[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISRUPTER SERIES: ADVANCED MATERIALS AND PRODUCTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-11
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-297 WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILL FLORES, Texas Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma RAUL RUIZ, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
Chairman
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey TONY CARDENAS, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina DORIS O. MATSUI, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
MIMI WALTERS, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania officio)
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 7
Witnesses
James M. Tour, W.F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of
Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and
Nanoengineering, Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science &
Technology, Rice University.................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Keith Murphy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Organovo
Holdings, Inc.................................................. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Afsaneh Rabiei, Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, North Carolina State University................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Hota Gangarao, Maurice A. and Jo Ann Wadsworth Distinguished
Professor of CEE, CEMR, Director, Constructed Facilities
Center, West Virginia University............................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Shane E. Weyant, Chief Executive Officer And President, Creative
Pultrusions, Inc............................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
DISRUPTER SERIES: ADVANCED MATERIALS AND PRODUCTION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta,
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Latta, Harper, Burgess, Lance,
Guthrie, McKinley, Kinzinger, Mullin, Walters, Costello, Walden
(ex officio), Schakowsky, Matsui, Kennedy, and Pallone (ex
officio).
Staff Present: Blair Ellis, Digital Coordinator Press
Secretary; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, Digital Commerce and
Consumer Protection; Giulia Giannangeli Legislative Clerk,
Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection/Environment; Alex
Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; Paul Nagle,
Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection, Olivia
Trusty, Professional Staff Member, Digital Commerce and
Consumer Protection; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor,
External Affairs, Everett Winnick, Director of Information
Technology; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff
Director; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; Caroline Paris-Behr,
Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of
Communications, Outreach and Member Services; and C.J. Young,
Minority Press Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. The Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and
Consumer Protection will now come to order; and the chair
recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
And pardon me, I get down here after about 12 hours, and my
allergies already start kicking in, even with the snow.
And I also need to just let the witnesses know that we also
have the Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy is
meeting right now or in the next 15 minutes. You are going to
have members coming in and out, because both subcommittees are
meeting at the same time.
But again, good afternoon and welcome to the first hearing
of the Disrupter Series in the 115th Congress. I would like to
thank all of our witnesses for their flexibility with the time
change, given the weather challenges of the past 2 days. The
continuation of the Disrupter Series ensures that the Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee continues to
learn about the cutting-edge developments across industry.
I am excited to continue this series. As chairman, I look
forward to more hearings, including tomorrow's hearing on smart
communities. Today, we are focused on advanced materials and
production methods. The panel of witnesses are experts in a
number of different fields, from graphene and other
nanoparticles to bio-ink and techniques to 3D print human
tissue. We also have experts in new materials and fabrication
methods, developing plastics, metals, and composite materials.
The potential for each of these materials, and even those
that may not be represented on the panel today, are subject to
the health of the U.S. economy and the willingness of public
and private investors to take some of the amount of the risk.
The applications of these materials is seemingly endless:
infrastructure, energy, telecommunication, automobiles, health
care, aerospace, transportation, and more.
The path to future applications and investment in early-
stage development can be uncertain, given immediate capital
investment requirements. However, on the other end of the
equation is the potential for the improved safety and long-term
cost savings. There should be a full vetting of the costs and
benefits as we examine potential use cases for the advanced
materials.
Moreover, if we are serious about improving safety,
bringing consumers more and better options, and ensuring
manufacturing jobs with that Made in America label, then we
must be leaders in the development and application of these
materials.
Basic research and development of new materials often is a
result of an accidental discovery or an unexpected result.
There is a tumultuous path for many materials from discovery to
commercialization. U.S. job growth and material science and
engineering is dependent on the health of individual industries
over the next 5 to 10 years.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their
experiences along this development chain and how the
government, at any level, is either helping or hindering
further development of the U.S. innovation in material science
and advanced production methods.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Good afternoon and welcome to the first hearing of the
Disrupter Series in the 115th Congress. I would like to thank
all of the witnesses for their flexibility with time change
given all of the weather challenges over the last two days. The
continuation of the Disrupter Series ensures that the Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee continues to
learn about the cutting-edge developments across industries. I
am excited to continue this series as Chairman and I look
forward to more hearings, including tomorrow's hearing on Smart
Communities.
Today we are focused on advanced materials and production
methods. The panel of witnesses are experts in a number of
different fields from graphene and other nanoparticles to bio-
ink and techniques to 3D print human tissue. We also have
experts in new materials and fabrication methods developing
plastics, metals, and composite materials. The potential for
each of these materials, and even those that may not be
represented on the panel today, are subject to the health of
the U.S. economy and the willingness of public and private
investors to take on some amount of risk.
The applications for these materials is seemingly endless:
infrastructure, energy, telecommunications, automobiles, health
care, aerospace, transportation, and more. The path to future
applications, and investment in early stage development, can be
uncertain given immediate capital investment requirements.
However, on the other end of the equation is the potential for
improved safety and long-term cost savings. There should be a
full vetting of the costs and benefits as we examine potential
use cases for advanced materials.
Moreover, if we are serious about improving safety,
bringing consumers more and better options and ensuring
manufacturing jobs here in America then we must be leaders in
the development and application of these materials.
Basic research and development of new materials often is a
result of an accidental discovery or an unexpected result.
There is a tumultuous path for many materials from discovery to
commercialization. U.S. job growth in materials science and
engineering is dependent on the health of individual industries
over the next 5-10 years.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses' about their
experiences along this development chain and how the
government--at any level--is either helping or hindering
further development of U.S. innovation in materials science and
advanced production methods.
Mr. Latta. And I think I have a little bit of time left,
and any members on our side that would like to make an opening
statement? Mr. McKinley.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.
I would like to welcome everyone to today's important
hearing on advanced materials and production. We are excited
about this panel on this topic to learn more about some of the
latest developments in material sciences and how they have the
potential to revolutionize our industries and electronics and
health care.
But I am particularly interested in learning more about the
development and commercial applications of graphene. To the
rest of the committee, that is a fascinating material that is
one atom thick. It is the thinnest material made by man,
lightweight, transparent, and 200 times the strength of steel,
and holds great promise. Not only that, but also is a
semiconductor and in composite construction.
So additionally, I would like to extend a special welcome
to one of our witnesses, Dr. Hota GangaRao, with whom, actually
professionally, we have worked together on some projects. He is
from West Virginia University in Morgantown. And Dr. GangaRao
is a Maurice and Jo Ann Wadsworth Distinguished Professor of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at WVU, and has done
extensive research on the use of composite materials in
infrastructure projects.
Dr. GangaRao, I thank you for traveling here today. I ran
through that storm yesterday for 5 hours in the snow, and I saw
four or five cars over in the ditch. So hopefully, you didn't
have the same experience that I had coming over yesterday.
So, for the rest of you, we look forward to thoughtful
discussion with each of you. And I apologize, because I am
going to be one, I am in that other committee. I am going to be
back and forth here on this, but I want to get back and learn
more about this.
So I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
And at this time, the chair would now recognize the
gentlelady from California for opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta, and I am
here instead of the Ranking Member Schakowsky, who is trying to
get out of Chicago. So I think you will understand that.
I am glad that some of us are here today, and thank you all
for the witnesses for your flexibility on our scheduling. We
can't control the weather, as you know.
This hearing continues the subcommittee's Disrupter Series,
where we look at innovative products and technologies. Today,
we are looking at advanced materials. Our research institutions
have been driving this innovation forward. For instance, the
University of California's 10 campuses are doing some of the
most cutting-edge research in the world. They regularly lead
all universities in the number of patents filed each year. The
university's materials research has been pivotal in many
fields, but the work being done at UC Davis is particularly
impressive. UC Davis engineers have been using 3D printing
technology to create personalized, medically accurate models of
organs. These models help surgeons determine the best approach
for operating on a patient, or whether an operation would be
helpful at all.
Researchers at UC Davis have also developed technology that
integrates renewable organic materials into water bottles.
Currently, a plant in my district makes bottles that are 80
percent renewable, and they have a 100 percent renewable goal
in sight. These advanced materials and many more being
developed and already in use could make it much easier for us
to reach environmental and sustainability goals.
Manufacturers can already use an aluminum-steel alloy that
is lighter and stronger than conventional steel. That could
mean lighter cars that require less energy. Permeable concrete
could reduce flooding and help remove contaminants in
groundwater. Our witnesses have many other examples of the ways
that composite materials can benefit our communities. The
possibilities are exciting; the question is how we get there.
Many of these materials were developed through Federal research
dollars.
Professor Rabiei lists in a written testimony the many
funding sources her team used to develop composite metal foam,
which include the National Science Foundation, NASA, the
Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation.
Those agencies' funds largely come from nonDefense
discretionary appropriations, and today, those funds are at
risk. The President has suggested cutting nonDefense
discretionary spending by $54 billion in fiscal year 2018. That
is not just cutting excess spending; these cuts could
jeopardize our national competitiveness.
This would impair our ability to invest in the country's
economic future. It would leave our researchers underfunded,
and allow other countries to claim global leadership, instead
of encouraging homegrown innovation. If we want continued
innovation, we need to invest in the research that makes it
happen. That starts with protecting non-Defense discretionary
spending in this year's budget.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses about how
federally funded research has supported development of advanced
materials. I am also interested in the challenges of moving
from research to market.
Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to your
testimony.
And I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Oregon, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome our witnesses and I really appreciate
your testimony, which I have enjoyed reading through.
Thank you. Again, thank you for what you are doing. This
subcommittee is really, really important in the work of the
Energy and Commerce Committee. It gets labeled as a Disrupter
Subcommittee in the sense that with all these new technologies
and innovations in the private sector, and the partnerships
with the public education institutions and all, there are some
amazing things we are standing on the cusp of. And so we have
held several hearings over the last few years on emerging
technologies and as part of the Disrupter Series, from the
internet of things and health apps to drones and robotics,
revolutionary capabilities with 3D printing. Many of these
technologies are literally transforming commerce and creating
new opportunities for economic prosperity for Americans and for
generations to come.
Today, our Disrupter Series continues with a look at
innovative materials and production methods that are the
building blocks for some of the emerging technologies that
could change how we see the world.
