when there were more large industrial
labs, such as Bell Labs, it still required almost $5B (2004 dollars) in
mostly government investment over ten years to deliver the first
prototype of a semiconductor diode. DoD funded this with a partnership
between the government, university, and industry labs in order to
insure technical superiority in air missile technology. Bell then
invested an additional $25M--a very large investment by an individual
company's perspective--to create the first commercial version that
launched the IT revolution.
To understand the underlying public benefits associated with
nanotechnology creation and diffusion, one must be cognizant of the
complex relationships between basic and applied science, innovation,
market and systemic failures, and technologically enabled economic
progress. Individual firms have an incentive to perform near-term,
applied nanotechnology research that can ultimately be commercialized
and profitable. While this is understood, it's helpful to take a step
back and look at the larger, comprehensive picture--a picture that is
enabled by government funded basic research. This phenomenon is well-
supported by economic theory and case studies.
Economic theory provides solid justification for a government role
in helping to form the bedrock of the nano-enabled future. Market
failure analysis demonstrates that, without government intervention,
nations will ultimately result in a less than optimal level of research
and knowledge. Such is the case with the nanotechnology sector. The
``perfect competition'' model assumes no uncertainty in production and
utility functions, and that all the factors relevant to production and
societal welfare are traded openly on the market. The very nature of
nanotechnology R&D embodies uncertainty, especially at the nascent
stages we find ourselves in.
Arrow cites three classical economic reasons, based heavily upon
welfare economic theory, behind the failure of the market to allocate
resources at the optimal level. They include indivisibilities,
inappropriability, and uncertainty. Firms, operating under normal
market conditions, depend upon the government to fund pre-competitive
scientific knowledge that spawn and enable new industries. These new
industries or processes can represent major new technological shifts,
evidenced by the progression from vacuum tubes to the transistor era.
Nanotechnology basic research will foster the ecosystem that forms pre-
existing, underlying knowledge. This knowledge serves as the precursor
to widespread industrial production and commercialization approximately
ten years down the road or more.
The second issue that brings about market failure is the
``inappropriability'' factor. When producers cannot realize the
benefits of knowledge in the short-term, they in turn have little
incentive to invest in basic research. Such is the case with advanced
nanoelectronics and the nation's quest to discover the next logic
switch. While the semiconductor industry widely recognizes that a
nanotechnology solution is the only way to surpass the physical limits
of current scaling technology post-2020, no one company or even groups
of companies possess the infrastructure or the funds to invest in the
basic research associated with this broad, national innovation
challenge. Therefore the government must play a central role.
Nanotechnology firms or companies that use nano-applications,
invest heavily in the near-term, applied research, especially if
anticipated breakthroughs are production relevant and there are
probable opportunities for private profit driven by market forces.
Therefore, it is basic research (the type of nanotechnology research
that is arguably the most beneficial to society and that significant
advances affecting many industries will stem from) that suffers from
market failure in the biggest way. Basic research explores fundamental
questions and concepts. ``The goal of scientific activity is discovery,
the goal of technological effort is productive results,'' states
Rosegger. Firms specializing in nanotechnology and applications have
little incentive to carry out such-long term research, due mostly to
the third factor Arrow and Nelson highlight: uncertainty. Basic
research results may not be applicable or pay off in the end. The long
timeframe between the commencement and the creation of something worth
selling is often beyond the outlook of firms looking to maximize
profits in the short-run. The inability of the market to embrace
substantial long-term risks leads to this overall under-investment.
Insurance firms will not insure research results, unlike a farmer whose
crop is damaged due to storms or floods. Research is risky. Some
investments in nanotechnology will yield dead ends, while others will
pay off beyond imagination. Society benefits either way, as the
research is conducted by people. These people attain a first rate
education, experience and valuable tacit knowledge that will later be
used in the marketplace.
Several recent case studies highlight the economic impact of the
federal investment in scientific research. Shultz documents how early
government investment in nanotechnology research has helped the
University at Albany's College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering
(CNSE) serve as the center of a cluster of over 250 industrial
affiliates in upstate New York. The program has attracted over $6
billion in public and private funds over the course of the past decade.
``Since 2001, there has been qualitative and quantitative evidence of
the emergence of a nanotechnology cluster in the Capital Region of NY.
Upstate NY has become home to multiple nanotechnology firms and
experienced growth in the employment in nanotechnology related
industries,'' states Shultz. For instance, private semiconductor
manufacturing investments in the region are skyrocketing with the
addition of a new chip foundry ($5-$6 billion initial investment, with
the possibility of future expansion) being erected nearby CNSE. In a
separate study of the economic impact of the federal investment in the
Human Genome Project, the authors found that $3.8 billion in government
funding ``helped drive $796 billion in economic impact.'' These are
good examples of fundamental research that has produced a host of new
capabilities, businesses and jobs. There are many others.
In order to find new breakthroughs, early-stage research on
nanoelectronics (or other nano areas) must look broadly at many
different potential paths; some of the discoveries will lead to
breakthroughs for the semiconductor industry, some will lead to
breakthroughs for other industries--or even create new industries--and
all will add to the scientific knowledge needed to build our innovation
future, sometimes in ways we can't foresee yet. Therefore the
proportion of funding done by government and industry needs to follow
this same ``funnel'' flow: At the early stage, government must invest
in many broad ideas to feed into the funnel; as the potential of
specific ideas because more apparent, industry should be more closely
involved and contribute more funding; when the ideas look like they
could impact a specific product area in the relatively near-term (3-5
years), the majority of funding and direction should come from
industry.
And by having industry consortia involved throughout this funnel
process--even at the beginning when the work is more exploratory and
predominantly funded by the government--the identification and
acceleration of good ideas towards products can be achieved. Early
interest from industry also serves as a good verification that the
project subject matter is likely to have large impact on future
innovations, leading to higher economic impact and job growth.
Q5. With regard to the Signature Initiatives identified in the FY 12
Budget Request (solar energy, nanomanufacturing, and nanoelectronics),
why is it appropriate for the Federal government to identify specific
issue areas for research focus? How do we not pick technology winners
and losers by doing this? Are these the most critical areas that the
Federal government should be focusing its limited resources? What
critical areas are missing? What other grand challenges do we face with
nanotechnology? What role should the government play in setting ``Grand
Challenges?'' What are some examples of ``Grand Challenges'' in
nanotechnology and are we ready to tackle them yet?
