[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NANOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 2, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-60
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-986 WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
October 2, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 11
Statement by Representative Darlene Hooley, Member, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Dr. David A. Ucko, Deputy Division Director, Division of Research
on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings; Directorate for
Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Biography.................................................... 20
Dr. Nivedita M. Ganguly, Chairperson, Science Department, Oak
Ridge High School, Oak Ridge, TN
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Biography.................................................... 24
Dr. Hamish L. Fraser, Ohio Regents Eminent Scholar and Professor,
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Ohio State
University
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 32
Dr. Ray Vandiver, Vice President of New Project Development,
Oregon Museum of Science and Industry
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Biography.................................................... 38
Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Dr. Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director, National Science
Teachers' Association
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 44
Biography.................................................... 48
Discussion....................................................... 48
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. David A. Ucko, Deputy Division Director, Division of Research
on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings; Directorate for
Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation..... 66
Dr. Nivedita M. Ganguly, Chairperson, Science Department, Oak
Ridge High School, Oak Ridge, TN............................... 69
Dr. Hamish L. Fraser, Ohio Regents Eminent Scholar and Professor,
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Ohio State
University..................................................... 71
Dr. Ray Vandiver, Vice President of New Project Development,
Oregon Museum of Science and Industry.......................... 73
Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance...... 74
Dr. Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director, National Science
Teachers' Association.......................................... 75
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
H.R. 2436, To authorize the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to increase its efforts in support of the
integration of the health care information enterprise in the
United States.................................................. 80
NANOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Nanotechnology Education
tuesday, october 2, 2007
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
The purpose of this hearing is for the Subcommittee to receive
testimony on H.R. 2436, the Nanotechnology in Schools Act, and also to
review current nanotechnology education activities supported under the
National Nanotechnology Initiative and to explore issues associated
with educating students and the public about nanotechnology.
2. Witnesses
Dr. David Ucko, National Science Foundation, Deputy Division Director
of the Education and Human Resources Division on Research and Learning.
Dr. Ucko coordinates education activities in nanoscale science and
engineering across NSF.
Dr. Nivedita Ganguly, Head of the Science Department at Oak Ridge High
School, Oak Ridge Tennessee.
Dr. Hamish Fraser, Ohio Regents Eminent Scholar and Professor,
Department of Materials Science Engineering, the Ohio State University.
Dr. Ray Vandiver, Vice President of New Project Development, Oregon
Museum of Science and Industry.
Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance.
Dr. Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director, National Science Teachers
Association.
3. Overarching Questions
What unique benefits does access to high-tech
equipment generally offer to high school students,
undergraduates and community college students, and visitors to
informal science centers?
What science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education goals do hands-on opportunities
with high-tech equipment fulfill at the secondary school level
and at the post-secondary school level? What goals does
providing these opportunities meet for the nanotechnology
research and business communities?
What factors need to be considered when bringing
high-tech equipment to the classroom?
What types of educational activities is the Federal
Government funding in nanoscale science and engineering under
the National Nanotechnology Initiative? Is the level of
resources available for these activities adequate? Are the
priorities for funding appropriate?
4. Background
Nanoscale Science and Engineering
The emerging field of nanoscale science and engineering (NSSE)--the
science of manipulating matter at the molecular level--holds tremendous
potential. Research in this area has already led to medicine-dispensing
contact lenses, stain-resistant clothing, and many other advances in
science, health, and consumer products. The impact of this technology
on Americans' quality of life and economic prosperity could be enormous
and thus it is clearly necessary for the United States to stay at the
forefront of scientific research and development in the NSSE field. To
accomplish this, the Nation needs a full pipeline of talented engineers
and scientists, and a scientifically literate public, able to exploit
and understand this new science.
H.R. 2436, the Nanotechnology in Schools Act
The purpose of H.R. 2436, the Nanotechnology in Schools Act, is to
expose American students to the high-tech realm of nanotechnology,
leading them to a greater interest and higher facility in science and
technology. The bill would direct the National Science Foundation to
create a grant program making it possible for eligible institutions to
purchase nanotechnology equipment for educational purposes. The
qualifying institutions--high schools, two-year colleges, undergraduate
serving programs, and informal science education centers--could apply
for competitively awarded, merit-based grants of up to $150,000 to
purchase instrumentation and materials to teach NSSE principles to
students and/or the public. In addition to equipment, the funds could
be used for relevant software, as well as teacher and faculty
professional development, and student educational activities. In making
their awards, NSF is encouraged to select institutions that represent a
diverse geographic area and a diverse student body. The activities in
H.R. 2436 are authorized at $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and for
such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
Current Nanotechnology Education Activities Under the National
Nanotechnology Initiative
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has funded more than
$6918.1 million in research and related activities in NSSE across the
federal science agencies since it began in 2001. In fiscal year 2007,
Congress funded research in this area at $1353.9 million. As part of
its work on this initiative, NSF supports a number of educational
activities designed to teach K-16 students, science teachers, faculty
members, and the general public about nanotechnology. In fiscal year
2006, NSF funded $26.2 million in this area and the agency reports
similar funding levels for nano education for this year and next.\1\
NSF estimates they educate 10,000 students and teachers per year with
these funds. Major NSSE education initiatives include the National
Center for Learning and Teaching (NCLT) in Nanoscale Science and
Engineering and the Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE)
Network. NCLT is a consortium of five universities with a mission to
foster the Nation's talent in NSSE by developing methods for learning
and teaching through inquiry and design of nanoscale materials and
applications. They perform research and serve as a clearinghouse for
information regarding NSSE curriculum, teaching methodologies, and
professional development for the undergraduate and K-12 levels. NCLT is
operating in the fourth year of a five year $15,000,000 million grant.
The NISE network received a $12.4 million dollar grant from NSF in 2005
to develop methods of introducing the nanotechnology to the public and
to draw students to careers in NSSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FY 2007 estimate: $27.8 million; FY 2008 budget: $28.6 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF also has a Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education Program which
funded $42.7 million since 2003. The grants in this program have gone
to develop curriculum and purchase equipment in NSSE for undergraduate
students in different science and engineering disciplines. As part of
the Advanced Technology Education Centers program, NSF has funded $2.68
million since 2004 to develop nanotechnology related technician
education programs at community colleges.
Important Considerations
The vital role NSSE will play in the future of science and
technology dictates the necessity of supporting educational activities
that will cultivate students who are enthusiastic and able to pursue
careers in all aspects of nanotechnology. However, to maximize the
benefit the opportunity to work with high-tech scientific equipment can
have for students, the new technology and concepts must be carefully
integrated with the larger body of science knowledge students must
already learn. Professional development for anyone teaching new
technology should also be considered an essential part of brining high-
tech scientific equipment to the classroom. NSF's current and future
NSSE educational activities offer the chance to create holistic
programs that will increase the depth and breadth of student's science
knowledge.
5. Questions to Witnesses
Dr. David Ucko
1. Please describe NSF's current activities in nanoscale K-16
science education and the funding level for these activities.
Why does NSF believe funding and promoting nanoscale science
and engineering educational activities is important? How does
nanoscale science and engineering education fit into the larger
picture of improving STEM education and literacy in all levels
of the population?
2. What educational activities (and which audiences) does NSF
believe are most important to reach with information on
nanoscale science and engineering?
3. At all levels, but the K-12 and informal science education
level especially, is professional development and the
integration of this new, advanced field into existing
curriculum, receiving adequate attention and forethought?
4. What is NSF's opinion on H.R. 2436, the Nanotechnology in
Schools Act? Would this program compliment the Foundation's
current activities in nanoscale science education?
Dr. Nivedita Ganguly
1. Please describe your experiences using high-tech scientific
equipment in the high school classroom. What benefits do you
feel students would receive from having the opportunity to work
with nanotechnology equipment? Would students from a wide
variety of backgrounds be able to use and learn from the
equipment?