The work that is taking place at our universities around
the country, truly groundbreaking. Today is an opportunity to
learn firsthand from you, the top minds in academia. We want to
learn about your full spectrum of work, and how basic research
and how you shepherd this through your projects to
commercialization. As my friend from West Virginia talked about
with graphene, hailed as this discovery that will do for the
internet of things what silicon did for the chip industry. We
have not reached the point of mass commercialization, I
understand, but there have been advances in patenting and
licensing, and these are really important discoveries for some
applications.
Additionally, composite materials incorporating graphene
have increased strength and conductivity properties that are
not found in more traditional materials. These composites could
have interesting applications in the automotive and
infrastructure space. So I look forward to hearing from Dr.
Tour about his work on graphene and the U.S.' position relative
to other nations.
There is also the opportunity to work with traditional
materials to create new composites that could solve some of the
competing cost and safety questions. For example, new bridges
and car bumpers could both benefit from taking into
consideration new technologies.
So I am interested in hearing from our panelists in
industry and academia about their experience approaching
investors and clients about their products and services. So, as
we look at the relationship between job creation and our
Nation's infrastructure, it is crucial we understand the
marketplace and what is currently under development.
Remember, simply because a material is new does not mean
that it is a realistic replacement for some traditional
material. However, there may be improved safety benefits and
long-term repair and replacement cost savings in some cases.
These are all worthwhile considerations for stakeholders to
consider and important factors that we look forward to hearing
from you all today on.
I will admit up front, I have to go down to the Energy
Subcommittee and give an opening statement there and hope to
bounce back and forth, but I do have your testimony here. And
you are in able hands with our terrific chairman of the
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection, DCCP,
which is not a Russian acronym. It may look like that, but it
is not.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
In the last Congress, this subcommittee examined several
emerging technologies that are creating new opportunities for
economic growth, job creation, and increasing consumer choice
in today's increasingly digital world. From the Internet of
Things and health apps, to drones and robotics, and the
revolutionary capabilities of 3D printing, many of these
technologies are transforming commerce and creating new
opportunities for economic prosperity in America for
generations to come.
Today our Disrupter Series continues with a look at
innovative materials and production methods that are the
building blocks for some of the emerging technologies that
could change how we see the world. The work that is taking
place at universities around the country is truly
groundbreaking and today is an opportunity to learn first-hand
from some of our top minds in academia. I look forward to
hearing about the full spectrum of their work--from basic
research to how they shepherd their projects through to
commercialization.
For example, graphene is hailed as a discovery that will do
for the Internet of Things what silicon did for the chip
industry. We have not reached the point of mass
commercialization yet; however, there have been advancements in
patenting and licensing these discoveries for some
applications.
Additionally, composite materials incorporating graphene
have increased strength and conductivity properties that are
not found in more traditional materials. These composites could
have interesting applications in the automotive and
infrastructure space. I look forward to hearing more from Dr.
Tour about his work on graphene and the U.S.'s position
relative to other nations.
There is also the opportunity to work with traditional
materials and create new composites that could solve some of
the competing cost and safety questions. For example, new
bridges and car bumpers could both benefit from taking into
consideration new technologies. I am interested in hearing from
our panelists in industry and academia about their experience
approaching investors and clients about their products and
services.
As we look at the relationship between job creation and our
nation's infrastructure it is critical that we understand the
marketplace and what is currently in development. Remember,
simply because a material is new does not mean that it is a
realistic replacement for more traditional materials. However,
there may be improved safety benefits and long-term repair and
replacement cost savings in some cases. These are all
worthwhile considerations for stakeholders to consider and
important factors I look forward to discussing today.
I am pleased that the Disrupter Series is continuing this
Congress, and I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
Thank you for being here.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, as I
mentioned, we do have members that will be coming in and out.
But at this time, the chair recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey, the ranking member, for his opening statement of 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing gives us the opportunity to explore some
ways in which science and scientific research is allowing us to
improve materials already in use or create new materials that
are more adaptable to the needs of consumers and industry.
Advanced materials can be found in almost every industry
sector. In the aerospace field, a new material composed of a
multilayer lamination of glass and plastic is being used in
helicopters and planes to make stronger and more durable
windshields. Advanced materials research is also happening with
regard to a wide range of consumer products.
As one example, researchers are working on creating
batteries that are more stable and safer than the common
Lithium ion batteries used in so many consumer electronics.
Just this week in a tragic accident in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, a toddler died as a result of an exploding
hoverboard. Safer batteries would prevent these kinds of
tragedies from occurring.
And today, we are fortunate to have Professor Rabiei--I
hope I pronounced it properly--who is here to describe how
advanced materials are used to create protective armor, armor
that has been described as metal bubble wrap. This metal wrap
can be used to protect individuals as well as to protect
multiple personnel in vehicles and other forms of
transportation.
Now, some of these successes in advanced materials
resulted, in part, from the Federal Government's investment in
basic scientific research. As with all new scientific
breakthroughs, funding for research and development is
paramount, and the Federal Government is the largest financial
supporter of basic research. The return on publicly funded
scientific research and development, R&D, is well-established,
and Federal support of this kind of innovation is a key to the
success of America's economy.
In 2011, President Obama established the Materials Genome
Initiative, that has invested more than $500 million in Federal
funding to discover and deploy advanced materials. President
Obama also established the National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation, a network of nine federally supported advanced
manufacturing research institutes throughout the country.
These institutes have provided research centers to
academia, industry, and government for testing as well as
opportunities to collaborate with others in their fields, or
complementary fields of expertise. These institutes work on
lightweighting vehicles so that they are more energy-efficient,
but still just as strong and safe. They are also promoting 3D
printing and manufacturing, develop the fabrics of tomorrow
that will act as connected devices, and help commercialize
advanced resin and fiber composites that have a longer room
temperature shelf life.
So America's leadership in advanced materials and other
important R&D may be at risk, based on the preliminary budget
summaries we have seen from the Trump administration. We should
not walk away from the significant efforts made or the public
funds that have made these advances possible. The U.S. should
be the most attractive place to research, develop,
commercialize, and produce advanced materials. These are some
of the jobs of the future, and we should do everything we can
to continue to support this important R&D work so that these
jobs stay here in the United States rather than go abroad.
So I am pleased that the subcommittee will have the
opportunity today to learn more about advanced materials from
those who know it best, the panel. Science, engineering, and
technology are together creating jobs, good jobs for Americans,
and I hope to see that continue.
But, again, I have to apologize, because I am going to run
to the other committee and then come back as well. So I may
miss some or all of your testimony. But thank you all for being
here.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back.
And, again, I want to thank the witnesses for being with us
today. And, again, I apologize. We have members that will be
back and forth throughout the hearing upstairs and downstairs
here.
But, again, I want to, again, thank today's witnesses, and
witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening statements,
followed by a round of questions from the members.
On our witness panel for today's hearing will include, and
I would like to just go through. I know the gentleman from West
Virginia has already given one, but I will give it again.
Dr. James M. Tour, T.T. and W.F. Chao Professor of
Chemistry, Computer Science, Material Science, and
Nanoengineering, at the Smalley Institute of Nanoscale Science
and Technology at Rice University; Mr. Keith Murphy, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer at Organovo Holdings, Inc.; Dr.
Afsaneh Rabiei, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering at North Carolina State University; Dr. Hota
GangaRao, Maurice A. and Jo Ann Wadsworth Distinguished
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Director of
Constructed Facilities Center, and Director of Center for
Integration of Composites into Infrastructure at West Virginia
University; and Mr. Shane Weyant, who is the Chief Executive
Officer and President at Creative Pultrusions, Inc.
We appreciate you all being here today, and we are going to
begin the panel with Dr. Tour. And you are now recognized for 5
minutes for your opening statements. And, again, thank you very
much for being with us.
STATEMENTS OF DR. JAMES M. TOUR, W.F. CHAO PROFESSOR OF
CHEMISTRY, PROFESSOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, AND PROFESSOR OF
MATERIALS SCIENCE AND NANOENGINEERING, SMALLEY INSTITUTE FOR
NANOSCALE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, RICE UNIVERSITY; KEITH MURPHY,
CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ORGANOVO HOLDINGS INC.;
DR. AFSANEH RABIEI, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY; HOTA
GANGARAO, MAURICE A. AND JO ANN WADSWORTH DISTINGUISHED
PROFESSOR OF CEE, CEMR, DIRECTOR, CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES
CENTER, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY; AND SHANE WEYANT, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT, CREATIVE PULTRUSIONS, INC.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES M. TOUR
Mr. Tour. Thank you. I am here to discuss graphene and
establishing U.S. preeminence in the field of this disruptive
advanced material. What is graphene? It is a sheet of graphite,
one atom thick. At the atomic scale, it looks like chicken
wire. I am a professor of chemistry, material science, and
nanoengineering at Rice University. I have 625 research
publications, 155 of those being on the topic of graphene. I
also have 112 patents on graphene, ranking me as the third most
prolific graphene inventor in the world and number one in the
U.S. Our research on graphene has led to the formation of five
nanomaterials and nanomedicine companies, plus suites of
licenses to existing large multinational companies.
The U.S. is no longer leading in graphene research and has
already lost in graphene production capabilities. Without
investment to leverage the private sector, we will cede this
advanced material to foreign competitors. At its size scale,
graphene is tops for toughness, heat conduction, electrical
mobility, and lightweight. From a safety standpoint, we have
shown graphene to be nontoxic and environmentally friendly in
many respects. A nanomaterial cannot merely be sprinkled like
pixie dust into a composite or device to show beneficial
behavior, but with persistence and investment, the advances can
be realized.
The number of graphene patents rose rapidly during the last
5 years. In 2015, it surpassed the cumulative patent pool of 10
related main groups of technologies. That means that the
country that dominates in graphene will dominate in high-
technology advances for decades to come. It is now like a space
race. China has 25 percent more graphene patents than does the
U.S. Of the top 20 entities in the world that hold graphene
patents, eight are foreign-owned companies versus three U.S.
companies. Eight are foreign universities, all in Asia, while
only one U.S. university is on that list, namely, Rice
University.
The worldwide market for graphene is a few tens of millions
of dollars per year, but now rapidly rising. Bulk-scale
production of graphene is an initial part of those revenues,
but that is not where the most value resides. The greatest
value is from ownership of the innovative techniques to apply
graphene in advanced applications that were formerly
unforeseen, like in ultrahigh-frequency supercapacitors, or
medical device formulations that regenerate damaged spinal
cords within a few weeks to near perfect function. These are
two technologies that we have witnessed in our own laboratory.