A5. In times of limited resources, it is especially critical that the
Federal government balance supporting a broad range of basic science
research with focusing on areas of research most likely to result in
future economic impact. The Signature Initiatives are a good attempt to
do this by picking areas where there is a clear national need for new
technological breakthroughs and where the new capabilities offered by
nanotechnology could result in relevant scientific discoveries. While
it is never possible to predict exactly where the next breakthrough
will occur, setting Grand Challenges helps to focus limited resources
in areas of high potential, and the three areas currently chosen for
Signature Initiatives all seem to be appropriate. Moreover, by
specifying that these Initiatives should be pursued by multiple
agencies, and in conjunction with industry consortia as appropriate,
the limited resources are better coordinated across the government and
better leverage private investments--avoiding redundancy and
accelerating the overall progress. They also encourage students to
enroll in STEM fields related to these Signature Initiatives and spur
academia to perform research, knowing they are a priority for the
nation.
To avoid picking ``winners and losers'', it is important that the
Grand Challenge areas are all broadly defined, so that they do not
force researchers in to looking at just one solution area. For example,
the Nanoelectronics Signature Initiative has as its primary goal the
discovery of new technology--an alternate state variable device--that
can advance the entire semiconductor and electronics industry, but it
does not specify what that state variable or device should be. It does
highlight several areas that currently appear promising (e.g. carbon
electronics, nanophotonics, and quantum information processing), but it
does not limit the potential research directions in any way. It also
emphasizes increased investments in the research infrastructure at
universities, necessary both to keep the U.S. at the forefront of
nanoelectronics research and maintain the pipeline of relevantly-
educated students.
This approach is similar to the way the Nanoelectronics Research
Initiative (NRI) structures its own public-private partnership program.
The NRI vision is to maintain a ``goal-oriented, basic-science
research'' mission, where academics are made aware of the high-level
challenges and needs of the nanoelectronics industry, but allowed to
explore a broad range of research topics that could potentially address
these challenges--or create whole new approaches that would circumvent
them entirely. In choosing other areas for Grand Challenges or
Signature Initiatives, this same vision is appropriate, and three
criteria in particular should be met:
1. The basic research that is funded is top-notch and leading
edge.
2. The researchers who are proposing research are aware of
potential applications and of relevant industry needs.
3. To the extent possible, ``potential future customers'' of
the basic research (i.e. industry and other developers of
practical applications down the road) should be connected to
the Federally funded research.
Q6. It is clear that nanotechnology promises many amazing
breakthroughs while also being surrounded by a great deal of hype,
mostly positive, a little negative. Help me put this in perspective and
get a better sense of the real potential--Over the next five to ten
years, how do each of you think nanotechnology will impact our lives
and our economy?
A6. While nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize everything
from medical care to energy production, predicting exactly where the
next breakthroughs will occur and what their impact will be is very
difficult. However, the area of electronics stands out historically as
having had outsized impacts on the economy, as well as enabling
breakthroughs in many other areas of science and technology. As
mentioned in my testimony, U.S. semiconductor companies generated over
$140 billion in sales--representing nearly half the worldwide market,
and making semiconductors the nation's largest export industry. The
industry directly employs over 180,000 workers in the U.S., and another
6 million American jobs are made possible by semiconductors. Moreover,
studies show that semiconductors, and the Information Technologies they
enable, represent three percent of the economy, but drive 25 percent of
economic growth. This remarkable impact has largely been due to the
power of scaling to increase the function / dollar of semiconductor
chips each year, and hence there is an urgent need to find
nanoelectronic devices that will continue to drive this economic
engine. At the same time, future nanoelectronic semiconductors will be
crucial for solving many of the other major challenges facing society
today.
Why do we need even more capable technology? Imagine a future in
which a child with diabetes no longer has to prick her finger to check
her glucose or get insulin shots thanks to an implanted artificial
pancreas; when smart tools and sensors enable a highly efficient
electric grid that saves billions of dollars in wasted energy costs and
avoids the need for new power plants based on non-renewable energy;
where cell phones automatically translate your conversation into any
language required; or powerful systems to design and manufacture new
materials for radically lighter, yet safer, cars and planes. In
addition, nanoelectronics is crucial to maintaining the U.S. leadership
in High Performance Computing (HPC). HPC has been behind nearly every
major scientific advance and innovation in the past decade, in energy,
materials science, engineering, life sciences, and defense and
security. In biology in particular, the sequencing of the human genome
was arguably as much a triumph of computing technology as it was of
medical science. And increased computational capability is crucial for
advancing microbiology and chemistry, from the study of protein folding
to new drug discovery.
While we don't know exactly what all the new breakthroughs in
nanotechnology will bring in the next decade, we do know that almost
all of them will rely on breakthroughs in advanced nanoelectronics to
be realized.
Q7. Per my request at the hearing and as you are aware, the House
passed legislation to reauthorize the NNI once in the 110th Congress
and twice in the 111th Congress only to see it die in the Senate. I
would hope that the nanotechnology research world has changed somewhat
in the past three years since this Committee last held a hearing on the
topic and drafted the legislation. Using H.R. 554 from the last
Congress as a basis (attached), please provide feedback by commenting
on the merits of that bill and any areas that you see room for
improvement or changes?
A7. Passage of legislation authorizing activities for support of
nanotechnology research and development would send a clear message to
the Federal research agencies that nanoscale science and engineering is
a priority of the Congress and to the private sector, including
investors, that nanotechnology has the potential to provide significant
benefits. The latest bill (H.R. 554) clearly strives to build upon the
original act (PL 108-153), which put into law the framework for what
has been a highly successful multi-agency program. Various amendments
appear to clarify issues, for example related to the support of the
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), however, there are
some concerns about H.R. 554.
The bill requires that the NNI strategic plan include a description
of research in areas of national importance, encourages Federal-State-
industry-university partnerships, and establishes a process to ensure
that our research facilities have the equipment and operating funding
necessary to support the needed research. These are all good attributes
of the legislation and will further research in nanoelectronics and
other areas that are useful to the semiconductor and other industries.
In its current form, the bill calls for a significant number of new
management and oversight activities that are notable in their extent,
specificity, and detail. We do not know of any other Federal research
program that has such detailed spelling out of activities in the
authorizing legislation. A concern is that the time and cost of
fulfilling all of the specified activities and reports takes away from
resources that would otherwise go toward accomplishing the research
goals of the program. Moreover, given the program is primarily about
interagency coordination and collaboration, one wonders if agencies
will be disincentivized from participating, thereby decreasing the very
activities that are intended to be encouraged. By funding
nanotechnology research, an agency must, for example:
Report information about each project on EHS, other
societal dimensions, or nanomanufacturing;
Participate in development of multiple research
plans, one on EHS that is updated annually, and a detailed
annual report;
Fund the NNCO and periodic reviews of the program by
the National Research Council; and
Provide detailed information annually on
nanotechnology-related SBIR and STTR proposals received vs.
funded.