2. With the myriad topics high school science teachers must
currently cover, how do educators strategically choose new
experiences for students in the sciences? How do you integrate
the newest concepts into the curricula to give students an
appreciation for the new material and an excitement about
science, as well as a deeper understanding of the fundamentals?
3. What kinds of professional development opportunities would
teachers need to help them integrate nanotechnology into their
curriculum and properly use and maintain high-tech equipment?
4. Are there problems obtaining funds needed for the
maintenance of high-tech equipment? How does Oak Ridge High
School address these?
Dr. Hamish Fraser
1. Please describe current nanotechnology education efforts at
the undergraduate level. As new fields emerge in science, how
do university science departments merge them into the current
undergraduate curriculum?
2. How would a grant program, like the one proposed by H.R.
2436, be used by undergraduate serving programs? At the college
level, does the opportunity to work with new technology draw in
students who might otherwise have been uninterested in science?
Do hands-on experiences offer a unique learning opportunity
that is difficult to replicate in a lecture?
3. What types of nanotechnology equipment could be used for
educational benefit at the undergraduate level?
Dr. Ray Vandiver
1. Please describe the nanoscale science and engineering
educational activities the Oregon Museum of Science and
Industry (OMSI) is engaged in and OMSI's role in the Nanoscale
Informal Science Education Network.
2. Would H.R. 2436, the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, be
a beneficial resource for informal science education
institutions? What priority should it be given relative to
other kinds of support for informal science education
activities? How would science museums integrate advanced
equipment into their educational activities?
3. What types of professional development opportunities are
available to informal science educators? What types of programs
would need to exist to ensure that these educators understand
both the scientific concepts, as well as the equipment?
4. How do informal science education centers decide which
subject matter they will focus on? What resources do they use
to help create exhibits and programming that matches content to
the knowledge level and interest of the audience?
5. Do science museums have resources to maintain advanced
equipment?
Mr. Sean Murdock
1. What challenges do nanotechnology oriented businesses
currently face in filling their workforce needs? Are there
particular skills that are in short supply?
2. What effects would the nano-business community hope to see
from introducing students and the public to nano-science
through hands-on experiences?
3. Are nano-oriented businesses currently engaging in
educational activities? How can they be encouraged to form
partnerships that will give students opportunities beyond the
classroom where they can further explore and engage with
nanotechnology?
Dr. Gerald Wheeler
1. What is the National Science Teachers Association's opinion
on H.R. 2436, the Nanotechnology in Schools Act? What is the
appropriate role for high-tech equipment in the secondary
science classroom?
2. With the myriad topics high school science teachers must
currently cover, how do educators strategically choose new
experiences for students in the sciences? How do you integrate
the newest concepts into the curricula to give students an
appreciation for the new material and an excitement about
science, as well as a deeper understanding of the fundamentals?
3. What kinds of professional development opportunities would
teachers need to help them integrate new, high-tech equipment
into their curriculum and properly use and maintain high-tech
equipment?
Chairman Baird. Good afternoon. Welcome to our panelists
and those in the audience and my good friend, Vern Ehlers. I
want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on nanotechnology
education and thank our witnesses for being here. This hearing
stands adjourned. Little nano joke, very little.
Developments in the field of nanotechnology are incredibly
exciting. Science now has the ability to not just see or
perceive matter at its smallest scale but also to manipulate it
and create new materials. I am certain the flood of discoveries
and applications just around the corner will touch every aspect
of our lives, including medicine and computing. Indeed, some of
these applications, like enhanced textiles, have already
arrived, generating billions of dollars in economic impact.
The questions we are concerned with today is how we will
build the workforce to propel discovery and keep America at the
forefront of nanotechnology. This question once again brings us
to science education, which has been an issue of great concern
for this committee.
At present, the Federal Government invests $1.5 billion in
nanotechnology research and development through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. Certainly, this investment is
crucial. However, if we ignore the fact that there simply are
not enough American students prepared to carry out this
research and development, we could find much of that investment
wasted as other countries take the lead in nanotechnology.
We face two very steep challenges in science education. One
is to raise students' interest in math and science. The other
is to raise their competency.
The Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, which I will let my
friend, Congresswoman Hooley, from Oregon, explain in a moment
in detail, will offer an intriguing way to attack both of these
challenges.
I am interested in hearing from our witnesses today about
how putting incredibly advanced technology into the hands of
students can capture their attention and inspire them to pursue
math and science career paths, especially in the area of
nanotechnology.
I am also interested to hear about the investment the
Federal Government is already making in nanotech education,
both for students and the general public, and to learn more
about the impact these investments are having.
I will now yield to my good friend, Congressman Ehlers, Dr.
Ehlers, the Ranking Member of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everybody to today's hearing on
Nanotechnology Education and thank our witnesses for being here.
Developments in the field of nanotechnology are incredibly
exciting. Science now has the ability to not just see or perceive
matter at its smallest scale, but also to manipulate it and create new
materials. I am certain that the flood of discoveries and applications
just around the corner will touch every aspect of our lives, including
medicine and computing. Indeed, some of these applications, like
enhanced textiles, have already arrived--generating billions of dollars
in economic impact.
The question we are concerned with today is how we will build the
workforce to propel discovery and keep America at the forefront of
nanotechnology. This question once again brings us to science
education, which has been an issue of great concern for this committee.
At present, the Federal Government invests one and a half billion
dollars in nanotechnology research and development through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. Certainly, this investment is crucial.
However, if we ignore the fact that there simply are not enough
American students prepared to carry out this research and development,
we could find much of that investment wasted as other countries take
the lead in nanotechnology.
We face two very steep challenges in science education: one is to
raise students' interest in math and science; the other is to raise
their competency.
The Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, which I will let my friend
from Oregon, Ms. Hooley, explain in detail, offers an intriguing way to
attack both of these challenges.
I am very interested in hearing from our witnesses today about how
putting incredibly advanced technology in the hands of students can
capture their attention and inspire them to pursue math and science
career paths, especially in the area of nanotechnology.
I am also very interested to hear today about the investment the
Federal Government is already making in nanotechnology education, both
for students and the general public, and the impact these investments
are having.
Mr. Ehlers. I thank the Chairman and I appreciate his
demonstration of his nano sense of humor. Sorry about that.
Chairman Baird. I had it, though. That is pretty good.
Mr. Ehlers. Actually, I am not sorry. Since you got it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing will examine a
bill to prepare students for careers in nanotechnology and look
at the current state of nanotechnology education at the high
school and undergraduate level. The Science and Technology
Committee has supported a number of nanotechnology and
education activities through the National Nanotechnology
Initiative and remains interested in ways that we can improve
these programs. I am glad that we will hear today from a
variety of individuals who all agree that nanotechnology is an
important part of our future science and technology workforce.
It would be wonderful if every high school and college
student had the opportunity to use nanotechnology equipment and
become exposed to the cutting edge of this innovative field at
an early age. The intent of the bill, to grow the
nanotechnology workforce by capturing student interest early,
is clearly commendable. With that said, though, I have some
reservations as to the way that this bill attempts to achieve
these goals.
Earlier this year the Research and Science Education
Subcommittee examined another bill which authorized a pilot
grant program at the National Science Foundation for high
school laboratory equipment. The Partnership for Access to
Library Science, Laboratory Science, better known as PALS, bill
became a part of the America COMPETES Act, signed into law in
August.
The schools eligible for the PALS grants have to be high-
need schools, and I believe this is appropriate. When we were
evaluating the PALS bill, this subcommittee heard, learned from
another panel of witnesses that at many schools the need for
even the most rudimentary laboratory materials was indeed high.
We also learned from witnesses that at times, federal
science education programs do not adequately align with State
science and math standards, making it difficult for well-
intentioned materials to be utilized by a typical classroom
school teacher.