The country with the best researchers and the easiest route
to entrepreneurial success will be preeminent. But the U.S.
universities are trailing way behind Asian universities in
high-tech equipment for nano-analysis and basic research. This
is the result of diminished Federal support for academic
science.
Grimmer, however, has been the dramatic loss of our top
young investigators from pursuing academic positions, due to
the diminished research funds to universities on a per-
researcher basis. Our top international students, who formerly
always remained in the U.S. to become professors, are returning
to their home countries upon graduation, taking our advanced
technology expertise with them. Even more frightening, some of
our top U.S. established senior professors are moving abroad in
order to keep their programs funded. Foreign universities are
trolling in the U.S. academies for our top professors.
Previously, the U.S. was the recipient of the world's most
talented, profiting from the brain drain of other nations. Now,
the U.S. is being drained. Sadly, it will take decades to
recover from what we have already lost.
I have three recommendations to correct these problems and
ensure that the United States is preeminent in graphene
advanced materials:
First, Congress should consider the rapid initiation of a
$200 million-per-year program administered over 4 years through
the standard Federal science funding agencies, and $7 million-
per-year multi-investigator programs, requiring strong in-kind
university and corporate partner matching, and dedicated
facilities, equipment, and personnel. That way, the Federal
money will be leveraged to produce 50 percent more from
university development campaigns, and industrial partners.
Programs like the NSF's Innovation Corps could assist in the
translation of technology to industry. This is shovel-ready
science, and should be thought of in the same way that Congress
is addressing infrastructure investment.
Second, we must keep our start-up companies in the U.S. My
last three companies were started abroad, but if the U.S.
corporate tax rate were reduced to 15 percent, we would gladly
remain in the U.S.
Finally, streamline the Green Card process for scientists
and engineers that received their Ph.D.s in the U.S. We need
them.
In closing, Asia is leading in graphene research and
commerce, but I think the U.S. could pull ahead with a little
help from the Federal Government. If our congressional leaders
would do that, we would beat the pants off our foreign
counterparts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tour follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, I appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Murphy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEITH MURPHY
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Latta,
Congresswoman Matsui, and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting me today to discuss Organovo and the
capabilities of our 3D bioprinted human tissue models.
Bioprinted 3D human tissue models are disrupting the drug
discovery process, because they give researchers and regulators
new testing tools and capabilities to make drug discovery
safer, speedier, more likely to find breakthrough drugs in new
areas, and less costly, and because they enable future
implantable tissue therapies to restore or cure failing organ
function and address the long waiting list for organ
transplant.
What is 3D bioprinting? An office printer uses ink to print
on paper; and industrial 3D printers use liquid, plastic, or
metals to print machine parts or prototypes. We at Organovo use
human cells to make bioink that is deposited by a bioprinter
which layers the bioink onto a surface to form organic, living
3D human tissue. Bioprinted model tissues have been shown to
replicate the key elements, architecture, and function of
living, native human tissues. Bioprinted tissues for transplant
have been demonstrated to have powerful potential to treat
serious illness by direct transplant into patients.
I have submitted slides along with the written testimony
that will help you visualize the manufacturing process, where
we fit into the current drug discovery process, the current
progress in transplantable tissues, and examples of the peer-
reviewed data we have used to validate the capabilities of our
bioprinted tissues.
Founded in 2007, Organovo is based in San Diego,
California, and has grown from the back room of my house--we
couldn't afford a garage--to be 120 employees and 45,000 square
feet in 10 years. We perform research, build 3D bioprinters,
print tissue models, and run our testing services out of our
headquarters building, which Congresswoman Walters has visited.
Our customers and partners include almost half of the
world's top pharmaceutical companies and leading academic
research centers. There is diversity of organ tissues to
replicate--liver, kidney, and others--and potential commercial
applications beyond drug discovery, such as cosmetics and
chemical testing. There are wide-ranging applications for the
Department of Defense, including everything from delivering
testing tissues for developing protections against biological
attack to creation of tissues to replace function lost by
wounded warriors.
From 1990 to 2010, 73 percent of phase 3 clinical trials
failed due to toxicity or lack of efficacy. In 2012 alone, 10
late-stage clinical trial failures cost innovators $7 to $10
billion in losses.
Organovo's 3D human tissue models are currently being used
by drug manufacturers to give researchers the ability to look
to see if the drug is working, how it is being metabolized over
time, and whether it is producing toxic side effects. These
models are also being used to help improve the safety and
efficacy of potential drugs currently progressing through human
trial phases.
3D human tissue models also can be used to help improve the
post market safety understanding of approved products. For
example, a recent study using 3D bioprinted liver tissues
modeled drug-induced liver injury to investigate the effects of
Trovafloxin, a drug withdrawn from the market due to acute
liver failure in patients. The study found that 3D bioprinted
liver tissues identified significant Trovafloxin liver toxicity
after just 7 days of exposure. In contrast, Trovafloxin did not
show strong toxicity signals in common traditional 2D in vitro
systems, or in animal models.
A December paper coauthored by the head of FDA's Center for
Toxicological Research concluded that both researchers and
regulators should prioritize and quickly adopt the use of 3D
bioprinted human tissue models.
We are pleased that both the 21st Century Cures legislation
and the draft Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VI
agreement take steps to encourage the use and adoption of new
drug discovery tools. However, it should be fine-tuned to
accelerate the adoption of currently available technologies
with existing validating proof versus longer-term technologies
not yet available.
We are grateful that committee members introduced
legislation, the Patient Safety and Toxicology Modernization
Act, requiring FDA to issue guidance by the end of 2018. We
hope that the committee includes this legislation in PDUFA VI,
to ensure FDA prioritizes adoption of commercially available
and proven discovery tools that can speed and lower the cost of
drug discovery.
Organovo's 3D bioprinting technology also is being used to
develop first-in-class implantable tissues that cure or
meaningfully restore a patient's organ function. There remains
a tremendous gap between patients waiting for organ transplants
and those who receive them. In 2015, roughly 120,000 Americans
were waiting for an organ transplant and only 30,000 patients
received them.
Organovo's data shows survival and sustained functionality
of our 3D bioprinted human liver tissue when implanted into
animal models. Our implantable tissue showed encouraging
evidence of the potential to restore organ function and to
treat inborn errors of metabolism.
The FDA will soon have cell-based bioprinted tissue therapy
applications under review. We are grateful that the 21st
Century Cures legislation not only created a new regenerative
medicine pathway at FDA without lowering safety standards, but
also provided greater clarity on how FDA will review so-called
combination products. Global regulatory agencies in Europe and
Japan already have implemented regenerative medicine pathways.
FDA's clear, timely, and collaborative implementation of
relevant 21st Century Cures provisions will help ensure that
regenerative medicine innovation, research, and clinical trials
remain in the U.S.
Thank you again for inviting me to participate in today's
hearing. I am happy to answer questions related to my submitted
testimony or slides.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony.
And at this time, we will recognize Dr. Rabiei for 5
minutes for your statement. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF AFSANEH RABIEI
Ms. Rabiei. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the
invitation. It is an honor to be here and to introduce our
material. I decided to use my slides because I believe that
seeing is believing. So it is a new material. I am very excited
to see that there is an attention to advanced materials.
My name is Afsaneh Rabiei, and I am a professor at North
Carolina State University, and there is a link to my Web site
for more information about what we are doing.
We are learning from nature, and the art of engineering is
to watch what happens in nature and learn from it. So if you
look at the slides, we have our brain encapsulated in skull,
which is a porous material, bird's wing, leaves, bone, trees.
Everything is benefiting from a porous structure filled with
air. And speaking of air, earth is surrounded by that to
protect us against meteoroids and radiation and heat and so
forth.
So how do we learn from it by using Styrofoam or bubble
wrap to carry fragile materials, or just carrying a hot
beverage using Styrofoam. So how did I learn from it? We used
the generous support, like Congresswoman Matsui mentioned, to
have almost $2 million funding to start building a new
material, something that is more or less like a metallic bubble
wrap.
When you put them side by side, you can see the
similarities. It is much lighter than steel. This scale shows
two pieces of steel. One is regular steel and the other one is
our composite metal foam steel. And it is a third of weight. It
is the same size, but the density is a third. And the material
has shown a huge energy absorption capability and performing
like sponge. It can be used for high-speed impact protection.
It can be used for ballistic or blast and frag protection. It
can be used for radiation shielding or heat or sound and
vibration shielding.
So the possibilities are endless. So the $2 million is just
a drop in an ocean. If we want to get this material in the
hands of our soldiers to benefit from its protection, we really
need more support.
Here, you probably have seen the picture in a lot of media
news coverage, Fox News, Huffington Post, and so forth. In this
video, we see the composite metal foam being squeezed down. Of
course, the force is huge. What you see is like a kitchen
sponge; it is squeezing down, and that is what provides us the
energy absorption. This video also shows a composite structure
partly made by our composite metal foam. The bullet is hitting
the material. It is totally disintegrating.
The panel that you see here in this picture is just 1 foot
by 1 foot. It shows a multishock capability that other armors
are not providing. This picture is beautiful. If you see, we
have the hard core of a bullet entrapped inside those squeezed
bubbles. So it basically works as a bubble wrap, but a heavy-
duty one.
So the back of the armor also is showing just a small
indentation. And if you remember, the National Institute of
Justice have up to 44-millimeter indentations, which basically,
you stop the bullet but you hurt the soldier by those huge
indentations in the back of the armor. This one does have a
very small indentation, as you can see, less than an eighth of
an inch.
Here, we put this in front of a large HEI 23-millimeter
blast and frag, the panel, less-than-an-inch panel. I put a
piece of aluminum with the same weight and our material. The
red one that you can see totally stressed is aluminum; and the
one that is green and happy is our material. So you can put it
under the vehicle, in a vehicle, armor. You can put it anywhere
to protect our soldiers, and I bet they are going to be much
happier.
The cross-section also is shown, and the aluminum has been
damaged a lot and composite metal bomb stopped all the
fragments, stopped the blast wave energy. These particles have
been flying up to 5,000 foot per second and they hit the panel,
and the panel stopped them.
The rest of it is confidential with Army.