The bill also requires a new Presidential advisory panel, rather
than allowing for an existing body to be designated. Currently the
duties of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel are being carried
out by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST), the highest level Presidential science and technology advisory
body. Requiring a separate body loses the benefit/option of having such
high level attention and scrutiny and adds considerable cost.In
addition to the extensive prescribed management, the tone and emphasis
of H.R. 554 seems skewed toward activities related to ``societal
dimensions'' of nanotechnology, particularly the planning, overseeing,
and tracking of research on the environmental, health, and safety (EHS)
risks that may be associated with nanotechnology. For example, a
separate subpanel of the advisory panel is required to evaluate the EHS
and other societal aspects. All informal, precollege, or undergraduate
nanotechnology education must include education regarding EHS of
nanotechnology. The NNCO is to maintain a public database of
information about individual projects on EHS and other societal
dimensions, as well as nanomanufacturing. Why single out these areas?
We have heard that efforts are underway to develop publicly accessible
information for research in all areas (via research.gov), thereby
making this provision unnecessary.
Section 3(a) creates a Coordinator for Societal Dimensions of
Nanotechnology at the level of an Associate Director in the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. The individual is responsible primarily
for overseeing implementation of various planning, reviewing, and
reporting activities called for in the bill. This new position is not
necessary; these functions seem more appropriate for the NNCO and we
have learned that the current NNCO Deputy Director has been named EHS
Coordinator for the program. It appears that in order to accomplish the
level of planning, coordination, and reporting already called for has
led to the development of a well-organized, functioning interagency
management structure. The saying, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it''
comes to mind.
Section 5, entitled Research in Areas of National Importance,
directs that agencies identify and support those areas of greatest
potential benefit in collaboration with each other and with the private
sector so as to ensure efficient uptake. We feel this is a valuable
addition to the program; in fact, it is the section of the bill that is
most clearly focused on the benefits of nanotechnology and therefore
would provide some balance to bill if it were moved to follow Section
2. As the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative has demonstrated, such
approaches can be extremely effective at focusing research, easing
technology transfer, and promoting joint/leverage support for
fundamental scientific research.
As Congress works to reauthorize the NNI, it should continue to
highlight nanoelectronics to ensure the U.S. will lead in this area
which is essential to economic growth and societal progress:
1. Continue to include specific authorization for support in
research areas of national importance and explicitly note that
nanoelectronics research is one such area;
2. Request that the National Academies include a
nanoelectronics study as part of its triennial external review
of the NNI;
3. Address the need for nanoelectronics research
infrastructure, i.e. equipment and equipment operating funds,
at universities and national laboratories;
4. Specifically encourage direct industry-government
partnerships--including state government involvement--in
support of nanoelectronics research at universities and
national laboratories.
In addition to the above overarching comments, we offer the
following specific recommendation.
In Sec. 2 (8), we strongly encourage inserting
``engineering'' in the definition of Nanotechnology so that it
reads, ``The term `nanotechnology' means the science,
engineering, and technology that will enable.'' This is more
complete and engineering connects science and technology
through practical application of discovery research.
Question Submitted by Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Do you agree that current federal investments in environmental,
health, and safety (EHS) risk research are important to industries,
such as your own, that do or will benefit from developments in
nanotechnology? Why? What specific aspects of EHS research are of
primary importance to the semiconductor industry? Does the
semiconductor industry invest in those areas of research? If so, at
what level relative to federal investments? What do you see as the
relative roles of the government and industry related to EHS risk
research? Are there specific areas of EHS research in which the federal
government should increase its investments? Does the new NNI EHS
Strategy address those areas adequately? By what mechanisms could
government and industry work more collaboratively to address risk-
research needs for nanotechnology?
A1. Federal investment to address EHS concerns associated with emerging
technologies, such as nanotechnology, is a critical part of a robust
and complete research program. Broadly, there is general awareness that
nanoparticles can behave differently from their larger scale
counterparts. These differences can lead to beneficial applications,
such as more efficient catalysts for cleaner combustion and other
processes. The federal investment in EHS research is contributing to
the widespread understanding of how nanoparticles interact with
biological systems and helping all stakeholders--researchers,
regulators, environmental groups and public health officials, workers,
consumers, and others--to be informed. This is critical to realizing
maximum benefits from nanotechnology while at the same time assessing
any risks.
Whereas the Federal EHS research should focus on providing broad
understanding of potential risks and the tools with which to measure
and assess those, industry focuses on materials and processes related
to specific products. The semiconductor industry has made, and
continues to make, significant investments into addressing EHS concerns
associated with our industry. For example, the industry funds the SRC/
SEMATECH Engineering Research Center for Environmentally Benign
Semiconductor Manufacturing based at the University of Arizona
specifically to do research on EHS issues important to our industry
(not just related to nanotechnology). This Center is constantly looking
at the materials and processes that are relevant to the industry to
identify potential concerns early on, and to find ways to mitigate
these and improve our processes overall. Based in part on its work, the
industry has an accomplished record of success in reducing emissions,
phasing out the use of potentially harmful chemicals, and minimizing
risks to workers.
It is important to note that this Center was originally started in
1996 with joint funding from NSF and SRC/SEMATECH, and since 2006 when
NSF funding ended industry has continued to support the program. This
experience illustrates the vital role that federal funding plays in
initiating key initiatives and leveraging the support of private
industry. It also is an example of industry and government working
together to support research to address industry-related EHS research
needs. It should be noted that SRC has implemented this type of
federal-private partnership with NSF and NIST for research in a number
of fields in addition to EHS aspects of nanotechnology.
Responses by Dr. Seth Rudnick, Chairman, Board of Directors, Liquidia
Technologies
Questions for the Record submitted by Chairman Mo Brooks
Q1. What impacts are environmental, health and safety concerns having
on the development and commercialization of nanotechnology-related
products and what impact might these concerns have in the future?
A1. In our (life science) business, the existing EH&S policies and
procedures are being rigorously applied to our products, and
appropriately so through the FDA. We feel these existing policies and
procedures are indeed adequate as they exist and we would hope that
additional resolutions only be instituted if proven to be needed;
however, it is not obvious that regulatory changes need to be made in
the life science arena.