That leads to my concerns about this bill, H.R. 2436,
because it provides equipment for low-need schools. Perhaps a
better route to achieve the bill's goals would be to encourage
companies to donate equipment and employee time to exceptional
high schools and undergraduate programs. Perhaps even
considering tax incentives for that program.
This committee's bipartisan goal has always been to ensure
that all of our nation's students receive an excellent
education in science and not just the low-need schools. And we
will not waver from that goal. I hope that our witnesses today
and help us determine how H.R. 2436 would help us achieve that
goal so that all students benefit, not just those with
exceptional teachers, students, and equipment.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Today's hearing will examine a bill to prepare students for careers
in nanotechnology, and look at the current state of nanotechnology
education at the high school and undergraduate level. The Science and
Technology Committee has supported a number of nanotechnology and
education activities through the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
and remains interested in ways that we can improve these programs. I am
glad that we will hear today from a variety of individuals who all
agree that nanotechnology is an important part of our future science
and technology workforce.
It would be wonderful if every high school and college student had
the opportunity to use nanotechnology equipment and become exposed to
the cutting edge of this innovative field at an early age. The intent
of the bill--to grow the nanotechnology workforce by capturing student
interest early--is clearly commendable. With that said, though, I have
some reservations as to the way that this bill attempts to achieve its
goals.
Earlier this year, the Research and Science Education Subcommittee
examined another bill which authorized a pilot grant program at the
National Science Foundation for high school laboratory equipment. The
Partnership for Access to Laboratory Science (PALS) bill became a part
of the America COMPETES Act, signed into law in August. The schools
eligible for the PALS grants have to be high-need schools, and I
believe this is appropriate. When we were evaluating the PALS bill,
this subcommittee learned from another panel of witnesses that at many
schools, the need for even the most rudimentary laboratory materials
was indeed high. We also learned from witnesses that at times, federal
science education programs do not adequately align with State science
and math standards, making it difficult for well-intentioned materials
to be utilized by a typical classroom schoolteacher.
That leads to my concerns about H.R. 2436, because it provides
equipment for low-need schools. Perhaps a better route to achieve the
bill's goals would be to encourage companies to donate equipment and
employee time to exceptional high schools and undergraduate programs.
This committee's bipartisan goal has always been to ensure that all of
our nation's students receive an excellent education in science, and we
will not waver from that goal. I hope that our witnesses today can help
us determine how H.R. 2436 would help us achieve that goal, so that all
students benefit, not just those with exceptional teachers and
students.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
Ms. Hooley, I would now recognize the author of the bill,
the gentlelady from Oregon, Darlene Hooley.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you holding
this hearing today, and I appreciate your interest in this.
Everyone in this room can agree that the emerging field of
nanotechnology holds tremendous potential, potential that is
becoming more and more evident with every new breakthrough.
Research in this area has already led to new cancer treatments,
more powerful computers, and energy conversion and storage
breakthroughs.
Nanotechnology will revolutionize manufacturing, computing,
energy, health care, national defense, and many other sectors
by improving the way things are designed and made.
It is clearly necessary for the Untied States to remain at
the forefront of research and development in the field of
nanotechnology. Already we are facing challenges to our
leadership by China, Japan, the European Union, Indian, and
others.
For America to remain and expand its leadership, we must
have a full pipeline of scientists and engineers who are
capable of conducting nanotechnology research and development.
And we must have a scientifically literate public, able to
exploit and understand this new science.
The purpose of my legislation, the Nanotechnology in the
Schools Act, is to expose American students to the high-tech
realm of nanotechnology, encouraging them to take a greater
interest in this new field.
It authorizes $15 million for the National Science
Foundation to create a grant program making it possible for
high schools, two-year colleges, undergraduates serving
institutions, and informal science education centers to
purchase nanotechnology equipment for educational purposes.
These grants can be used to purchase instruments and
materials to teach nanotechnology principles to students and
the public. In addition, the funds can be used for training
teachers and professors to use these tools in the classroom and
the laboratory.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for agreeing to
testify today and for providing your valuable insight into the
best way that we can introduce nanotechnology to America's
greatest asset: its students.
And with that I yield back the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Darlene Hooley
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing today and
for your work on this issue.
Everyone in this room today can agree that the emerging field of
nanotechnology holds tremendous potential, potential that is becoming
more and more evident with every new breakthrough. Research in this
area has already led to new cancer treatments, more powerful computers,
and energy conversion and storage breakthroughs.
Nanotechnology will revolutionize manufacturing, computing, energy,
health care, national defense, and many other sectors by improving the
way things are designed and made.
It is clearly necessary for the United States to remain at the
forefront of research and development in the field of nanotechnology.
Already we are facing challenges to our leadership by China, Japan, the
European Union, India and others.
For America to maintain and expand its leadership, we must have a
full pipeline of scientists and engineers who are capable of conducting
nanotechnology research and development. And we must have a
scientifically literate public, able to exploit and understand this new
science.
The purpose of my legislation, the Nanotechnology in the Schools
Act, is to expose American students to the high-tech realm of
nanotechnology, encouraging in them a greater interest in this new
field.
It authorizes $15 million for the National Science Foundation to
create a grant program making it possible for high schools, two-year
colleges, undergraduate serving institutions, and informal science
education centers to purchase nanotechnology equipment for educational
purposes.
These grants can be used to purchase instrumentation and materials
to teach nanotechnology principles to students and the public. In
addition, the funds can be used for training teachers and professors to
use these tools in the classroom and the laboratory.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for agreeing to testify today and
for providing your valuable insight into the best way that we introduce
nanotechnology to America's greatest asset, its students.
Chairman Baird. Thank the gentlelady for her initiative of
the legislation of her opening remarks.
We have also been joined by Dr. Jerry McNerney. If there
are other Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, those statements will be added to the record at
this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nanotechnology research and business are
important to Dallas and important to Texas.
The Texas Nanotechnology Initiative is holding an international
convention this week in Dallas. The focus is to allow researchers,
start-up companies, government officials and others to learn about the
latest research developments in this field.
Of added benefit are the connections that will be made and the
ideas that will be exchanged.
In Texas, the governor has established a venture capital-like
entity that invests State funds into small businesses with promising
nanotechnology concepts.
That interest, in conjunction with a strong college and university
emphasis throughout Texas, has positioned our state as a leader in
nanotechnology research and development.
Today's hearing will explore how the National Nanotechnology
Initiative supports nanotech education activities and how H.R. 2436,
the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, will further contribute to
improvements in nanotech educational activities.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is a federal research
and development program established to coordinate the multi-agency
efforts in nonsocial science, engineering, and technology.
Because of the promise of nanotechnology to improve lives and to
contribute to economic growth, the Federal Government established the
NNI to help make the United States a global leader in nanotechnology
development.
The Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, introduced by my colleague
from Oregon, Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, requires the Director of the
National Science Foundation to establish a nanotechnology in the
schools program.
The program would award grants to public or charter secondary
schools offering advanced science courses and to institutions of higher
education, for the purchase of nanotechnology equipment and software
and the provision of nanotechnology education to students and teachers.
As the Committee on Science and Technology considers the
legislation, we want to gain insight from the education and business
communities about how to best leverage our investments to best prepare
students to enter nanotechnology careers.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to today's witnesses. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Daniel Lipinski
I am pleased that with this hearing today, we will continue the
discussion of what I see as a potentially enormous field that could
impact virtually every sector of the economy--nanotechnology.
The State of Illinois has a long history in nanotechnology and was
ranked eighth in the Nation this year by Small Times magazine of
leading nanotechnology states. The University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign has taken a lead with its four centers dedicated to the study
of nanotechnology. U of I's Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory
recently underwent an $18 million expansion, making it one of the
Nation's largest and most sophisticated university-based centers of its
kind.
Northwestern University also has been at the forefront, taking
advantage of this emerging, transformational technology that has
allowed it to differentiate itself and be a leader in the field. In
fact, NU is ranked fifth in the Nation on the topic of nanotechnology,
helping to make Chicago a leader in the field. The Northwestern
International Institute for Nanotechnology is the first center of its
kind in the world.