We also learned from our atmosphere, and we put it in front
of 800 degrees Celsius flame. And, as you can see, our material
takes 8 minutes to reach the saturation of 800 degrees Celsius
with just less than an inch thickness. Steel takes 4 minutes,
and aluminum takes 20 seconds. So that shows how the material
can insulate against heat and protect against high
temperatures.
So you can imagine all of the cases, a lot of cargos that
carry explosives, things that can be helpful in all directions
to protect against heat. And also, we also learned from
atmosphere and put it against x-ray. We are not reaching lead
yet, but we have shown almost 275 percent improvement in
blocking x-ray compared to aluminum.
So in our recent studies funded by Nuclear Energy
University Program, we have collected those data and we learned
that if we add a little bit of other elements into our
material, we can further improve it, but we need more support.
This has been done in the last decade or so, and I have done
all of these single-handed. We need much more funding. If this
technology needs to go out and protect our soldiers, our
people, we definitely need more support.
I did not notice the time. I am so sorry I took longer.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rabiei follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. I
really appreciate that.
And at this time, we will recognize Dr. GangaRao for 5
minutes. Thanks again for being here.
STATEMENT OF DR. HOTA GANGARAO
Mr. GangaRao. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My theme
today is going to be on the renovation of American
infrastructure with advanced composite materials.
Herein, I do not want to propose rip and replace of
existing conventional materials. We want to reinforce them,
make them safe. According to last week's American Society of
Civil Engineers' report, our infrastructure received a grade of
D-plus. This low grade is attributed to $4.5 trillion over 10-
year funding gap between revenue and infrastructure needs. On
top of it, motorists are spending $500 a year per vehicle to
maintain, due to the poor quality of our bridges and highways.
Where could we get the funding from? Public-private
partnership. We have been doing that, to a small extent, and as
you have seen, I-267 outside D.C. More debt to our $20 trillion
debt package. Not sure that the Congress wants this up.
Increasing Federal and State gas taxes. That I am afraid
doesn't have the appetite of the Congress.
I have a fourth idea: Do not rip and replace, but renovate
with advanced composite materials. Here are some of the
composite materials that we at the Constructed Facilities
Center of West Virginia University have been developing since
1987. Thanks to Congressman McKinley, we built a bridge in his
backyard back in 1996. It is standing, functioning extremely
well, with a reinforcing bar in lieu of the steel bar. This is
four times lighter, two times stronger, noncorrosive,
nonconductive. I have several materials to that effect.
These developments have taken place in cooperation with
government agencies, a wide range of industries, and academia.
To illustrate West Virginia University activities with
government and industry help, we have built over 100 new
bridges, including laminated composite timber, polymer, and
glass or carbon composites. And also, we did some of the hybrid
development, implying the wrapping of concrete and timber with
composite. And these approaches do not call for any rip of the
existing commodity product, but reinforce these products with
glass or carbon as a shell with conventional materials as a
substrate or a core.
Today, I want to focus on discussions on saving huge sums
of money for taxpayers without compromising safety or user
inconvenience. Allow me to use three great examples to
illustrate my savings plan. Say, for example, we will focus on
transportation infrastructure. One is the bridge deck systems.
These are the first lines of defense when it comes to
structural material deterioration of bridge superstructures.
This is a $120 to $150 billion problem. We can remove this
falling concrete and do a few other things, and put a glass or
a carbon fabric carpet on top of the existing concrete deck and
fuse it with proper resin. Where is the savings? This can be
done with about $50 to $60 a square foot of a deck while, in
fact, a rip and a replace will cost you about $150 to $180 a
square foot. You can imagine the savings.
The second example, we discard 20 million railroad ties
that are creosote-treated, and this has a humongous
environmental problem. What we propose is put a Band-Aid, known
as a glass composite wrap, or a carbon composite wrap, to
enhance the service life to about 50 to 60 years, if not 80
years. Imagine the amount of money one can save from--we have
done the field testing and also the Pueblo, Colorado, testing,
and we have shown that the life expectancy can be tremendously
improved.
The third item I would like to talk about is the shale gas
movement. West Virginia is the epicenter of gas deposits. With
these new composite materials, with nanocoatings made of
graphene or whatever that are noncorrosive and nonconductive,
we can design pipelines with internal pressures of 3,000 to
5,000 psi, and be able to push more gas at a most economical
price.
I have several other examples. I need to skip a few of them
for the sake of time factor. Then the question is, one wonders
if these all so good, why the free market is not accepting
them? There are several impediments. I will not go into them.
In conclusion, those impediments are clearly stated in my
write-up.
However, in conclusion, this is what I would like to say:
We are most grateful that the U.S. Government support has been
integral in the initial development and implementation of
composites in civil infrastructure. With continued support,
manufacturers will continue to expand, create high-paying jobs,
and improve U.S. infrastructure so that advanced composite
materials will be an integral part of our infrastructure
landscape.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. GangaRao follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Again, thank you very much for your testimony.
And, Mr. Weyant, we will give you 5 minutes now for your
opening statement. Thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF SHANE E. WEYANT
Mr. Weyant. Good afternoon, Chairman Latta, Congresswoman
Matsui, and the members of the subcommittee. Thank you, and I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
I am testifying on behalf of Creative Pultrusions and my
fellow members of the American Composite Manufacturers
Association.
Creative Pultrusions is one of over 3,000 manufacturers of
composites who are represented by the ACMA. Since World War II,
this industry has made products using combinations of glass or
carbon fiber reinforcements, and tough engineered polymers. The
resulting material is stronger than the constituent materials
individually.
Composites provide characteristics specifically tailored
for maximum performance in a host of different applications.
Composites are stronger than other materials, such as steel,
concrete, and wood. They are also lighter, more energy-
efficient, and easier to transport, assemble, and install. They
offer design flexibility and durability and, most importantly,
are resistant to corrosion and structural degradation.
We have been in business for over 44 years and have seen
many changes to the industry. Some applications for composites
have been disrupters, but are now common practice, like
fiberglass boats and windmill blades. The industry has great
potential to upend traditional infrastructure and construction
markets and address an immediate national challenge.
Nearly every key development in our industry since its
inception began in the United States. However, the committee
should be aware that other countries have accelerated research
and commercialization in an effort to gain market dominance.
Policymakers should ensure that disruptive domestic
technologies likes ours have a framework and an environment to
encourage their continued advancement and adoption, including
supporting institutions, such as the advanced manufacturing
institutes.
Our energy and communications infrastructure is more
critical than ever, yet, it is reliant upon 19th century
technology, wood poles. Tens of thousands were wiped out by
Superstorm Sandy, and hundreds of thousands of wood poles and
crossarms are nearing or past their functional service life. We
have a choice to continue with this outmoded technology, or use
21st century material. My company is one of many manufacturers
of composite utility poles and crossarms that are easier to
install, and more durable against extreme weather, fire, and
require less maintenance and last significantly longer.
Composite poles are the best choice in environmentally
sensitive areas, because they will not leach toxic chemicals
and are resistant to rot and pests. The structural capabilities
of composites give these materials the ability to disrupt the
150-plus-year span for building bridges in this country as
well, a disruption welcomed by Canadians and other nations.
Composites bring the advantage of extended service life and
superior performance through the inherent resistance to rust
and degradation. When traditional materials such as steel-
reinforced concrete rust, crumble, and spall, composites remain
unchanged.
An additional benefit of composites is the speed of
production and installation. Traditionally, bridges can take
months to build on site. We have installed bridges, with the
help of Dr. GangaRao, like the Market Street Bridge in
Wheeling, West Virginia, with less than 14 hours of labor to
install the bridge deck.
The recent events in Flint and Oroville show our water
infrastructure is also in need of modernization. Composite
technologies have the capacity to revolutionize the water
systems around this country. Composites can provide pipe and
structures that are easier to install, stronger, and more
durable than the other materials, and are inert, and don't
leach chemicals into drinking water.
Composites also have a game-changing potential in marine
infrastructure. Our SuperLoc sheet piling system, for example,
rehabilitates deteriorated waterfront structures subject to
harsh marine environments. A similar product, our fender pile
system, was used to rehabilitate the service dock at the Statue
of Liberty in wake of Superstorm Sandy, replacing outdated
wooden structures.
Standards are a crucial issue. The Federal Government has
been instrumental in the development of standards for other
industries. Now is the time for Federal agencies to work with
us and our academic partners, like my fellow witness, Dr.
GangaRao, to develop these standards that would allow us to
meet the challenge of our future with innovative solutions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
the domestic composite industry, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weyant follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
And we will now move into our question-answer portion of
the hearing, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for
opening questions.
First, let me just thank you all for being here again,
because it is fascinating, especially where you are all taking
us is amazing. But I just wrote down a few other questions, if
I could just get maybe brief answers to.
Dr. Tour, you had mentioned that you had started three
companies recently, and they all started abroad. What countries
did you go to, because of the tax question?
Mr. Tour. They were all started in Israel.
Mr. Latta. In Israel. Thank you.
Mr. Murphy, if I could ask you a question, you were talking
about--because we always have discussions around here about FDA
and where we are going and who is faster, European, U.S. And
you said that the European and Japanese have been implementing,
I believe theirs, it sounds like it is faster than we are doing
it here. Would that be correct? Did I understand that?
Mr. Murphy. They have given clarity to the pathway. It is
not specifically about how fast in Japan. It has the promise to
be faster.
Mr. Latta. Could you maybe define more clarity to that
pathway?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, absolutely. In Europe, they have a
dedicated pathway for advanced medicinal therapies that they
established a while ago, and it has just been getting use and
has more clarity about how it operates.
21st Century Cures Act in the U.S. actually requires the
establishment of an accelerated pathway for tissue and cell-
based therapies which we think will be attractive, but it
doesn't change the safety mandate. It simply requires speedier
review, or it is yet to be seen.
And so what we are asking for today, one thing we would
like to see is proper and speedy implementation of what that
pathway will be. We need clarity in our industry to keep
companies here in the U.S. and keep the clinical trials here in
the U.S., because even U.S.-based companies will often go
overseas to run their clinical trials first, because they see
more clarity in the process.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Dr. Rabiei, I am just kind of curious. Maybe I missed it.
How thick is that material? And what is the weight factor,
especially in that protective armor that you are working on?