Q2. It is clear that it is important to improve our understanding of
any environmental, health and safety issues associated with
nanotechnology and resolve uncertainties related to the regulatory
regime that will govern nanotechnology-related products. What should
our priorities be for research on environmental, health and safety
issues? How should these priorities be set? What role should the
federal government, academia and industry, respectively, play in
conducting such research?
A2. Clearly current policies and procedures for the approval of
vaccines and drugs seem to be adequate as presently crafted and
implemented. However, there may be needs for updated EH&S rules and
regulations for products outside of FDA jurisdiction. It is worth
noting that nanomaterials are often heterogeneous systems; as stated in
another way, they are intrinsically ``mixtures.'' Current EH&S policies
and procedures, as well as the basic science of EH&S, are inherently
structured to deal with uniform or singular entities. As such, we
believe two things are needed: (1) calibration-quality standard
nanomaterials and (2) new, fundamental approaches to the EH&S study of
mixtures. Calibration-quality particles that are cost-effective and
readily available to researchers to perform their studies are
desperately needed. Such nanomaterial samples are different in scale
and cost to that which is provided by NIST, which are primarily
intended to calibrate instrumentation.
Q3. With regard to the Signature Initiatives identified in the FY 12
Budget request (solar energy, nanomanufacturing, and nanoelectronics),
why is it appropriate for the Federal government to identify specific
issue areas for research focus? How do we not pick technology winners
and losers by doing this? Are these the most critical areas that the
Federal government should be focusing its limited resources? What
critical areas are missing? What other rand challenges do we face with
nanotechnology? What role should the government play in setting ``Grand
Challenges?'' What are some examples of ``Grand Challenges'' in
nanotechnology and are we ready to tackle them yet?
A3. It is hard to imagine that nanomedicines, vaccines and diagnostics
(the life sciences) are not specifically called out as a Signature
Initiative. The application of nanosystems in the life sciences is
poised make some of the most important and most immediate impacts on
our society and our economy. The U.S. needs to continue to lead this
important area which not only paves the way for more efficient and
safer vaccines and therapeutics, but earlier detection which will save
an enormous number of lives and drive down costs, having extraordinary
impact on global health. Our company is poised to release better
vaccines which may be 100x cheaper than the current multibillion dollar
products. We have been able to accomplish this by co-opting the top-
down nanomanufacturing tools of the computer industry to enable
entirely new concepts in the design of vaccines. Indeed this has
enticed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to make their first
equity investment ever in a biotech company.
Q4. It is clear that nanotechnology promises many amazing
breakthroughs while also being surrounded by a great deal of hype,
mostly positive, a little negative. Help me put this in perspective and
get a better sense of the real potential--over the next five to ten
years, how do each of you think nanotechnology will impact our lives
and the economy?
A4. In our field, consider that within the timeframe you suggest we
expect to see a new, superior influenza vaccine with high response in
the elderly (the elderly are currently underserved by today's vaccine
technologies); a next generation malaria vaccine; a dramatically
cheaper pneumococcal vaccine-so much cheaper that it has the potential
to drive down costs in the developed world and enable global access in
a way that currently is not possible; more effective inhaled medicines
to treat asthma, COPD, PHT, and cystic fibrosis; and perhaps most
importantly, effective cancer therapeutics that have fewer side effects
and next generation cancer vaccines which harness the body's own immune
system to fight the cancer.
Q5. Per my request at the hearing and as you are aware, the House
passed legislation to reauthorize the NNI once in the 110th Congress
and twice in the 111th Congress only to see it die in the Senate. I
would hope that the nanotechnology research world has changed somewhat
in the past three years since this Committee last held a hearing on the
topic and drafted the legislation. Using H.R. 554 from the last
Congress as a basis (attached), please provide feedback by commenting
on the merits of that bill and any areas that you see room for
improvement or changes?
A5. Our primary comment is that the life science arena needs to be a
significant focus along side of solar energy, nanomanufacturing and
nanoelectronics.
Responses by Dr. James Tour, Professor of Chemistry, Computer Science
and Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Rice
University
Questions Submitted by Chairman Mo Brooks
Q1. What impacts are environmental, health, and safety concerns having
on the development and commercialization of nanotechnology-related
products and what impact might these concerns have in the future?
Q2. It is clear that it is important to improve our understanding of
any environmental, health, and safety issues associated with
nanotechnology and resolve uncertainties related to the regulatory
regime that will govern nanotechnology-related products. What should
our priorities be for research on environmental, health, and safety
issues? How should these priorities be set? What role should the
federal government, academia, and industry, respectively, play in
conducting such research?
A1-2. Nanotechnology stands alone for one reason in particular: it is
extraordinarily broad. That breadth allows nanotechnology to bring
together formerly separate fields of study to maximize the strengths
and utility of each. It has also enhanced the education of a new
generation of students. But breadth also has its disadvantages: chief
among these is that researchers and manufacturers are becoming
overwhelmed with calls for compliance to unclear safety regulations \1\
while regulators are becoming frustrated because noncompliance is the
inevitable consequence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/June/16060901.asp
Accessed Feb 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge and respect the efforts of our colleagues working
across a broad array of organizations when they devise protocols that
encourage prudence and safety. This is laudable and worthwhile, and as
nanotechnologists ourselves, we are pleased to be part of a community
that is attempting to avoid the environmental and human disasters that
have blemished other areas of research. We echo here the occasional
frustrations of those experts who find that the generalities in
nanotechnology can make compliance to recommendations exceedingly
difficult noting, for instance, that attempts to implement voluntary
reporting have generally failed \2\. Clearly, regulations are needed to
keep the practice of science safe. At the same time, nanotechnology
must not be regulated out of existence. Prudence motivates us to
practice our science safely, but also to refrain from stifling
overreaction, or what others have termed, ``paralysis by analysis
\3\,'' in the calls for fences around nanotechnology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Maynard, A. & Rejeski, D. Nature 460, 174 (2009).
\3\ Hansen, S., Maynard, A., Baun, A. & Tickner, J.A.. Nature
Nanotech. 3, 444-447 (2008). Quoting recommendations originally
published by the European Environmental Agency. Harremoes, P. et al.
European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, 1896-2000 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oftentimes things are most easily demonstrated by view of an
analogy. Let us consider the field of ``metertechnology.''