Northwestern's nanotech research has received a total of $350
million thus far from State and federal funding sources. This research
has resulted in approximately 10 spin-off companies, which are
conducting cutting edge research yielding stunning results. Earlier
this year, NU scientists demonstrated regenerative nanomaterial that
allowed paralyzed mice to regain the ability to walk about one and a
half months after initial treatments. Human tests should begin in a few
years, which could have significant implications for treating
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's patients. Another company is developing
nanoencryption technology to protect consumers from unsafe, counterfeit
drugs.
These examples give us just a glimpse into the new and exciting
places where nanotechnology can take us. Let me commend Ms. Hooley on
her important bill that will help to expand our efforts in the field of
STEM education and thank Chairman Gordon for his dedication to this
important issue. I look forward to continuing this discussion in the
months ahead as we work to reauthorize the National Nanotechnology
Initiative next year.
Chairman Baird. And at this point I would like to introduce
our witnesses. Dr. David Ucko of the National Science
Foundation is Deputy Division Director of the Education and
Human Resources Division of Research on Learning in Formal and
Informal Settings. He is involved with educational activities
in nano-scale science and engineering across NSF.
Dr. Nivedita Ganguly is the Head of the Science Department
at Oak Ridge High School in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Dr. Hamish Fraser is the Ohio Regents Eminent Scholar and a
Professor of Material Science at Ohio State University.
I will briefly skip Dr. Ray Vandiver in favor of letting
Ms. Hooley introduce him, as he is from Portland, across the
river from me. Welcome, Doctor.
Mr. Sean Murdock is the Executive Director of the
NanoBusiness Alliance.
And Dr. Gerald Wheeler is the Executive Director of the
National Science Teachers' Association.
Ms. Hooley, would you care to introduce Dr. Vandiver?
Ms. Hooley. Yes. It gives me great pleasure to introduce
Dr. Vandiver. He is the Vice President of New Project
Development for the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, a
wonderful place, by the way. He is a Principle Department Head
responsible for development, design, fabrication, and
maintenance of OMSI's public exhibitions and programs.
Dr. Vandiver received his Ph.D. in atomic and molecular
physics from the University of Missouri-Rolla. He has been
involved in informal science education for the past 17 years.
He has been the recipient of several grant awards in the field
of informal science education from the National Science
Foundation and NASA. He has been invited to sit on numerous
panels as a representative of the Science Museum field,
including at NSF, the National Institute of Health, the
National Academies Committee on Assessing Technological
Literacy.
Thank you, Doctor, for being here today. I am looking
forward to hearing your insights on this issue. Thank you. And
welcome, by the way.
Chairman Baird. Our witnesses should know we have a five-
minute opening statement period and followed by questions. As I
mentioned to some earlier this is a friendly committee. We have
good discussions, and by and large it is positive on a topic
like this, especially. If you don't talk about global warming,
we will have even less of an argument probably. Although thus
far with the Committee make-up, you would be in good shape. If
a few other Members join us, we will have a more spirited
rapport on that.
As Dr. Ehlers pioneered in this committee, if the yellow
light goes on, you will have about a three-second warning, and
then the chair will drop out from under you, and you will
disappear, and we will not hear from you again.
So with that let me begin with Dr. David Ucko. Thank you
all for being here.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID A. UCKO, DEPUTY DIVISION DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF RESEARCH ON LEARNING IN FORMAL AND INFORMAL
SETTINGS; DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Ucko. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to address you today about NSF education programs
on nanoscale science and engineering.
NSF invests in a comprehensive set of programs in formal
and informal education. This investment is important because
nanotechnology is an emerging field expected to have
significant economic workforce and societal impact. It fits
into the larger picture of improving science and engineering
education and literacy by engaging learners in current research
and the ongoing process of discovery.
Nano education presents some challenges. The content is
abstract, and new discoveries get made daily. It is not in the
mainstream K-12 curriculum and adding new content to existing
overcrowded curricula and state standards, assessments, and
textbooks isn't easy. Educational research and evaluation are
limited.
This context has guided NSF program development. In FY
2007, investment for nano education awards was $28 million out
of a total NNI investment of $373 million. Like other education
awards, they target nearly all audiences from young learners
through adults, via a wide range of activities.
I would now like to highlight some examples. NSF awards
develop and research instructional resources for students and
teachers in grades 7 to 12 when students begin to consider
careers. NSF has funded a flagship program to bridge formal
education in nano research through the National Center for
Learning and Teaching in Nano Scale Science and Engineering at
Northwestern University and other partners. It is developing
the next generation of leaders in nano teaching and learning
and building capacity through work in learning research and
development, nano concept research and development, higher
education, professional development for high school teachers,
and evaluation.
Other K-12 projects are creating classroom modules. They
follow a rigorous methodology based on determining initial
student knowledge, identifying appropriate nano concepts and
learning goals, developing student assessments, carrying out
pilot tests and revision, dissemination, and assessing student
understanding. Although nanoscience is far from a major
curriculum thread, these projects are developing and testing
models that could pave the way.
Advances in nanotechnology research also provide new
opportunities in post-secondary education. The most recent
Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education competition focused on
engineering of devices and systems and on societal, ethical,
economic, and environmental issues. Nearly half the recent
awards included equipment, such as scanning or atomic force
microscopes as part of courses, modules, or laboratory
experiences.
NSF awards promote public engagement and understanding. The
Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network at Boston's Museum
of Science and collaborators, is linking science museums and
nano research centers to develop exhibits, programs, public
forums, and media for implementation at more than 100 partner
sites. In addition to increasing public knowledge, these
activities provide a new model and national infrastructure for
connecting scientific research and informal education.
NSF also supports education and outreach programs through
its Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers. Since 2001, NSF
has funded 17 such centers, along with two user facility
networks and others that focus on nano. All conduct a wide
variety of educational activities complementary to their
scientific research.
In addition, many core programs throughout NSF support nano
education. In Advanced Technological Education, for example,
the Penn State Center for Nanotechnology Education and
Utilization has generated associate degree programs in nano
fabrication at 20 sites across the state, including every
community college.
So far, two nano education workshops have been held to
foster a community of practice among educators from these
diverse projects. A third being planned will provide the
opportunity to disseminate initial findings so that others can
build on them. In addition, the workshop will help inform NSF
as it considers further opportunities for investment. NSF will
also be guided by a program evaluation that will analyze and
synthesize project reports and study the impact of researcher-
educator collaboration.
With regard to the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act,
purchase of equipment, along with training, can assist learning
and teaching. On the other hand, the many programs that NSF
have been and will continue to carry out legislative intent.
The Subcommittee perhaps could consider revisiting this issue
after research and evaluation have generated further knowledge
about which educational strategies prove most effective for
different audiences.
I hope these comments provide some context for your
deliberation, and I would be glad to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ucko follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Ucko
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to describe National
Science Foundation (NSF) education programs based on nanoscale science,
engineering, and technology.
The NSF invests in a comprehensive set of programs in formal and
informal nanoscale science and engineering education (NSEE). Overall,
these programs seek to address the ``Learning'' goal in the NSF FY
2006-2011 Strategic Plan (Investing in America's Future\1\ ), which is
to cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and engineering
workforce, and expand the scientific literacy of all citizens. In
addition, the programs seek to increase understanding through research
and evaluation of effective learning and teaching about nanoscience and
technology. Thus, they also address the ``Discovery'' goal to foster
research that will advance the frontiers of knowledge. These
investments contribute to the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
Societal Dimensions Program Component Area subtopic: Education-related
activities such as development of materials for K-12 schools,
undergraduate programs, technical training, learning in informal
settings, and public outreach (PCA 7\2\ ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Science Foundation Investing in America's Future:
Strategic Plan FY 2006-2011. http://www.nsf.gov/strategicplan; last
accessed 09/24/2007.