Ms. Rabiei. We have made armor that all of them were less
than an inch. And we have been putting them in front of very
large threats, like armor-piercing kind of threats. They call
it 7.62, .50 cal. And it performed always surprising. One of my
colleagues that I have been working with from Advanced Aviation
Research Center, he always tells me when I take samples there,
he says, Afsaneh, your samples always surprise me, and I am not
surprised anymore, because you have surprised me enough.
So it always performed well. Of course, we don't claim that
it is perfect in all different directions. Definitely, we do
need support to further develop the material for specific
applications. Like, for example, when we put it in front of the
blast wave, it is still less than an inch, and it still
performed. But how would that work against IED, we still do not
know. We put it in front of HEI. So every one of those need
more in-depth analysis so that we can take it faster to our
soldiers' hands.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Dr. GangaRao, we had hearings and with legislation in the
last Congress, especially on pipeline safety. And how would
this material work? I know you were explaining about the
pressure and all, but would that prolong the life of the pipe
by having this technology in that pipe?
Mr. GangaRao. My colleagues from Creative Pultrusions have
been manufacturing these kinds of pipes for a few years. And
there are several advantages of this type of a pipe, number
one. It is of higher strength and lower weight.
Number two, it is noncorrosive, and it is nonconductive.
And it can take much higher pressures on a sustained basis and
be able to enhance the safety, because there will be no burst-
type failures for one reason or the other.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
And, Mr. Weyant, if I could ask you, you mentioned
something that caught my ear, that you had a bridge deck that
went in in 14 hours?
Mr. Weyant. Yes.
Mr. Latta. How big was that deck, just out of curiosity?
Mr. Weyant. The actual bridge in Wheeling was 200 feet
long, and approximately 68 feet wide, with a sidewalk.
Mr. Latta. In 14 hours?
Mr. Weyant. That deck was installed in 14 hours. So knowing
concrete would be probably a 30- to 40-day just on the deck
itself to disrupt the traffic and delays.
Mr. Latta. Well, I know that they were doing some
replacement on I-75 not too far from me, and they slid the
bridge in, but it was an all-day affair. And getting everything
lined up at 14 hours is quite an accomplishment.
And I have overrun my time, but I really appreciate your
testimony today. And at this time, I am going to recognize the
gentlelady from California for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I agree,
this has been absolutely fascinating testimony that we have
heard here today. I keep thinking about all the things that we
can be doing with some of the products that you are talking
about.
But let me just first, I want to ask all of you just
quickly, did you receive Federal funding during the process of
developing your material and, if so, can you describe for me
the role that Federal funding played? And this is just quickly.
Mr. Tour. Yes. I received a lot of Federal funding for our
work on graphene from the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research and the Office of Naval Research, and it was critical
for the development. Without that, we never could have done
this.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Murphy. The founding technology which came out of the
University of Missouri was funded heavily by the National
Science Foundation. After the formation of the company, we have
gotten multiple NIH SBIR grants. And we also benefited from an
ARRA grant that was established for biotech companies. We also
just got a great score on our latest NIH SBIR grant. So if you
guys can pull any strings, that would be great.
Ms. Matsui. I think I heard, but is there more that you
would like to tell us about your funding?
Ms. Rabiei. Sure. We also have received funding, as I
mentioned in my presentation, again, started from National
Science Foundation, where discovery began. I absolutely support
that statement.
All of the funding that I have received so far were through
my university. We have multiple patents and we have started a
company to commercialize the technology, and the company has
not received any funding.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Dr. GangaRao?
Mr. GangaRao. The Constructed Facilities Center at West
Virginia University has been receiving funding from the
National Science Foundation since the mid 1980s. We have also
been getting good bit of funding from the Department of
Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Transportation.
And we are very fortunate to have been consistently receiving
their support.
We want to emphasize that these composite materials might
look a little bit more expensive to begin with in terms of the
initial cost. However, there are certain products that we have
developed with industry folks like Creative Pultrusions, able
to install them at about half the price of conventional
material.
Ms. Matsui. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Weyant. Yes, Congresswoman Matsui. We have received
Federal funding on the bridges. In early 2000, there was some
funding put in place to help offset the cost difference, the
original cost difference of the materials. That also was
allowed to let us develop other technologies that we could use
in other infrastructure areas to develop a lot of our marine
structures. So we appreciate that support.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
Dr. Rabiei, you know, in the past few years, this committee
has done a lot of work on the issue of head injuries and brain
trauma in sports. We often use an analogy to a yolk in an
eggshell. Helmets may be able to protect the skull from
fractures, but not protect the brain from injuries.
I am curious. Do you see any potential application for your
invention in that area? And how would it be different from the
traditional helmets?
Ms. Rabiei. Yes. Actually, I was here in D.C. last
Wednesday, with a group of people who were advocating for
Society for Brain Mapping and Therapeutics. So there were,
like, six brain surgeons, and I was the only rocket scientist
in there.
So one of the potential applications of the material can be
for helmets, and for any kind of protective layers. So what I
always say is that when you want to transfer an egg, you put it
in Styrofoam. When you are transferring glass, you put it in
bubble wrap.
When you transfer humans to outer space, or from here to
another place in an airplane, in a train, or send them to
hockey or in a war field, you don't protect them. We care more
for the glass than for the human. We just put it in a solid
material, and what solid material does is just to transfer the
load from one side to the other, and it is not my problem. But
when you put it in a porous metal, the porous metal squeeze and
the human behind it is protected. So whether it is helmet,
whether it is armor, whether it is in front of the car, it
works.
Ms. Matsui. Well, that is wonderful.
We also have jurisdiction over automobile safety. How about
metal foams, can they be used to reduce the damage of vehicle
crashes?
Ms. Rabiei. For, I am sorry?
Ms. Matsui. Metal foams. Is that possible to reduce the
damage?
Ms. Rabiei. Yes. Yes, absolutely. I had some funding from
the DOT, and a program called IDEA that was for crashworthiness
and impact protection. So in our preliminary studies, it shows
that if you put two pieces of our material in front of the car
and have an accident, like 35 miles per hour, it will feel like
5 miles per hour for the passenger sitting in the car, because
the energy is absorbed and damped, but----
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much. Could I have just one more
question?
Mr. Latta. Yes.
Ms. Matsui. I was curious. I live in Sacramento. We have
two big rivers and we are always talking about water
infrastructure. So I was curious, because some of what you are
talking about might be very helpful for us, if we are thinking
about materials that would be stronger and be able to withstand
more pressures and things like that.
Are there available--when you build bridges, are you also
thinking about dams and things like that also?
Mr. GangaRao. Yes, we have a great bit of funding from the
Army Corps of Engineers. And we have recently, about 4 years, 3
years ago, we rehabilitated a dam underwater, without draining
it out, using the composite materials.
Ms. Matsui. Oh, that sounds pretty good. OK. Well, thank
you.
I know I have run out of time. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi,
the vice chairman of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to each of you for being here. It is fascinating
every time we learn more and more about this. So thank you for
your work and your concern.
And, Dr. Tour, your testimony earlier and your remarks and
your written testimony, if we were to increase the funding for
research at universities and the corporate tax rate were
reduced, what impact do you see that having--the concern that
you have about the brain drain of research scientists?
Mr. Tour. Right. Well, as far as the corporate tax rate, it
was on the advice of our accountants to start our companies
overseas, and so that would cease. We very much would rather
start it here. It is much easier here because of the knowledge
that you don't have to transfer it as far. So that would
immediately keep companies here that are going overseas, and
then two of them are already on the public markets overseas.
As far as the increase in research funding, we have seen
very little increase in research funding over the last 8 years.
It has been devastating in the universities and so much so that
our--I collaborate with the Chinese, and I put their names on
our papers. Why? Because I need access to their equipment. They
have better equipment than we have in the United States because
we haven't been able to maintain our equipment budgets.
I come from a university that is only 4,000 undergraduates,
4,000 graduates, and we have $5.5 billion endowment. So we are
well endowed. We are hurting on equipment. And so I collaborate
with people overseas just to get access to their equipment. So
this is going to be a long-term problem for our country that I
really care about if we keep on seeing this.
Our best students are now going home. They would gladly
take jobs in the U.S. as professors and do this, but they get
huge startup packages in China. They have the 1,000 scholars
program, which is more than 1,000 people, but they will start
it with multimillion dollar packages as young people. So we are
losing them.
Mr. Harper. All right. Well, thanks for your input, and I
think we get the message and appreciate that.
Mr. Weyant, if I may ask, you mentioned a number of
industries leveraging fiber-reinforced polymer composites in
the U.S. from aerospace, automotive, defense, health care. How
has your company had to adjust to new materials entering those
industries over the years?
Mr. Weyant. Well, the big adjustment is trying to develop
standardizations that don't exist for advanced composites. A
lot of traditional materials, there are handbooks that exist.
Dr. GangaRao can pull out a steel handbook.
So the big challenge I would challenge and ask for is to
help develop those standards. A lot of these companies are very
small with restricted budgets, but if the government and
universities and industry could develop standards to penetrate
so any engineer out of school could pull out a standard and
develop around these products, that would be a great return.
Mr. Harper. Great. Great. Thank you.
Dr. GangaRao, how large is the market for composite
infrastructure applications? What do you envision?
Mr. GangaRao. As I indicated, we are dealing with a $4.5
trillion market in the infrastructure arena for the next 10
years. If I had to make a guess at it, we can easily capture a
trillion-dollar type market in the next 10 years provided we do
certain things right, as Shane pointed out, and a few others,
and I also put it in my testimony.
Mr. Harper. OK. Great. Thank you.
And, also, Dr. GangaRao, in your testimony, you discussed,
you know, the societal impact of developing advanced composites
for infrastructure applications. Can you please explain this in
a little more detail, that impact? And is there also a monetary
benefit to using advanced composites, and if so, in what ways?
Mr. GangaRao. Let me start with the monitoring aspect of
it. For example, the longevity of a given system can be
enhanced using the composite, not necessarily displacing
existing conventional materials but hybridizing the
conventional materials with the composite. I gave you one such
example: Take the case of a bridge deck. I believe we can save
the next 10 years several billion dollars, perhaps up to $50
billion just on one aspect of that.
Then let me move on to something like the railroad ties
where the operational costs are tremendously high today.