Metertechnology is defined here as research and technology development
at the length scale of approximately 0.1-1 meters. If regulatory
demands on nanotechnology were mirrored in this new field, the
metertechnologist would be required to:
``provide long-term environmental and health
monitoring and research into early warnings,''+&
``systematically scrutinize claimed benefits and
risks,''+
``identify and work to reduce scientific `blind
spots' and knowledge gaps,''+and
``account fully for the assumptions and values of
different social groups''+
+footnote below1A\3\
\3\ Hansen, S., Maynard, A., Baun, A. & Tickner, J.A.. Nature
Nanotech. 3, 444-447 (2008). Quoting recommendations originally
published by the European Environmental Agency. Harremoes, P. et al.
European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, 1896-2000 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do metertechnologists follow such directives? Are they
adequately specific? Or would proper compliance paralyze the research
and manufacture of metertechnology-based items? It is clear that
properties and hazards of materials for a given size domain are often
not generalizable across length scales. However, ill-defined calls,
such as those identified above, are too broad to provide meaningful
input to an individual or manufacturer seeking to ensure the safety of
their particular research or products. How have other fields of science
dealt with these issues?
The organic chemist well-appreciates that each new organic compound
must be studied for its own set of toxicities. Changing the orientation
of a single methyl group, for example, can cause a steroid to change
from being a highly beneficial pharmaceutical to something of no
utility or even frighteningly toxic. Some polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) are toxic, but that does not encompass all organic compounds,
and not even all phenyl-containing compounds or chlorine-containing
compounds. Vinyl chloride is a potent carcinogen, but its
polymerization product, poly(vinyl chloride), is used to make pipes
that deliver drinking water. These facts come as no surprise to the
organic chemist, who studies each compound individually, and restricts
any generalizations so that they apply only to a well-defined and
specific class of materials. The product of a chemical reaction is not
the sum of its parts.
For nanomaterials, the effects of size scaling can be just as
significant as that of manipulating chemical side groups. For example,
a long multi-walled carbon nanotube has been identified to be toxic in
inhalation experiments, acting much like asbestos in its interactions
with biological organisms \4\. But it has also been observed that the
body is able to clear foreign objects whose lengths are comparable to
or less than the diameter of phagocytic cells (10--20 microns) 1A\5\.
If one chemically cuts a nanotube so that it is 30 nm long, and also
renders its surface hydrophilic so that it dissolves readily in blood
plasma, is it still toxic? Unfortunately, media reports of the
conclusions of individual research studies relevant only for specific
conditions could lead to inappropriate extrapolations regarding
nanomaterial safety by the public and even other scientists who are not
toxicity experts \6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Poland, C.m Duffin, R., Kinlock, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W.,
Seaton, A., Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W. & Donaldson, K. Nature
Nanotech. 3, 423-428 (2008).
\5\ Guo, L., et al. Mater. Sci. Forum 544-545, 511-516 (2007).
\6\ http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?ArticleId=2448 Accessed Feb
1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to the simplified views at times promulgated by the
media6, within the scientific communities working in this area, there
is a growing understanding that details of individual nanoparticles
need to be considered, rather than generalizations. A 2008 review of
the nanotoxicity literature includes numerous studies demonstrating
that modifications in nanomaterial surface properties yield significant
alterations in their biological responses \7\. These conclusions are
similar to those of a recent Toxicological Sciences review, which
highlight the importance of ``an overall picture of material-specific
rather than nanogeneralized risk'', and state that ``generalities with
regard to biocompatibility do not appear to be valid'' \8\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Lewinski, N., Colvin, V., & Drezek, R. Small 4, 26-49 (2008).
\8\ Stern, S.T., & McNeil, S.E. Toxicological Sciences 101, 4-21
(2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent challenges in Europe surrounding regulation of carbon
nanotubes illustrate this gulf between regulation and scientific
understanding as well as the difficulties of overly broad terminology.
Companies must provide safety data for nanomaterials as part of the
2008 Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of
Chemicals (REACH) agreement regulating chemicals in the EU. But it is
unclear how nanotubes should be classified, and what protocols should
be used to evaluate possible hazards1. This ambiguity has led one group
of companies to pursue a strategy based on treating nanotubes as new
types of chemicals, while a separate and larger collection of companies
plan to treat and regulate nanotubes as a form of bulk graphite1. At
the same time, and in contrast to the nanotube classification
strategies being considered to meet REACH requirements, a series of
publications on the safety of carbon materials in Carbon9 came to the
conclusion that ``carbon nanomaterial samples are typically complex
mixtures and.that their toxicity depends on the specific formulation,
in particular: (i) hydrophilicity . . . (ii) metals content and
bioavailability, and (iii) state of aggregation . . . ''
We offer several general suggestions to assist recommendations and
decisions:
1. When making safety and handling recommendations to
nanotechnologists, use calls that are realistic to execute.
Apply the ``metertechnology'' test, and if it makes little
sense to apply it to the meter-scale, then reconstruct the
recommendation so that it would be sensible regardless of the
size-domain.
2. Use toxicity standards that are understood in other fields
of science such as chemistry or drug development. It is
particularly important to recognize that broad generalizations
could simultaneously unfairly stigmatize new innovations and
miss new hazards.
3. Help stakeholders identify the highest quality
nanotoxicology studies. An important recent step towards this
goal is the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON)
nanoEHS virtual journal10, an online repository of health and
environmental literature that allows the rating of papers. This
helps to communicate the most critical new knowledge to
stakeholders such as academic nanotechnologists and relevant
funding agencies facilitating development of appropriate risk
assessment methods specific to new nanomaterials.
4. Consider sectioning ``nanotechnology'' into a number of
narrowly defined fields when drafting recommendations rather
than applying a single set of recommendations to all
nanomaterials. These might include (a) C60 and related small
fullerenes which are pseudo 0 D carbon materials, (b) carbon
nanotubes which are pseudo 1 D carbon materials, (c) graphene
which is a 2 D carbon material, (d) gold nanoparticles (e)
silver nanoparticles, and so on. Each of these fields would
then further need to consider features such as particle size,
surface coatings and charges, aggregation states and typical
trapped impurities such as exogenous metals or solvent.
5. Avoid confusing ``nanotechnology'' as an idea that drives
discovery and innovation with ``nanotechnology'' as something
that is best regulated as an entity itself. Given the
challenges created by the breadth of the field and the limits
of current scientific understanding, regulation might be better
focused on the specific materials used and particular products
created rather than on an underlying scientific regime or
rubric.