\2\ The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and
Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry.
Supplement to the President's 2007 Budget. July 2006. p. 25. http://
www.nano.gov/NNI-07Budget.pdf; last accessed 09/24/2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The NSF investment in NSEE is important for several reasons.
Nanotechnology is an emerging field with enormous potential economic
impact and implications for preparing our future workforce. In
addition, NSEE opens new prospects for teaching and learning science
and technology. It is inherently inter-disciplinary, drawing from
physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and other fields. It focuses
on a size range (one to 100 nanometers) intermediate between the atomic
and macroscopic scale that heretofore has been less studied and taught,
yet involves new materials exhibiting unique and useful properties. As
a result, nanotechnology offers a nearly limitless range of interesting
applications that will likely impact our lives and society. For this
reason, an informed public is essential. NSEE fits into the larger
picture of improving science and engineering education and literacy by
providing a vehicle for engaging learners in current research and the
ongoing process of discovery.
NSEE also presents challenges. The concept of scale, particularly
outside the realm of our everyday experience, is difficult to grasp.
Content drawn from nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) is abstract,
complex, and involves quantum effects that are also challenging to
understand. Like other areas of current science and technology, the
body of knowledge constantly changes as new discoveries are made daily
around the world. From an instructional standpoint, NSE content is not
a part of the mainstream K-12 curriculum. Because they were developed a
decade ago, the National Science Education Standards make no mention of
NSE. Widely used and tested NSE curricula do not yet exist, and it is
difficult to add new content to existing overcrowded curricula, State
standards, assessments, and textbooks. There is limited educational
research and evaluation about learning and teaching in this area.
This context has guided NSF program development in NSEE. The NSF
investment for NSEE awards in FY 2007 was $28 million, out of a total
NSF NNI investment of $373 million. The educational investments are
made by the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, of which I
am part, as well as by the Directorates for Research and Related
Activities. Like other NSF education programs, the NSEE programs seek
to target nearly all audiences, from young learners to older adults,
through a wide range of educational activities. They 1) develop and
research instructional resources for students in grades 7-12 and their
teachers; 2) develop and research undergraduate NSE programs; 3)
promote public engagement and understanding through museum exhibits,
programs, media, and web sites; 4) offer education and outreach
programs in conjunction with NSE research centers; 5) incorporate NSEE
within core programs, such as those that provide research experiences
to teachers and students; and 6) study the impact of these educational
efforts through research and evaluation. Awards are made based on
proposals submitted to NSF and recommended through the merit review
process.
I would like to highlight examples that demonstrate the range of
audiences and activities addressed through these educational
investments.
K-12 Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education
Students in grades 7 to 12 are a key audience for introducing NSEE
because many are beginning to consider future careers. NSF has funded a
flagship program to bridge formal education and NSE research through
the National Center for Learning and Teaching in Nanoscale Science and
Engineering (NCLT) at Northwestern University, in partnership with
Purdue University, University of Michigan, University of Illinois at
Chicago, and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (with
collaborating partners Alabama A&M University, Argonne National
Laboratory, Fisk University, Hampton University, Morehouse College,
University of Texas at El Paso, and several public school systems). The
mission of NCLT is to develop the next generation of leaders in NSE
teaching and learning, with an emphasis on capacity building. The work
is organized around five themes: Learning Research and Development--
developing, testing, and disseminating learning activities; Nanoconcept
Research and Development--introducing the latest concepts into science
and engineering courses; Higher Education--training faculty and
developing undergraduate courses and programs; Professional Development
for High School Teachers--training teachers in nanoscience/engineering
concepts; and Evaluation. Additional information can be found at http:/
/www.nclt.us.
Other NSEE K-12 projects are developing materials for classroom
learning and teaching. NanoLeap (Mid-Continent Regional Educational
Laboratory) is creating and testing two month-long units in nanoscience
to be used as replacement units in high school physics and chemistry
courses (see http://www.mcrel.org/NanoLeap/). NanoSense (SRI
International) is creating, testing, and disseminating a larger number
of shorter curriculum units (see http://nanosense.org/). A Workshop to
Identify and Clarify Nanoscale Learning Goals (University of Michigan)
has assembled the most significant and developmentally appropriate
learning goals in nanoscience for grade 7-16 learners; a report is
currently in draft form.
These projects are examples of the NSF research-based approach to
NSEE curriculum development, which involves interviewing students to
determine initial conceptual understandings; determining appropriate
nanoconcepts and associated learning goals; developing valid and
reliable assessments of student understanding; developing learning
activities; pilot-testing, assessing, and revising the activities;
conducting teacher professional development; broader field-testing,
further revising, and disseminating the activities; and assessing
student understanding. To date, projects are at the pilot-testing
stage. Although we are some distance from incorporating nanoscience as
a major thread in the K-12 curriculum, these projects are developing
and testing models that ultimately could lead to widespread adoption.
Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education
Advances in nanotechnology research also provide new opportunities
in undergraduate education. With their focus on imaging and
manipulating atoms, NSE offers a multitude of new interdisciplinary
teaching opportunities for engaging interest and for broadening vision
by undergraduate students of science, engineering, and technology. In
so doing, NSE makes possible new strategies for enhancing science and
engineering literacy, preparing the workforce for emerging
technologies, and attracting a diverse group of talented students to
the workforce of tomorrow. The most recent competition (FY07) focused
on nanoscale engineering education with relevance to devices and
systems, and on the societal, ethical, economic and environmental
issues relevant to nanotechnology. Nearly half the awards included
funds to purchase equipment, such as scanning or atomic force
microscopes, as part of the development of undergraduate courses,
modules, or laboratory experiences.
Examples of Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) awards in
Engineering include: Teaching Nanosystems Engineering to Early College
Students with Active Learning Experiences at Louisiana Tech University,
which led to the Nation's first Nanosystem Engineering B.S. degree
program; Integrating Nanoscale Science and Engineering into the
Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, which has made possible the introduction of a new course and
revision of existing ones; and Introducing Nanotechnology into the
Curriculum at a Predominantly Undergraduate Institution at Jackson
State University, which created courses and research experiences at a
historically black university. The NUE program has been funding these
types of awards since FY04.
Nanoscale Informal Science Education
The Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) was
funded at the Museum of Science in Boston, in partnership with the
Exploratorium in San Francisco and the Science Museum of Minnesota
(along with initial collaborators: Oregon Museum of Science and
Industry, North Carolina Museum of Life and Science, New York Hall of
Science, Sciencenter in Ithaca, Fort Worth Museum of Science and
History, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, the
Materials Research Society, and the Association of Science-Technology
Centers). Now in its third year, NISE Net is establishing a national
network linking science museums and nanoscale science and engineering
research centers. It is developing exhibit units, educational programs,
public forums, media, and other resources for implementation at more
than 100 partner sites across the U.S. These activities will provide a
wide variety of ways for the public to become engaged in and more
knowledgeable about nanotechnology and provide a new model and national
infrastructure for linking scientific research and informal education.
Further information can be found at the NISE Net web site, http://
www.nisenet.org.
NSF has invested in other Nanoscale Informal Science Education
(NISE) awards aimed at increasing public understanding, such as Earth
and Sky Nanoscale Science and Engineering Radio Shows and the traveling
exhibition Too Small to See, which reached large family audiences at
EPCOT Center in Florida and is now on tour to science museums across
the Nation. These awards were funded through the NSEE solicitation in
FY04 and FY05.
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers Education and Outreach
Since 2001, NSF has funded the following Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Centers (NSECs):
* Center for Nanotechnology in Society (Arizona State
University)
* Center for Electron Transport in Molecular Nanostructures
(Columbia University)
* Center for Nanoscale Systems (Cornell University)
* Science of Nanoscale Systems & their Device Applications
(Harvard University)
* Center for High Rate Nanomanufacturing (Northeastern
University)
* Center for Integrated Nanopatterning & Detection
Technologies (Northwestern U.)