Herein, if I can increase the life expectancy from 10 years,
which is what it is today in the southeast United States, to 40
to 50 years, then I can have a huge savings there. For example,
New York City today pays $2,100 a tie for replacement, even
though the tie cost is only $100 to $150. $2,100.
Now, if I can break this cycle of once in 20 years to once
in 50 years, imagine the amount of moneys we are going to----
Mr. Harper. Well, thank you. And thanks to each of you.
And my time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. GangaRao. Yes, sir.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
The gentleman's time has expired and has yield backed.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses and for the committee for
calling this hearing.
To our witnesses, thank you for the work that you do,
extraordinarily exciting stuff. The pathway from the basic
research to the commercialization to bringing these products to
market to helping people is, I think, a critical one for
policymakers to understand. How academia plays into that is
critical as well. And I want to thank you for making the time
to testify today and make sure that your thoughts help guide
the committee forward as we try to navigate the policy
implications before us.
Dr. Rabiei, just to start with you if I may, your
inventions have had an exciting range of possibilities. And I
wanted to get a sense as we--I mentioned a little bit about
that commercialization process. I wanted to get a sense from
you as to what comes next so that more people can have access
to the potential benefits of your discoveries.
So how are you planning to commercialize your composite
metal foam? And if you are, could you tell us more about what
that process is like and how you are going about it?
Ms. Rabiei. Well, in a nutshell, we have established a
startup; it is an LLC company outside of the university. I do
have the opportunity to continue research at the university.
So, if I get funding from the university, we can continue
promoting the technology and figuring out more properties that
can be beneficial.
And from the company side, we are hoping to get through the
fundraising process and establish a small production line where
we can make prototype samples for different companies. Right
now, everywhere I have companies from--large companies are
making tanks and Army vehicles to body armors to any kind of
industry you can imagine. They have seen how the material is
performing, and they want to get their hands on the material.
But I do not have production line. I do have a small
laboratory-scale production, and that is where we are right
now. If we get funding to have our production line established,
even a small production line where we can make little larger
samples and smaller-scale samples, that would take us to the
next step faster.
Mr. Kennedy. And if you had your choice, where would you
plan to manufacture it?
Ms. Rabiei. Right now, I am in North Carolina. So I do not
have any plan to take the production outside the country. I do
believe that----
Mr. Kennedy. How about Massachusetts?
Ms. Rabiei. Oh, my daughter would love that.
Mr. Kennedy. There we go.
Ms. Rabiei. She was born in Boston, actually.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what we are looking for.
Ms. Rabiei. And she always wants to come back to Harvard.
Mr. Kennedy. We have got a couple institutions of higher
learning in Massachusetts, well, and a couple in Cambridge,
too. MIT, that other school in Cambridge, happens to be one of
the recipients of one of the national institutes of
manufacturing awards from the U.S. Government under the Obama
administration but stood up also with a bipartisan piece of
legislation passed 3 years ago now creating the national
network of manufacturing institutes all over the country. And
the one at MIT is based on advanced fabrics.
So, at the kickoff, about a year or so ago at the
announcement, Secretary Ash Carter was in Cambridge and talked
about how they were trying to develop fabrics--a T-shirt that
could tell you if you were sick, a parachute that could repair
itself in the middle of a jump.
The ideas and the applications, obviously, of such products
are extraordinary and I think exactly the type of innovation
that government and working with academia and industry and
business community and entrepreneurs teaming up can lower those
barriers of entry, increase the ability of innovators to
actually take risk without having such a huge downside if those
risks fall short but also making sure we keep that pipeline of
funding that goes through that basic research, keeping that
pump prime so that we can continue to make the groundbreaking
discoveries that years later will lead to that
commercialization and those end products.
Well, is that understanding of that process correct? And
what advice would you give us as we try to refine it going
forward?
Ms. Rabiei. Well, you said it right to point out everything
ends up at the funding. If the funding is available, everybody
will move wherever the funding goes, right. So that actually is
a smart way to do it in a university when you know where the
interest is and you can adjust your research to that, and you
are going to be a successful faculty.
So, as far as my research goes, we definitely would love to
look for opportunities. And wherever opportunities take us,
then we will be happy to----
Mr. Kennedy. I am over my time. If the chairman would
indulge me for 10 more seconds. That national network has
actually been successful enough that our Republican Governor is
mimicking it at a State-wide level creating State-wide
manufacturing partnerships for the next generation of
innovation if any of you should be choosing to. It has been a
rough weather week, but we have got really good sports teams if
any of you are interested in locating north.
Ms. Rabiei. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Ohio didn't have too bad of one, or two.
Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair will now recognize the gentleman from West
Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. GangaRao, when I read your testimony, if I could be
paraphrasing a little bit, you are saying that one of the
things, the obstacles we have, the barriers that have been put
up about our composite construction, is being able to evaluate
the durability and the cost savings over time. How would you
suggest we do that? Which agency should be funded to do that,
or how would we go to rectify that problem?
Mr. GangaRao. We have been doing some work already in the
area of durability, and there is a lot that needs to be done.
And some of the agencies that have been funding are the
National Science Foundation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Transportation. So these are some of the
agencies.
Mr. Guthrie. Are you suggesting that we put some language
in to make sure, as projects go ahead, that they check for that
long term?
Mr. GangaRao. That is correct.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
Let me do--now, Dr. Tour, this subject of graphene is
fascinating to me. I have been studying it now for about 3
1A\1/2\ years. But I have found here in Washington that almost
nobody knows anything about it, is aware of the product.
So I am curious: How would you suggest we make people aware
to understand the importance of the development of graphene,
and what are some of the commercial applications that we could
possibly use in discussions for funding? And, thirdly, what
would be the best agency that we could plus-up their account
possibly so that we would have money to be able to do more work
in graphene?
Mr. Tour. So, as far as getting the word out, I mean, there
has been a huge amount of press on graphene. I think the people
in Washington have been consumed with other things of late. So
that is a distraction area that I am not sure I can speak to.
But as far as the areas, this extends--and even from my own
work, it goes from the medical area. We have two drugs: one on
traumatic brain injury and stroke--traumatic brain injury being
the number one disabler of young adults; stroke being the
number one disabler of older adults--that are based on graphene
nanoparticles that have transitioned to industries.
We have aircraft coatings based on graphene. We have used
oil--graphene in the oil and gas industry, and we have used
graphene, as I said, for healing of spinal cord. So it is very
broad. I don't think it would be wise to give it to just, say,
the DOD agencies.
I think that taking the money and spreading it across as
you did, quite wisely, as the Congress did, with the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, they pushed nanotechnology across
all the different agencies and said: Each one of you is
responsible for pushing nanotechnology through your different
agencies. And so we got the NSF, the NIH, and the Air Force,
and the Navy, and the Army all pushing, and so it came out of
all of these different sectors because it can influence all of
those.
Mr. Guthrie. Where do you see applications that we could
more demonstratively convince people that this is a product
that we should be advancing?
Mr. Tour. So we have----
Mr. Guthrie. Other than, I heard you say about--some of
that, but give me some other things that perhaps we can load
our gun up a little bit to be able to promote.
Mr. Tour. Right. So, on a day like today, for de-icing
leading edges of aircraft or de-icing entire aircrafts by
putting a coating of graphene, you use a Joule-heated resistive
coating. And what it does is it makes it so that you can easily
de-ice aircraft without having to use chemicals--this is just a
thermal process--or de-icing power lines. No more ice on power
lines. There is no more energy. You can just coat these
properly, and the magnetic field from the power line heats this
just even a few degrees higher than ambient, and you will get
no more ice on the power lines.
So it is very good for de-icing applications, which is
something you can talk about with somebody today, and then it
can extend into the medical applications. When we are talking
about the number one disabler of both older and younger adults,
what these particles can do is really quite amazing.
So, again, there are lots of applications. I can give you
tens of pages of press releases on different application areas,
even from our own university.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. I would like to see that.
Mr. Tour. OK.
Mr. Guthrie. I know that it has the potential of being a
replacement for silicon wafers in our computers, but there is a
band gap problem with that.
Mr. Tour. Right, there is a band gap problem. So probably
what we won't do is replace. Where silicon is good, we will use
it in other things. So, for example, for heat release or for
touch-screen displays, the problem with graphene is, as you
said, the band gap is too small. It is too metallic in nature.
But its mobility is so high. Its mobility is 100 to 300 times
faster than silicon; that means the rate at which you could do
computation.
So we have to think about using it in different ways. And
there is actually a team actually at MIT that is thinking about
using graphene, not as silicon is used but differently in
computing. So, if you would change the computing hardware then
you could revert to graphene. What people had tried to do is
force graphene into the silicon box, and that has not worked.
Mr. Guthrie. Very good. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Murphy, you mentioned over 100,000 Americans are on
organ transplant waiting lists--or were in 2015, I think. Only
30,000 of those patients received transplants. Is there a
potential for your technology and 3D printed tissue to address
the needs of these patients, and if so, how? And when do you
think treatments like these could be ready for use in patients?
Mr. Murphy. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
Yes, so we are developing a 3D bioprinted liver tissue for
transplant into humans. It is now at the stage of animal
trials. We have been testing it in rodents quite successfully.
It has already established that we can get it to engraft well,
persist for months, that it has metabolic function, that you
can measure human proteins that are produced by that liver
circulating in the animal.
And we are moving this along a normal development pathway
anticipating starting clinical trials as soon as 3 to 4 years
from now. We are targeting 2020 to have the clinical trials
started for this. We think it can be tremendously impactful for
patients because there are so many patients, as you mentioned,
on the waiting list, in this case for liver. Many people can't
even get on the waiting list. If you are elderly or you have
other diseases, you are not even going to be put on that
waiting list, and there are no solutions. And basically these
folks are down to 10 or 15 percent organ function.
So we are sort of on a staircase, I would say, of how we
can help people. With the technology we have available today,
we hope to give these folks up to 10 or 20 percent function
with a patch rather than a full organ that can bridge them to a
full transplant that they can get 1 or 2 years later. We can
give them 1 or 2 years additional without one. And then longer
term, if the technology is applied broadly and we work with
others and bring in more tools and technologies to this, we
believe we can make fuller organs over time and do full
transplants.
Mr. Costello. You referred to a paper from December in
which the authors referred to the value of 3D bioprinted human
tissue as reducing the need for animals in chemicals and
cosmetic testing. Are you aware of existing or ongoing studies
that have shown more accurate outcomes regarding drug and
product testing using bioprinted tissues versus animal trial
methods?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, thank you.