The industry and scientific researchers understand that even though
we are still indentifying the EHS issues surrounding nanotechnology,
the government still has a vital function to play. The federal
government needs to partner with researchers and the nanotechnology
industry to ensure that adequate rules and regulations are promulgated
which are realistic while protecting the environment, health and
safety. In addition, with so many governmental agencies having a role
in the development of this emerging industry, it is imperative that any
rules and regulations be coordinated across all agencies and done so
with scientific input. In this regard, here are further recommendations
and needs for consideration:
1. There does not appear to be a primary U.S. trade
association, based in DC that represents the interests of the
U.S. nanotechnology community (or coordinates nanotechnology
interests across industry segments/industry trade associations)
to U.S. politicians and regulators. This presents a major
challenge to members of Congress and to regulators since they
are accustomed to working with key trade associations that
serve the important role of unifying the industry around
standards, best practices, responses to legislation/regulation
and relationships with members of Congress and regulators. In
the absence of a primary trade association, regulators are
required to sort through a far more complex and conflicting web
of relationships within the nanotechnology community than is
required for other industries with an established ``presence''
in DC (represented by groups such as the American Petroleum
Institute or the Chemical Manufacturers Association, etc.) This
is an inherent weakness of an industry that is only now moving
into the commercialization phase with the entire attendant
infrastructure needs such trade associations. It is not a role
of Congress to create such a trade association, but it is
something that the NNI and OSTP can encourage industry to
formulate. In the absence of such an association, it will be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, for regulatory agencies
to hire and retain technical professionals who are capable of
regulating this technology in its various applications. A good
example of this type of knowledge gap occurred during the
Deepwater Horizon incident last year. Government regulators
conceded that industry knew far more about how to respond to
the emergency than did government regulators. This created an
awkward situation for regulator and business alike and
contributed to the broad shut down of all drilling in the Gulf
out of a fear of public outrage over the perceived weakness of
the regulators.
2. As more U.S. regulatory agencies deal with the testing of
nanotechnology, congress needs to ensure that NNI works with
NIST to create uniform standards for testing to reduce
duplicative and inconsistent testing. If we look at just the
EPA, OSHA and FDA, there is a high likelihood that as these
agencies get more heavily involved in the regulation of
nanotechnology, they will request funding for duplicative
reasons. A uniform testing standard will help to avoid
unnecessary testing.
3. Nanotechnology is being developed at a time when the
pressure to regulate is shifting away from nation-states to
international standard-setting bodies that may or may not be
connected to government structures. As manufacturing shifts
overseas into countries without a mature regulatory
infrastructure, manufacturers increasingly seek to create
voluntary or globally implemented standards that will allow
them to operate seamlessly across international boundaries.
This may make countries with strong regulatory structures, that
are not harmonized globally, less attractive for the businesses
spawned by nanotechnology precisely because its regulation is
not consistent with or appreciative of the need for a global
standard. If nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize
manufacturing, it might also drive a similar revolution in the
way we think about regulation in a global economy. As I answer
below, we also need to review international organizations with
which the U.S. regulators should coordinate concerning global
standards.
4. The comments presented to the Subcommittee herein mention
the important work of the EU's REACH agreement; however, it is
less clear whether REACH should or should not be adopted in the
U.S. We recommend an international collaborative work between
EPA, for example, and its counterpart in the EU responsible for
EHS regulation of nanotechnology to create standards that
encourage global competition, but are not overly burdensome on
the development of new technologies.
5. The lack of end-user/consumer education and the safety of
nanotechnology is quickly becoming a major issue for marketers
of products that utilize nanotechnology. It is critical for
regulators to define what is safe and inform the public so that
marketers can avoid the legal liabilities associated with
ambiguous or misleading product claims. Government can play an
extremely valuable role in the education of the American public
on EHS issues related to nanotechnology.
6. When we say in the response (below) that ``Nanotechnology .
. . could permeate 50% or more of our materials, electronics
and medical products . . . '' we are not confident that our
current regulatory structure will even allow this revolution to
occur. The U.S. regulatory system is not known to be efficient
and if there is a lack of qualified regulators to regulate, and
a lack of urgency to ensure the competitiveness of U.S.
manufacturers, then sluggish or draconian regulation in this
area could contribute to a decline in the U.S. nano-
manufacturing base.
7. As I discuss below, there should be a study on the impact
of U.S. tort law on the commercialization of nanotechnology.
This represents a major area of uncertainty for U.S.
manufacturers, especially in the absence of proactive
government regulation. Regulators must regulate in a manner
that protects human health, the environment and the ability of
U.S. businesses to compete globally.
8. Federal and state agencies have constitutional mandates
that require them to protect human health and the environment.
While there is much EHS work being done by the industry, we
should not expect regulators to feel that this work satisfies
their mandate. While companies are indeed doing their own EHS
work, the agencies themselves cannot accept this practice
without certifying it through some form of regulation. In
addition, we must recognize that agencies are motivated
oftentimes by broad application of the ``precautionary
principle'' that may not be shared by business. The scientific
community should acknowledge that there are public perceptions
that agencies are required to manage that have nothing to do
with the science of the issue. This is an area where
researchers and regulators can work together to educate the
public.
While a decade ago academics jockeyed to label their work as
``nano'', in part to maximize funding opportunities or embrace the
excitement of a new field, now some are foregoing that title to avoid
burdensome scrutiny, especially when the work appears to have
commercial potential11. Unless we modify the way that nanotechnology is
regulated, not only will future consumer product boxes proudly bear the
label, ``Nano-Free!,'' but researchers will abandon the nano label in
favor of old banners such as ``Chemistry,'' ``Electronics'' and
``Biology.'' This would negatively impact innovation, safety,
education, and the future of the field.
References:
[1] http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/June/16060901.asp
Accessed Feb 1, 2010.
[2] Maynard, A. & Rejeski, D. Nature 460, 174 (2009).
[3] Hansen, S., Maynard, A., Baun, A. & Tickner, J.A.. Nature
Nanotech. 3, 444-447 (2008).Quoting recommendations originally
published by the European Environmental Agency. Harremoes, P. et al.
European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, 1896-2000 (2001).
[4] Poland, C.m Duffin, R., Kinlock, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W.,
Seaton, A., Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W. & Donaldson, K. Nature
Nanotech. 3, 423-428 (2008).
[5] Guo, L., et al. Mater. Sci. Forum 544-545, 511-516 (2007).
[6] http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?ArticleId=2448 Accessed Feb
1, 2010.
[7] Lewinski, N., Colvin, V., & Drezek, R. Small 4, 26-49 (2008).
[8] Stern, S.T., & McNeil, S.E. Toxicological Sciences 101, 4-21
(2008).