* Center for Affordable Nanoengineering of Polymeric
Biomedical Devices (Ohio State)
* Center for Directed Assembly of Nanostructures (Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute)
* Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (Rice
University)
* Center for Probing the Nanoscale (Stanford University)
* Center of Integrated Nanomechanical Systems (University of
California at Berkeley)
* Center for Scalable & Integrated Nanomanufacturing (U. of
California at Los Angeles)
* Center for Nanotechnology in Society (University of
California, Santa Barbara)
* Center for Nanoscale Chemical-Electrical-Mechanical
Manufacturing Systems (University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign)
* Center for Hierarchical Manufacturing (University of
Massachusetts-Amherst)
* Nano/Bio Interface Center (University of Pennsylvania)
* Center for Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the Nanoscale
(University of Wisconsin-Madison)
along with Nanotechnology User Facility Networks
* National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN)
* Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN)
and Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, several of
which focus on NSE.
These centers and facilities all conduct various forms of education
and outreach that complement their primary research activities. The
following list indicates the many types of programs that the centers
and facilities develop and conduct:
Research experiences and internships for teachers,
undergraduates and high school students
Courses and modules for undergraduates in two- and
four-year colleges
Professional development workshops and summer
institutes for middle and high school teachers
Hands-on activities for middle and high school
classrooms and community organizations
Tours, demonstrations, and Open Houses for visiting
school groups
Summer camps for middle and high school students
Learning modules and kits for students
Traveling exhibitions and public presentations for
science museums
Brochures on career opportunities for high school
guidance counselors
Web sites for students and the public
Cable television broadcasts
Planetarium show
Both formal and informal education components are required in the
new solicitation to establish a Center for the Environmental
Implications of Nanotechnology (CEIN), which is intended to conduct
fundamental research and education on the implications of
nanotechnology for the environment and for living systems. (This Center
will be funded by NSF in partnership with the Environmental Protection
Agency.)
Nanoscience and Engineering Education in Core Programs
In addition to those programs for which NSEE has been the primary
emphasis, many other awards throughout NSF support education in NSE.
For example, in addition to funding the previously-mentioned NISE
awards, the Informal Science Education (ISE) program has funded
projects, such as Nanotechnology: The Convergence of Science and
Society. Through this award, Oregon Public Broadcasting is producing
three one-hour nationally broadcast programs on the societal
implications of nanotechnology using the Fred Friendly Seminar format.
Other ISE awards include nanoscale science and engineering among other
content areas, such as Research Video News by ScienCentral, which
produces 90-second segments for national broadcast on commercial
television news programs.
The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program focuses on the
education of technicians for the high-technology fields that drive our
nation's economy. The program involves partnerships between academic
institutions and employers to promote improvement in the education of
science and engineering technicians at the undergraduate and secondary
school levels. The ATE program supports curriculum development;
professional development of college faculty and secondary school
teachers; career pathways to two-year colleges from secondary schools
and from two-year colleges to four-year institutions; and matriculation
between two-year and four-year programs for K-12 prospective teachers.
One example is the Penn State Center for Nanotechnology Education and
Utilization (CNEU); its resources focus on incorporation of
nanotechnology into K-12 education, post-secondary education, and
industry applications. The work of CNEU has resulted in associate
degree programs in nanofabrication at 20 institutions across the state,
including every Pennsylvania community college.
The Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) program provides
supplements to new or renewal NSF proposals by which Principal
Investigators (PIs) can offer K-12 teachers and community-college
faculty research experiences at the emerging frontiers of science,
which include NSE. The goal of these supplements is to transfer new
knowledge into the science classrooms. The Research Experiences for
Undergraduates (REU) program provides similar types of supplements for
research awards and also funds REU Sites for multiple students.
The Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology
(CREST) program makes resources available to enhance the research
capacities of minority-serving institutions by establishing centers
that integrate education and research. CREST seeks to broaden
participation of students historically under-represented in science and
engineering, to promote the development of knowledge, and to increase
faculty research productivity. Examples of the growing number of
centers whose focus is NSE include: Tuskegee University's Center for
Advanced Materials, the Center for Nanomaterials Characterization
Science and Processing Technology at Howard University, and the Center
for Nanobiotechnology Research at Alabama State University. A related
program, Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP),
also supports NSE activities for both students and faculty.
Other efforts to broaden participation in NSE are funded through
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR),
which seeks to promote scientific progress nationwide. Examples are the
New Mexico Nanotechnology Teacher Professional Development Workshops
and the Center for BioModular Multi-Scale Systems (CBM2 )
Education and Outreach program at Louisiana State University.
The NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12) program
provides funding to graduate students who work collaboratively with
teachers and students in K-12 schools. These interactions are designed
both to introduce students and teachers to frontier research, often
based in NSE, and to enhance learning and instruction in schools. The
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program (IGERT)
funds interdisciplinary research-based, graduate education and training
activities in emerging areas of science and engineering, such as NSE.
Those awards include novel approaches to training, mentoring, career
development, and other aspects of NSE graduate education to prepare
students to enter the workforce and pursue research careers; they often
also involve outreach to schools, science museums, and community
organizations. Also, awards made in the Faculty Early Career
Development (CAREER) Program, which emphasizes the integration of
research and education activities, frequently focus on NSE research.
In addition, many NNI-related research awards include education and
outreach activities as a means to meet the Broader Impacts review
criterion required of all NSF proposals.
Coordination and Evaluation
Within NSF, the diverse NSE and NSEE programs are coordinated, and
priorities are determined, through the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) Working Group chaired by Mihail Roco. This group meets
regularly to discuss issues related to program planning and
implementation, as well as budgets. NSF staff also participate on
interagency committees, such as the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and
Technology Subcommittee (NSET) of the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) and its working groups. For example, I serve on the
Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications (NPEC) Working
Group. It provides a forum for sharing NSEE issues with representatives
from other federal agencies. In this capacity, I assisted in organizing
the Public Participation in Nanotechnology Workshop in May 2006, which
brought together NSE representatives from government, industry, non-
governmental organizations, media, and academia, including formal and
informal educators. That workshop represented a first step towards
engaging diverse stakeholders in educational and societal issues
related to nanotechnology.
NSEE workshops were held in October 2005 and January 2007 to
encourage creation of a community of practice among NSE educators from
NSF-funded projects. The participants included representatives from
formal education, informal education, and those conducting outreach at
NSE research centers. In addition to fostering networking and
collaboration, these workshops provided forums for exchanging ideas,
sharing progress, and gaining complementary knowledge. In addition,
NSEE project PIs participate in panels on education and outreach at the
annual NSF NSE Grantees Conferences. Similarly, NSE research PIs and
graduate students participate in the annual meetings of the NISE
Network.
A third NSEE workshop is being planned for November 2008. It will
include an international component to share perspectives and approaches
to NSEE from other nations. Since many of the early NSEE projects will
be close to completion by this time, the workshop will provide an
opportunity to disseminate findings so that others can begin to build
on the initial body of work. In addition, the workshop discussions will
help inform NSF as it considers new opportunities for further
investments in NSEE.
Planning at NSF will be further guided by a program evaluation
planned by the Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal
Settings (DRL) of awards made through the NSEE solicitations. Analyzing
and synthesizing project reports, preparing case studies, and studying
the impact of collaborations between NSE researchers and educators will
add to our preliminary knowledge of NSE learning and teaching.
Nanotechnology in the Schools Act
The intent of the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act (H.R. 2436) to
strengthen the capacity of high schools and universities to teach
students about nanotechnology is commendable. However, the
Administration has concerns that the program in the legislation is
inappropriately structured to effectively meet this objective. For
example, it is unclear that special equipment is a priority need to
teach students nanotechnology effectively. Moreover, because
nanotechnology is broadly defined as multi-disciplinary science and
engineering at the molecular scale, ``equipment'' under the legislation
could encapsulate a wide variety of routine tools and supplies that
should remain the responsibility of recipient institutions or local
education agencies, not the Federal Government.