The best way to think about what we do is that we have
been, as a society, for 50 years or more, dependent on a single
paradigm, which is testing cells in a dish and using animals as
surrogates for humans. But there is a gap between animals and
humans. And essentially, that means we don't know a lot about
drugs when we put them into humans.
Those are truly experiments done in humans, those clinical
trials, and that is why we go so carefully and so slowly, and
that is why you end up with major surprises for drugs, things
that are unforeseen.
And liver is a classic example because liver cells on a
dish don't perform like the liver fully ever, and they stop
performing at all like a liver within 3 to 5 days. So the
opportunity we have, the reason bioprinted tissues work is
because we put the liver cells--we use three different cell
types. We put them with specific architecture into the tissue.
So it performs more like a native function.
And to your exact question, we have been able to show over
time that first with trovafloxacin, which was a known drug
failure, that drug, which was tested for many years before it
was put into humans--toxicity was not seen in rats and in liver
cells in the dish--we could pick it up in 7 days in our system
very clearly because there is basic biological function in our
tissue that just doesn't exist in those other models. Humans
and animals are different.
And so we have got now a growing set of data that was
referred to in the paper you mentioned. And people are relying
on the fact that, for example, one of the authors of that paper
was also from Merck. We have worked with top 10 Pharma
companies like Merck, taken drugs from them in a blinded
fashion. They have given us a set of 12 drugs that can
sometimes include their own clinical trial failure drugs. And
we hit those drugs at a very high rate, meaning we found about
70 percent of the drugs that have gone into clinical trials and
failed, we can detect the toxicity of those in our system under
a month.
So it is a very powerful advance in the predictive tools,
and we expect this to extend into diseases, into study of liver
fibrosis and other diseases over time, and many other tissues
as well.
Mr. Costello. Dr. GangaRao--did I pronounce that
correctly?--my question, and it could apply to any of the
applications, but in particular, as it relates to
infrastructure, and you hear a lot of talk about an
infrastructure bill or public spending in the infrastructure
space, and the issue of useful life, return on investment,
cost-benefit analysis. And some of these applications obviously
or may cost more than the traditional means of doing an
infrastructure project. The commercial viability, I think, then
becomes a question of when is it worth it based on how much
more additional wear and tear and years can we get out of it.
Big picture, and it doesn't just have to relate to
infrastructure, but I use that to illustrate the point to ask
the question, are there shortcomings, or are there not
shortcomings in the analysis on how much it will cost, what the
return on investment is, so that as policymakers we are in a
position to say, ``Well, we can do that project for $10, or we
can do that project for $15; but if we do it for $15, it is
going to be twice as value-added to the public benefit because
of the materials that we are using and the way that we are
designing and building a project''?
And I don't ask that question just of you, I welcome
everyone to answer it. But I think that there is something to
that. I just don't know if, in addition to the technology and
the advancements all of you are making, whether we as
policymakers and the public have an appreciation for that
analysis so that when we make decisions, we are able to justify
spending more.
Mr. GangaRao. As scientists, we have been struggling to
answer that question with a degree of accuracy. One of the best
ways to do it is we have been building these infrastructures
for the last 25 years, and we need to field monitor them today
and see how well they are doing. We have certain mechanisms of
establishing the remaining life; thus, we should be in a
position to establish a decent number in terms of the
durability of that product. Once we have that done, then we can
translate into a reasonable life expectancy of that product.
That is issue number one.
And issue number two, you keep talking about the cost. We
need to be talking about, how best can we scale up in terms of
low-volume productions to high-volume productions? Once we have
these two sorted out, recognizing the fact that certain costs
will come down with experience with certain kinds of insights
into what we have been doing--so these are the three different
factors that need to be looked at to get you a decent
projection of how much it is going to cost.
Mr. Latta. And I thank the gentleman for his questioning.
Again, I am sorry that our clocks aren't working here in the
hearing room, but if you notice when the lights go on for the
witnesses, that is on the 5-minute. But----
Mr. Costello. I am sorry if I went over.
Mr. Latta. No problem at all. We have had that problem from
the start of the committee hearing. So we appreciate your
questions.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you guys for being here.
I have been reading lately on the use and the application,
which seems almost endless on graphene--am I saying that right?
Graphene? And what I can't wrap my head around is, why aren't
we hearing more about this? I mean, it seems like there are so
many possibilities. I read that China is outpacing us in this.
And I am just not sure, from a practical standpoint, from
even a military perspective to a construction background, I
just can't understand, why are we not pushing this? Is it the
barriers that we have created? Is it the lack of investment
interest from the public? And I really don't know who wants to
take this on. Mr. Tour, if you want to take this on or----
Mr. Tour. So I think certainly those in the field, those
working in the field know well about this, of how important
this is and the advances that are occurring across many
different areas, from biomedicine to structural materials to
space and aircraft materials. So it is actually quite broad.
There is a huge amount of press on graphene. The nice thing
about it is that it is so light and you can make single sheets
of it and deal with it in this amazing way.
One of the things that is hurting enormously is the cuts
that have come or the lack of any increases in Federal support
for research to do these types of things, and that is why I
have proposed having these efforts go forward to increase that.
But it is true that China has 25 percent more patents in
the area of graphene than does the U.S. But if you look at the
Chinese equipment, it is way ahead of us now. And so what I was
telling the committee----
Mr. Mullin. Equipment in which way? Are you talking about
the equipment, the ability to produce it?
Mr. Tour. No, I am talking about the analysis equipment
just at the university level.
Mr. Mullin. OK.
Mr. Tour. So I partner with Chinese teams just to get
access to their equipment. It is really quite odd that the
United States needs to go China to get their analyses done. But
if you look at the equipment budgets that have come to
universities, they have been cut back enormously in the last 10
years. And so, in order to do the nano analyses, we have to
partner with the Chinese in order to do the analyses, and they
get their names on our papers.
And they are far more aggressive in starting out young
people. We don't have the infrastructure to be starting out the
young people in professorships to do this. We train many
Chinese, and they are tremendous in our laboratories. And they
would all stay and become professors and work here. But it is
very difficult for them to stay, number one, because there is
very little money to start up the $1 million-plus startup
packages in the U.S. for young faculty whereas they will get
that in an instant in China.
It is the problem of making it tough for them to get their
green cards here to work. If they have gotten their Ph.D.s
here, I am all for them. They have been extremely vetted by me.
They have been extremely vetted by us for the last 5 years. And
they would come and participate, they never go to our prisons,
and they pay taxes. And they add tremendously to what we are
doing. So there are very simple barriers that we could begin to
deal with these sort of things.
Mr. Mullin. What do you see as the most practical
application for graphene?
Mr. Tour. OK. So it is like asking me, which one of my four
children do I love the most? It is very hard to do that. It is
very hard to say a specific application.
Mr. Mullin. Right now, since Jim is with me, it is him, but
it will change when the next one is with me.
Mr. Tour. I understand. I am the same way. I love them all
the most, whoever is with me.
In biological applications, it is extreme. So we have seen
solutions for great improvements in traumatic brain injury and
stroke using graphene. We have seen the melding of spinal
cords----
Mr. Mullin. How is that? What are the advances you have
seen? How is this application being practical there?
Mr. Tour. So this was initially funded by the Department of
Defense, the medical command and--because so many of our
soldiers were coming back from the Middle East theater and
Afghanistan with head injuries. And so what it does is these
are rapid antioxidants that sequester the superoxide that
usually brings damage to the brain based upon reinfusion of the
blood after severing of an artery with a head blow.
And it is the same sort of thing that happens with stroke.
There is deficient oxygen to the brain. You bring the patient
to the hospital. Corkscrew is used to open up or chemicals are
used to open up that clot. Re-profusion of blood, the oxidation
problems causes the damage to the brain.
So I can show you pictures of rats that have had their
entire spinal cord completely severed all the way through. We
put one drop of a graphene solution and bring that spinal cord
together. Within 3 weeks, that rat is running and scores a 19
out of 21 on a mobility scale.
Mr. Mullin. Oh, my goodness.
Mr. Tour. And we can do de-icing. We have important
materials applications. We have applications for fluorescent
materials, graphene quantum dots. And a lot of this technology
has left the U.S. These companies have gone overseas.
Mr. Mullin. On the spine, have there been any studies on a
human on this?
Mr. Tour. No, no studies on humans. The studies on humans
are going to take place certainly overseas because of the lower
barriers for that overseas. And those studies may, in fact,
take place this year on humans overseas.
Mr. Mullin. Well, I think you can see that--one, my time, I
guess, is out because I saw the red light up there, but you can
see this panel and this committee is very intrigued. Moving
forward, I would love to be as helpful as I can. Of course, the
building composites of it is intriguing, but the human
composites of it is extremely intriguing. And I want to be as
helpful. You will find my office being helpful, but I think you
will find this committee being helpful too. So thank you so
much for you all's time.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, being the previous chairman of this
subcommittee, I just want to acknowledge that I feel your pain
that one of the preeminent technological committees in the
United States House of Representatives, the greatest
deliberative body in the free world, does not have a clock. It
pains me. So I will put my full force behind getting you a new
clock.
And I apologize for missing part of the hearing. Obviously,
there is a lot of stuff going on with the snow day and just the
fact that there is a lot going on right now.
But, Dr. Tour and Mr. Murphy, perhaps let me direct my
questions to you.
Dr. Tour, I believe you referenced the nanotechnology bill
that we did here in 2003 and 2004. I was on the Science
Committee at the time but deeply involved with that.
And then, Mr. Murphy, in your written testimony at least,
you reference Cures for the 21st Century Act from the last
Congress.
So I realize it is a little bit risky, given the answer you
gave to Markwayne Mullin from Oklahoma about funding, but can
you kind of look over the horizon and perhaps give us some
insight? Here we have two major pieces of legislation:
nanotechnology, Cures for the 21st Century. What are some other
things that you see as worthy of your time and attention?
Mr. Tour. I think, broadly, looking at the funding that was
available when I started as a faculty member 30 years ago, the
funding available to faculty members on a per-faculty-member
basis around the country, and get back to numbers like that. It
used to be we would write three proposals in order to get one
funded. Now you have to write 10 to get 1 funded, and people
are just giving up. They are going overseas. They are leaving
the country.