Q3. With regard to the Signature Initiatives identified in the FY 12
Budget Request (solar energy, nanomanufacturing, and nanoelectronics),
why is it appropriate for the Federal government to identify specific
issue areas for research focus? How do we not pick technology winners
and losers by doing this? Are these the most critical areas that the
Federal government should be focusing its limited resources? What
critical areas are missing? What other grand challenges do we face with
nanotechnology? ole should the government play in setting ``Grand
Challenges?'' What are some examples of ``Grand Challenges'' in
nanotechnology and are we ready to tackle them yet?
A3. Federal funding for nanotechnology beyond the discovery phase is
also needed to spawn the transitions from the laboratory to the
manufacturing stage. This can be done using a competitive grants
process that keeps the government from choosing its favorites, and
permits competition through grant applications analogous to the
competitive SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) and STTR (Small
Business Technology Transfer) programs. As in the SBIR/STTR programs,
let governing science agencies decide the hot areas to fund, which
ensures that the government is not picking the winners and losers. Let
those at the NSF and DoD program manager level, for example, work with
their teams to decide where the science shall be led. This is often
done by those parties in consultation with the scientists.
As the budget debate continues to unfold in Congress, it is now
more important than ever that we set funding priorities. Despite these
funding challenges, the government still plays a vital role in creating
incentives for private industry. The government can do so by setting
``Grand Challenges'', but should do so with significant input from both
industry and the scientific community. These challenges should be
transformational to our society, but still realistic. For example:
1. The government should set a challenge to develop a system
for a wireless transmission of energy. Years ago it was
unthinkable that you could transmit gigabytes of data across a
wireless network, yet today one can wirelessly share a photo of
a newborn child across the globe.
2. Another grand challenge for nanotechnology would be the re-
wiring of the grid with a low electrical loss system that would
permit the efficient transfer of electronics around the globe.
If we had an efficient wiring system, then distribution of
energy becomes simple and it need not involve barges filled
with oil.
3. Another grand challenge would be the efficient sunlight-
based splitting of water into hydrogen (H2) and either oxygen
(O2) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). If this could be done more
efficiently than we do today, then there would be an
inexhaustible supply of fuel (H2) and the burned byproduct
would be simply water and not the greenhouse gas
CO2.
4. Yet another key grand challenge would be the efficient
conversion of CO2 into small organic liquids such as
methanol using sunlight-generated H2.
5. And finally, an efficient and inexpensive solar cell
technology and light weight batteries (not based upon scare
elements such as lithium) still represent grand challenges for
nanotechnology.
Q4. It is clear that nanotechnology promises many amazing
breakthroughs while also being surrounded by a great deal of hype,
mostly positive, a little negative. Help me put this in perspective and
get a better sense of the real potential--Over the next five to ten
years, how do each of you think nanotechnology will impact our lives
and our economy?
A8. Nanotechnology, over the next decade, could permeate 50% or more of
our new materials, electronics and medical products. Almost every new
manufactured product in these domains can benefit from some level of
nano enhancement. The new product might not be labeled as containing
nano, for reasons stated above. Nonetheless, nano will be in there.
Science education already involved a healthy dose of nano, and it will
likely rise to reach 25% of the course content of science classes at
the undergraduate college level over the next decade.
Q5. Per my request at the hearing and as you are aware, the House
passed legislation to reauthorize the NNI once in the 110th Congress
and twice in the 111th Congress only to see it die in the Senate. I
would hope that the nanotechnology research world has changed somewhat
in the past three years since this Committee last held a hearing on the
topic and drafted the legislation. Using H.R. 554 from the last
Congress as a basis (attached), please provide feedback by commenting
on the merits of that bill and any areas that you see room for
improvement or changes?
A8. As I said during my verbal testimony: if the funding for
nanotechnology research is not renewed, the U.S. will suffer from an
enormous brain drain as it has never seen before. The U.S. has
benefited from the best brains in the world coming to our shores for
the past many years. People's intellects are our best asset. And by
God's grace, we have been the recipients of the world's top brains.
Those brains have caused us to win the nuclear-race, the space-race and
the Cold War. U.S. higher education and research is the Apple of
America's eye and the envy of the world.
Alarmingly, however, foreign competition is now on our shores
successfully wooing the best and the brightest away with assurances of
funding for basic research and support for transitions to
manufacturing. American researchers are industrious and self-driven-we
have been trained that way. If we cannot get our science funded and
transitioned in the US, we will go abroad. And top researchers will not
wait a decade for recovery. The brain-drain has already begun, and it
will continue at an alarming pace within the next 1-3 years if access
to research and development funds becomes sparse. If American
researchers start going abroad, the impact of the brain-drain would be
devastating to near- and long-term economic development in the US.
I cannot comment on all the specific provisions of H.R. 554, but I
strongly support the goal of reauthorizing the NNI. The absence of a
reauthorization can be detrimental to the progress we have achieved
thus far--risking our global competitive advantage. The 25 different
federal agencies with nanotechnology-related activities need to work
towards the same strategic plan, and without this reauthorization it
makes the coordination amongst these agencies more complicated. In
addition, H.R. 554 also sets out to achieve many of the goals laid out
in the P-Cast reports, especially with regard to the development of
public-private partnerships. However, while I understand you must be
sensitive to the budget debate, I would recommend moving the NNI
reauthorization from a three-year to a five-year plan. Having to renew
this fight again in just three years adds uncertainty to an industry
that needs stability.
As mentioned above, another area to consider addressing is how the
current U.S. tort law on commercialization is impacting nanotechnology.
This represents a major area of uncertainty for U.S. manufacturers,
especially in the absence of a clear rules and regulations from the
government. Regulators must regulate in a manner that protects human
health, the environment while ensuring that U.S. business can compete
in a growing global market.
Question Submitted by Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski
Q1. In your oral testimony, you stated that there is no need to
increase federal investments in environmental, health, and safety (EHS)
risk research because companies that you have been a part of ``already
have a lot of the testing that they are doing as part of their normal
regulatory work that they are doing.'' Can you explain how federally
funded EHS research duplicates what is being done by the private
sector? With respect to all nanoparticles currently being used or being
proposed for medical, industrial or other commercial use, are there any
gaps in our knowledge of reactions that can occur between nanoparticles
and the human body and /or environment? If yes, what companies are or
will be addressing them? Can you quantify the private sector
investments in EHS risk research? Do you believe that there are
existing federal investments in EHS risk research that industry is not
doing, but that are important to industries that do or will benefit
from developments in nanotechnology? Would your answers vary across
different industry sectors? If so, how? If not, why not?