To this end, the Administration recommends addressing the goals of
the legislation through a variety of ongoing approaches by NSF. For
example, several existing programs embed NSF funding of nanotechnology
equipment purchases within comprehensive sets of integrated activities
that are more likely to achieve intended educational outcomes. These
grants enable PIs to develop innovative approaches to NSEE, and
generally require formative and summative evaluation to ensure that the
materials and approaches taken as a whole--not just tools and
instruments--are effective with the target audience and that others can
learn from and build on the knowledge gained.
In addition, cyber-enabled learning is beginning to suggest
promising new directions for engaging students through growing
resources for NSE images, simulations, and remote access to
instrumentation. Students can even take part in virtual field trips.
For example in one of the approaches tested in the NanoLeap project,
high school students ``visited'' the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
online, where they interacted with researchers in real time.
The Subcommittee should perhaps consider revisiting this issue
after further knowledge has been gathered from current NSEE projects
about the potential educational impact of the various approaches being
developed for students in K-12 classrooms, two- and four-year colleges,
and the public. Given the current limited state of knowledge about
NSEE, the first priority is to determine which educational strategies
are most effective for these different audiences based on research and
evaluation. Such a direction also would be consistent with the
increasing emphasis on research, development, and evaluation in NSF
educational programs as preparatory steps towards implementation and
scale-up.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to
testify on this important matter. I hope that these comments provide a
helpful context for you as you continue to discuss best practices in
addressing our national needs in science and engineering education.
I would be glad to answer any questions.
Biography for David A. Ucko
David A. Ucko serves as Deputy Division Director for the Division
of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings at the National
Science Foundation, where he was previously Section Head for Science
Literacy and Program Director for Informal Science Education. Formerly,
he served as Executive Director of the Koshland Science Museum at the
National Academy of Sciences; founding President of Science City at
Union Station and President of the Kansas City Museum; Chief Deputy
Director of the California Museum of Science & Industry in Los Angeles;
and Vice President for Programs at the Museum of Science & Industry in
Chicago. Ucko was appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate to the National Museum Services Board. He has chaired the
Advocacy Committee and the Publications Committee of the Association of
Science-Technology Centers. Prior to entering the museum field, he
wrote two college chemistry textbooks while teaching at the City
University of N.Y. and at Antioch College in Ohio. Ucko is a Fellow of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a Woodrow
Wilson Fellow. He received his Ph.D. in inorganic chemistry from M.I.T.
and B.A. from Columbia.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF DR. NIVEDITA M. GANGULY, CHAIRPERSON, SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT, OAK RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL, OAK RIDGE, TN
Dr. Ganguly. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Baird,
Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee. It is
an honor today for me to appear before the Subcommittee to
testify regarding the Nanotechnology in Schools Act.
I am the Chairperson of the Oak Ridge High School Science
Department, and I have taught environmental science at the AP
level, honors genetics, and freshman biology for 12 years.
Before that I was a research scientist at the University of
Tennessee-Knoxville and the University of California Irvine.
So I have taught at both levels. I have taught high school
as well as college. I resigned from the university because I
thought that if I was going to get students interested in
science, it was not going to be at the university. They had
already made up their minds what they wanted to do. Though I am
not sure how much influence I have had, I think I can say that
I have had an influence on some people.
And so I realize how important it is for us to start
looking at cutting-edge technology and science at high school
level.
We can teach and the premise that, you know, we are on the
stage is slowly going out. That, there is no way you can do
that. We would like to become the guide on the side, and one of
the ways to do that is to bring technology to our high school
students. And we have at my high school. We teach AP biology,
we teach DNA recombinant technology, but we were giving
lectures and using paper and pencil as simulations. That is not
what students will remember. They will listen to it, listen to
me, listen to my colleagues, walk out the door 15 minutes
later, and it is gone.
So we went ahead and bought the recombinant DNA technology
equipment. I am going to use a few terms here. It is the PCR.
It is called a Polymerase Chain Reaction machine. We bought
those. We bought all the equipment that we need to do cutting-
edge science for recombinant DNA technology. And we went and
trained ourselves because we have to train ourselves before we
can train our students.
So we went ahead and did that, and now it has become very
commonplace. We can isolate our own DNA, cut it, and then run
it out on gels, and the students can see what their DNA
patterns look like. They will remember that. They will not
remember if I stood up there and told them that this is what
your DNA pattern looks like.
Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, when I heard about it,
it was very, very exciting, not only for me, but for my
students, because that is who I represent, my students. So for
them to be able to handle that kind of technology in high
school is something that is, if you told me this five years
ago, it would have been mind boggling. I would say, no, you
can't do it, but now we can. There is equipment which is user
friendly enough that my students can use it.
There is an electron microscope which is a table top, which
can be used by the students. I did electron microscopy in my
previous life, and I know how complicated it is, but now if we
have the equipment to do it, then our, my students can. And
nanotechnology is not another subject. I am not trying to teach
another subject. It is something that will apply across the
board; in physics, in chemistry and biology, in environmental
science--in every sphere of their learning.
I teach environmental science, and I talk about alternative
energy, but then if I can have the nanotechnology to show how
energy conservation can actually happen, they will remember
that. They will not remember that I said that we have to turn
off our lights when you walk out of the door. It is a much more
powerful tool when they see it actually in their own hands.
The tools that are available now that we will be able to
buy if we get the grant is something that my students will
understand. They will be able to use, and our students can use
it. My school has a very, you know, it is a unique situation.
We have a lot of interaction with the scientists at the Oak
Ridge National Lab, and we send our students there to use very
sophisticated technology to do a lot of science. Last year they
came in Fourth in the Siemens Science and Technology
Competition. This year we were the national winners.
So if I had this equipment at my high school, it would not
be three students that would have access to this kind of
sophisticated technology. I would have a lot more students that
would have the opportunity to use this technology and maybe not
three students. This time maybe there would be 10 students,
maybe in 10 years there will be 30 students who will be excited
because it is a sense of empowerment. They are doing the
experiments themselves. They are looking at the results. They
are looking at the data, and that is what they will remember.
That is what will excite them, not me saying that this is what
the tool is. The tool has to be in the hands of the students.
We are a high school which has some of the specialized
equipment, but we are in the process, when we redesigned our
high school and it is still in the construction phase, we are
still hopping over little construction, little sites
everywhere, there, we are equipped to handle distance learning.
And so what we would like to do is use that to reach out to the
community around us, to other schools who may not have that
kind of access to the equipment that we have.
We already run the AP Summer Institutes to expose teachers
from across the country to the different technology and the
different ways of teaching an AP class. When we have our
distance learning system set up, we will bring students to our
high school in the summers to run these kind of programs to
expose them to these things.
So it is something that we can do, and I firmly believe
that our students are bright enough and are capable enough to
be able to handle this. And I am not talking about----
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ganguly, I am going to ask you to
summarize here, because we are----
Ms. Ganguly. Yes. That would it. I am not just talking
about my upper-level students. I would like to expose all
students at all levels to this kind of technology if it is
available to us.
I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ganguly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nivedita M. Ganguly
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to testify
regarding the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, H.R. 2436. I am the
chairperson of the Oak Ridge High School Science Department, and have
taught Biology Honors, AP Environmental Science and Genetics Honors at
Oak Ridge for 12 years. As a science educator, I believe that we must
offer our students the learning opportunities that will prepare them to
lead the world in scientific research. The Nanotechnology in the
Schools Act helps accomplish this goal by allowing high school science
departments like mine to teach hands-on nanotechnology, which is key to
a competitive science education in the 21st century.
Nanotechnology is not a branch of science, like physics or biology.