Mr. Burgess. May I interrupt you for a moment?
Mr. Tour. Yes, please.
Mr. Burgess. Is that at the NIH or Department of Defense or
all of the above----
Mr. Tour. This is across the whole thing.
Mr. Burgess. OK. Please proceed.
Mr. Tour. So I think if we looked at what is being put into
science and engineering training in the United States and look
at the funding rates per professor and begin to move that back
up, because we haven't been increasing, and so we have just
been killed by the cost of research, and the funding has been
flat. So, overall, we are down more than 40 percent.
Mr. Murphy. So, Congressman, you ask about 21st Century
Cures and what to focus on next. Well, there is a lot left open
in 21st Century Cures. One of the things it does talk about is
a pathway for new drug discovery tools to be validated. One of
the things we are focused on is asking you to accelerate the
adoption of available tools that are already proven versus
focus on longer term investment for things that won't yet be
available.
The opportunity with our technology is to----
Mr. Burgess. May I ask you to give us a couple of examples
of the current tools that are available?
Mr. Murphy. I would mention one that Organovo has produced,
but there are a number of technologies. But, for example, our
liver tissue to test safety for drugs for toxicology has a
growing set of proof on it and has been published on by the
director of the National Center for Toxicology Research and an
associate VP of toxicology at Merck as something that is part
of the future.
So there is a growing body of evidence around that driving
adoption of that. And getting clarity at FDA through this
validation of the drug discovery tools that is laid out in 21st
Century Cures--there is an opportunity to include that in PDUFA
VI as well--would give clarity to people who want to use that
but don't know how the FDA will rely upon it. Giving the FDA
the ability and the clear guidance to actually be studying
these and issuing guidance around them will be very helpful to
achieve the potential of these technologies, which is to lower
the cost of drugs.
If you are avoiding these billion-dollar failures for drug
toxicity safety issues that are late stage in clinical trials,
if people can instead fine tune the drugs with tools that are
now available and pick the right ones, you get the avoidance of
those costs, the reduction of drug costs overall, and you
enable patients to get safer drugs faster.
Mr. Burgess. I know Dr. DePinho at MD Anderson Hospital has
talked about getting to failures quickly so you avoid the time
and trouble and expense of a long pathway to something that is
ultimately not going to be successful.
Now, Mr. Murphy, you also mentioned--and I guess it is in
relation to your liver work--treating some of the inborn areas
of metabolism and, of course, the rare diseases that we heard
so much about during the Cures hearings, and obviously, those
are very sympathetic populations when they come in and talk
with us. Is that something that we can actually look to for
clinical results in the near future?
Mr. Murphy. That is another indication we are pursuing. So
I described the bridge to transplant and liver transplant
capabilities of this tissue patch. The liver tissue patch would
also be used for inborn areas of metabolisms. So an example of
that would be something like hemophilia, where people lack the
factor for blood clotting. The genetic deficiency expresses
itself in the liver where those factors aren't produced.
But there is alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and a number of
others, and by giving a patch, we think we can supplement the
production of that or create the production of that key factor
inside a patient who suffers from inborn areas of metabolism,
yes.
And that will be on the same timeframe: 3 years to clinical
trials. And it would help us if you could, in the
implementation of 21st Century Cures, assure the accelerated
pathway for tissues is clear for folks like us when we bring
those to the clinical trial stage.
Mr. Burgess. Very good.
And, Dr. Tour, I would just be remiss if I did not echo
what Markwayne Mullin from Oklahoma said: if you have got a way
take your hexamethyl chicken wire and help people walk again
with spinal injuries, we want to help you.
So thank you, and thank you all for your testimony today.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
The gentlelady from Illinois formally passes at this time.
The chair will recognize the gentleman from Florida for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so very much. I appreciate it, Mr.
Chairman, and I apologize for being late.
Mr. Murphy, I understand your technology holds a promise to
lower the cost of drug development. Can you explain to the
committee how the use of bioprinted tissues will improve the
drug development process and ultimately lower cost for
patients?
Mr. Murphy. Yes. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
So what we do is create a tissue that can be used in a
number of ways. I have mentioned liver toxicity safety as an
example, but patients are suffering right now because we don't
have solutions for liver fibrosis. There are animal models for
fibrosis that have basically been rejected by Pharma because
they are not predictive.
So we have done and Pharma companies have taken forward a
number of drugs into clinical trials to try and treat fibrosis
only to find out that what was predicted as potentially useful
in the animal models doesn't pan out. That is a cost that they
build into their overall infrastructure, and we are paying for
that cost through drugs that do get approved.
And if you think about it, it is about avoiding these
costly failures and getting to the drugs that will work faster.
That is the overall promise. That same liver tissue we use when
exposed to known agents that cause fibrosis, like
methotrexate--and this is published with the University of
North Carolina researchers--induces fibrosis in a way that is
clinically relevant and shows a good comparison to what you see
in a biopsy of those patients.
So, taking that drug into nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and
these fatty liver disease fibrosis things, diseases where
Pharma is very focused now gives the opportunity to actually
find drugs for those and avoid taking drugs forward that are
based only on animal models and end up having failures.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. We are here to help as well. I
appreciate the panel's testimony.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
The gentleman yields back.
And the chair recognizes the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentlelady from Illinois, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. I can't tell you how disappointed I am. My
plane was 3 hours late, and I am really, really interested in
this panel. I am glad that at least you are here for a few more
minutes, and I will look over the testimony in the transcript.
I am concerned about the money that is available for
research and want to be sure that we have that. Federal funding
contributed directly to American business by ensuring that they
can compete successfully around the world is so important.
Further cuts in funding for education, government support for
small business and research I think would definitely harm our
economy and hamper our ability to innovate.
And even worse, these proposed cuts are coming at a
critical time as other countries are aggressively ramping up
their spending on R&D and education. The U.S. is still the
world leader when it comes to government research funding, but
at our current levels, China is projected to overtake us in
just a few years.
I think we stand at a moment where the United States of
America can be the exporter of such exciting technologies if we
actually put the research in. I have the Northwestern
University, University of Illinois, University of Chicago that
are looking, doing incredible research for improved and
nanotechnology at the university, at Northwestern University,
batteries at the University of Illinois, just amazing work.
So I want to ask you--and maybe you answered this already,
I would like to put it on the record again if you have anyway:
how would a further decline in research funding to American
universities affect your work? Anybody.
Mr. Tour. It is already affecting us so that we have not
seen an increase in several years. It is already affecting us.
If we are going to go down even more, it is going to be
devastating to the research science community within the United
States.
Our best and brightest are already leaving the country,
going back to their home countries because there are no startup
packages for their positions here. And China is paying them
extremely well. Singapore is paying them extremely well to
start up their companies.
And it is not just that. It is our established senior U.S.
professors that are now leaving and packing up their programs
and going overseas because it is so hard to get funding here in
this environment that they can go overseas and get their
programs funded.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask you one other thing. I
understand too for research, start, and stop is very
devastating, that there has to be a sense of continuum here. Is
that a problem as well?
Mr. Tour. That is a problem because once it stops, it is
very hard to restart, because your students go onto other
things; they graduate. That is it; the infrastructure is lost.
And so it is very hard to start and re-stop. There is only
stop.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Anyone else?
Mr. GangaRao. Dr. Tour is talking about how it affects the
students' funding for the faculty, what have you. I would like
to take that one step further in the sense that we have
exported out our manufacturing industry, and we are hurting
very badly now. Likewise, if we begin to export out our
research capabilities 10, 20 years from now, you can be assured
we will be looking to be a Third World country.
Ms. Schakowsky. Wow.
Yes, Dr. Rabiei.
Ms. Rabiei. I also wanted to elaborate that right now the
research environment is becoming harder and harder for us to
keep up. I had some colleagues from Europe coming to visit us,
and we had a meeting starting from 8 o'clock to 7 p.m., and he
was saying, why do you have this kind of long hours? And I
said, because, like what Dr. Tour was mentioning, we have to
write 10 proposals if you want to get 1.
So if you want to have 5 proposals funded, then you have to
write 50 proposals, and each one of them take a lot of time if
you want to write something competitive. On top of that, you
have teaching and you have other service and writing and
supporting Ph.D. students and all that.
So it is really competitive, and the more you cut the
budget for research, the more it becomes competitive because we
still have to compete for that, and our chances go down. Like,
if you look at NSF reports, they say it is 1 out of 13 that is
funded. Sometimes it is 1 out of 10 is funded. So, obviously,
in all of this, people write 100 proposals; 90 of them are down
into trash, and 10 of them are funded.
Ms. Schakowsky. Does the funding also shape the research
you do? Because if you know that funding is available, you may
go in a different direction? I think that could be a not-great
thing.
Mr. Tour. It is not a great thing. You are always chasing
money.
Ms. Rabiei. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, can I add a comment to the
question?
Mr. Latta. Go right ahead.
Mr. Murphy. Out-of-the-box thinking, we are supposed to be
disruptive. After my success in founding the company, I started
with my own money a nonprofit that gives philanthropic dollars
in terms of research grants. So Jason Wertheim, who is a
surgeon at Northwestern, transplant surgeon that does research
on de novo organs, received a grant from Human Organ Project
that is nonprofit.
If there were ways that Congress could--there is not a lot
of that kind of funding that--private, philanthropic funding
that goes directly into research grants. There is a lot of work
that is done for patient education, patient help, and things
like that.
If there were ways over the long haul--I don't have
proposals in mind; this is just coming to me--if there were
ways that Congress could work toward stimulating more
philanthropic investment direct in the research grants, some of
which, honestly--you know, a lot of stuff goes overseas in
terms of world health and things like that, very noble
enterprises. But if there were ways to get more direct private
investment into research in the U.S., that would be helpful
too, I think.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me just say: I agree with you, but on
the other hand, I don't think private dollars are going to be
able to make up the difference between an investment by the
Federal Government. But it is still a good thing.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for our panel today.
You can tell from the questions you received from the
subcommittee that we are all very, very interested in this, and
we really appreciate your testimony and your expertise and
being with us today.
And in pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
the record. And I ask the witnesses to submit any responses
within 10 days upon request or other questions.
And, without objection, the subcommittee will stand
adjourned. Thank you very much for coming.
[Whereupon, at 1:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]