A8. As I mention in my answer to question one, I still believe that the
government can play a vital role in the EHS of nanotechnology. It is
important that during these times of fiscal restraint, we set funding
priorities accordingly and the continued funding of the basic research
of nanotechnology will yield results that will help with the
development of EHS standards, the two are not mutually exclusive. The
industry of nanotechnology cannot fulfill this role alone--the federal
government can play a crucial role in working with scientists and
researchers to develop a clear set of rules and guidelines that
industry can follow and adopt as we move into the nano-manufacturing
stage.
For example, at Bayer MaterialScience (BMS), they have developed
clear safe handling guidelines for carbon nanotubes. Attached to this
document is an example of a brochure BMS has published for the use of
such nanotubes. Additional information on nanotechnology stewardship
can be found on their website at: http://www.BayCareOnline.com. I have
also attached numerous other publications and papers from DuPont
Corporation (references 1-8) that have looked at the toxicity and
safety of nanoparticles. These should serve as a resource that shows
the depth of research that is currently being performed on EHS of
nanotechnology. The last two citations (references 9-10) are from our
own work here at Rice University where we studied the toxicity of
nanoparticles and the environmental fate of nano-sized graphene oxide.
Response by Mr. William Moffitt, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Nanosphere, Inc.
Questions Submitted by Chairman Mo Brooks
Q1. What impacts are environmental, health, and safety concerns having
on the development and commercialization of nanotechnology-related
products and what impact might these concerns have in the future?
A1. Nanosphere's products actually have a positive impact on human
health by providing for earlier detection of disease and low-cost,
genetic testing in virtually any medical setting. To date, the company
has experienced only minor requests regarding the ultimate safety of
the nanoparticle components of the assays. The FDA has asked the
company to validate that nanoparticles manufactured into the disposable
test cartridges do not cross-contaminate other products produced in the
same manufacturing environment. The company is in the process of
conducting such tests, but there can be no assurance the FDA will find
the company's tests sufficient. For the future, the greatest risk we
face is the current lack of clear direction in the regulatory process
as to how to handle risk assessment associated with nanotechnology. If
this becomes overly burdensome, the company's costs will escalate and
pricing will have to be increased to cover the costs of such additional
testing. This, in turn, creates a competitive risk from foreign-
manufactured products and creates potential cost barriers to use of
these new diagnostic tools.
Q2. It is clear that it is important to improve our understanding of
any environmental, health, and safety issues associated with
nanotechnology and resolve uncertainties related to the regulatory
regime that will govern nanotechnology-related products. What should
our priorities be for research on environmental, health, and safety
issues? How should these priorities be set? What role should the
federal government, academia, and industry, respectively, play in
conducting such research?
A2. Nanoparticles exist throughout the world. Indeed, the magnificent
colors of the stained glass windows in many of the cathedrals in Europe
are achieved through the use of colloidal gold, i.e. nanoparticle size
gold. There is no evidence to date to suggest that such particles and
technology will cause harm to the environment, but the use of in vivo
(within the body) nanotechnology is new. The highest priority should be
given to understanding the impact of nanotechnology for in vivo
applications (drug carriers, imaging particles, etc). The second
highest priority should be given to understanding the longer term
potential impact on the health of workers involved in nanotechnology
research and production. Environmental impact should likely follow as a
third priority, only after the first priority above has been adequately
addressed. It is possible the greater impact to the environment may
arise from the technologies used to produce nanotechnology-based
products as opposed to the nanotechnology itself (chemical processes,
waste disposal, etc).
Q3. With regard to the Signature Initiatives identified in the FY12
Budget Request (solar energy, nanomanufacturing, and nanoelectronics),
why is it appropriate for the Federal government to identify specific
issue areas for research focus? How do we not pick technology winners
and losers by doing this? Are these the most critical areas that the
Federal government should be focusing its limited resources? What
critical areas are missing? What other grand challenges do we face with
nanotechnology? ole should the government play in setting ``Grand
Challenges?'' What are some examples of ``Grand Challenges'' in
nanotechnology and are we ready to tackle them yet?
A3. Nanotechnology holds the potential to make meaningful impact on
virtually every industry. As such, it should be viewed as a potential
source for resolution of some of our country's greatest problems,
energy, health and global competitiveness. Directing resources and
funding to solving our greatest problems does not necessarily default
to picking the winners and losers. Rather, it represents appropriate
allocation of fiscally tight resources to those areas that are causing
the greatest economic strain. Ensuring that the US remains globally
competitive and retains a leadership position in nanotechnology can
protect jobs and improve our economy. At the same time, focus on our
greatest needs, energy and health, will enable us have the highest
possible impact on our greats problems with the scant resources
available.
Following from the above paragraph, the critical initiative that is
missing from the Signature Initiatives is health care. Nanosphere is a
good example of the potential impact. Earlier detection of disease can
lead to lower cost of care. Newly developed genetic tests are proving
to make a significant impact on the safety and efficacy of some of the
most prescribed drugs in the world, yet the high cost of such testing
has historically been a barrier to adoption. Through nanotechnology we
have reduced the cost of such testing to a level that makes the
economic equation a positive gain for the health care system. We are
only one example.
Q4. It is clear that nanotechnology promises many amazing
breakthroughs while also being surrounded by a great deal of hype,
mostly positive, a little negative. Help me put this in perspective and
get a better sense of the real potential- Over the next five to ten
years, how do each of you think nanotechnology will impact our lives
and our economy?
A4. The hype has been generated from all of the potential that lies in
this new science, with a little boost from Wall Street. But, the
potential is real. As with all new areas of science, proven practical
products that solve problems take a bit longer. Over the next 5-10
years I would expect to see meaningful progress in health care arising
from nano-based products. Nanotechnology will enable more efficient
energy systems as well. In short, over the next 5-10 years we will see
the reality of the earliest advances in these key areas of concern to
our economy. Real impact as measured against projections should be the
measure of our success.
Q5. Per my request at the hearing and as you are aware, the House
passed legislation to reauthorize the NNI once in the 110th Congress
and twice in the 111th Congress only to see it die in the Senate. I
would hope that the nanotechnology research world has changed somewhat
in the past three years since this Committee last held a hearing on the
topic and drafted the legislation. Using H.R. 554 from the last
Congress as a basis (attached), please provide feedback by commenting
on the merits of that bill and any areas that you see room for
improvement or changes?
A5. The greatest area for improvement in H.R. 554 is the use of pre-
established metrics for measuring the success of the bill and its
underlying funding. How will we know we have a return on our
investment? How will we justify continued expenditures? How will we
know where to redirect funding, if and as required? Perhaps I am a
naive guy from the business world, but I believe in measuring
performance as a means of underwriting future decision making.