Rather, it is a new field that applies to many different branches of
science. Nanotechnology is at the leading edge of chemistry, molecular
biology, engineering, and other disciplines. Because it is so
fundamental, out students need to understand it. The best way for them
to understand it is to experience it firsthand, and that means having
access to nanotechnology tools in the classroom. For the first time,
these tools are becoming affordable enough--and user-friendly enough--
that high schools like mine can begin to consider purchasing them. The
Nanotechnology in the Schools Act will make that decision easier, and
will help us put these tools in the hands of our students much sooner.
I would like to respond to a series of questions from the
Subcommittee:
Please describe your experiences using high-tech scientific equipment
in the high school classroom. What benefits do you feel students would
receive from having the opportunity to work with nanotechnology
equipment?
Students have an inherent interest in most things that are related
to technology. At Oak Ridge High School we use equipment which we think
is relatively high-tech in relation to biotechnology. We have a
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) machine, electrophoresis equipment,
centrifuges, UV lamps, and so on. This equipment allows us to actually
do the experiments instead of doing them as simulations using pencil
and paper.
When students use the equipment they truly understand the
complexity and the principles behind the science of biotechnology. They
realize how much precision and concentration is required at the bench
because it is very easy to make mistakes if you are not paying
attention to detail. There is no way they will understand this from a
textbook, lectures or simulations.
The use of Geographic Information System (GIS) equipment in AP
Environmental Science allows students to get measurements in geology,
soil science, water situations, population issues across the globe.
Nanotechnology is becoming a science of the future. Currently, we
just mention it in class, and students cannot visualize what a powerful
tool it can become. With some basic nanotechnology tools, we will be
able to focus more on nanotechnology, and the students will be able to
do it themselves.
With the myriad topics high school science teachers must currently
cover, how do educators strategically choose new experiences for
students in the sciences? How do you integrate the newest concepts into
the curricula to give students an appreciation for the new material and
an excitement about science, as well as a deeper understanding of the
fundamentals?
Of course, the fundamentals have to be taught, and they are. But
exposure to advanced technology, innovative software and sophisticated
equipment leads to an increased understanding of the material because
one can get data which has been generated by them. Nanotechnology is a
field that applies broadly to a full range of scientific disciplines,
and the concept at its core--that matter can behave in importantly
different ways at the nanoscale--is critical to modern science
education.
Generating excitement about science at the high school level is
crucial if we want American college and graduate students in science
programs. Hands-on science is exciting--especially when it involves
exploration. Nanotechnology opens up fascinating new worlds within even
the most ordinary objects. With an electron microscope, for example, a
student can discover the structure of a cell or the pattern of fissures
in a piece of metal. For the first time, students can see the
microorganisms that share their world--and as anyone who has looked
that closely can tell you, it is a compelling sight.
What kinds of professional development opportunities would teachers
need to help them integrate nanotechnology into their curriculum and
properly use and maintain high-tech equipment?
Professional development is very, very important. Teachers are
willing to learn and try new things--we are life-long learners--but
without the proper training we will not feel comfortable trying to
incorporate the new technology into our class room teaching. Once we
are comfortable, we can use the tools in a variety of formats. The
Nanotechnology in the Schools Act provides for professional development
and teacher education within the grants, and I understand that efforts
are already underway to develop curricula based on nanotechnology
tools.
Are there problems obtaining funds needed for the maintenance of high-
tech equipment? How does Oak Ridge High School address these?
There may be issues with funding in some school systems, but at Oak
Ridge we have the Oak Ridge Educational Foundation which helps with
these issues. As a department, we also write grants for extramural
funding. It may not be huge sums of money but every little bit helps
and it allows us to try innovative teaching strategies, which is
sometimes not possible on a school budget. We are fortunate to have
these resources available to us, and we recognize that many other
schools with talented students do not have such resources. The
Nanotechnology in the Schools grants will help those schools as well.
That said, adding a provision for maintenance funds may improve the
program.
As part of the redesign of our new High School, we are going to
have the capability of holding distance learning classes. Even though
it is not in place yet, because we are still in the middle of
construction, it will happen in the next couple of years. Some of the
rural schools around us are not able to offer some of the advanced
classes because of the lack of trained faculty and inadequate
facilities. We would like to be able to fulfill that gap through our
long-distance learning program and holding summer workshops where we
will expose those students to our facilities.
Students, no matter at what level, always respond better to
situations where they are actively involved in their own education
process. As department chair, I have tried to make sure that all
students at all levels have the opportunity to use any equipment that
is available in the department. It is true that we may not be able to
convert every one to become a scientist, but if we are able to change
the mind of a handful, who think science is fun, I will consider that a
success.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about high
school science education and the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act. I
am happy to answer any further questions you may have.
Biography for Nivedita M. Ganguly
CITIZENSHIP
United States of America
EDUCATION
41992--M.S. in Science Secondary Teaching, University of Tennessee
1975--Ph.D. in Genetics, University of Calcutta, India
1967--M.S. in Zoology & Comparative Anatomy, University of Calcutta,
India
1965--B.S. with major in Zoology, minor in Botany and Human Physiology,
University of Calcutta, India
EMPLOYMENT
2002-present--Department Chairperson
1995-present--Science Teacher, Oak Ridge High School, Oak Ridge, TN
1992-1995--Science Teacher (Tenured), Bearden Middle School, Knoxville,
TN
1991-1992--Science Intern, Robertsville Junior High School, Oak Ridge,
TN
1987-1991--Research Associate, Department of Zoology, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville
1981-1986--Research Associate, Department of Molecular Biology &
Biochemistry, University of California, Irvine
1977-1980--Research Associate, School of Life Sciences, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln
1973-1976--Visiting Research Scientist, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1995-present--AP-Environmental Science, Genetic(Hons)s, Honors Biology
, Oak Ridge High School
1992-1994--7th Grade Honors Science, Bearden Middle School, Knoxville,
TN
1991-1992--Ninth Grade Biology, Robertsville Junior High School, Oak
Ridge, TN
1988-1990--Undergraduate Cell Biology, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville
1974-1975--Undergraduate Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill
HONORS AND AWARDS
2006--Invited to Be the College Board Advisor for AP Environmental
Science
2006--Member of Committee to Draft Leader's Notes for One-Day AP
Workshops
2005--Endorsed National Leader for the College Board
2004--Author, AP Vertical Teams Guide
2000--Siemens Award for the teaching of Science. Awarded to 20 teachers
nationwide
2000--Award from the Presidential Council of Environmental Education.
Awarded to 35 teachers nationwide.
1997--Invited to participate in the River-to-River Exchange Program to
Russia
1995--Invited to participate in the Governor's Academy of Science and
Math at University of Tennessee
1995--Invited to participate in Train the Trainers workshop, AP
Environmental Science at Dartmouth College
1994--21st Century Classroom Award from the Knox County School System
1994--Minority Teacher Research Fellowship to work on Invertebrate
Zoology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville
1993--Minority Teacher Research Fellowship to work on Ecology and
setting up an Ecological Center at Powell Elementary School,
Powell, TN
1991--DOE/Lyndhurst Fellowship for Secondary Science Teaching
Certification
1973-76--Visiting Fellowship from the National Institutes of Health,
USA
RELATED SKILLS
Introduction to Computers and Operating System,
Pellissippi State Technical College
Radioisotope Techniques, North Carolina State
University
Mammalian Genetics, Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor,
Maine
Cytological & Electron Microscopic Techniques,
University of California, Irvine
Recombinant and Molecular Biology Techniques,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
OTHER ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES
2003--Invited to be an author in the 2003 Teacher's Guide for AP
Environmental Science
2003--Member of 8-person team of teachers that wrote the Manual for AP
Vertical Teaming in Science
1998-present--Reader (grader), Table Leader in AP Environmental Science
1998-present--College Board Consultant for AP Environmental Science.
Presenter for both 1-day workshops and weeklong Summer
Institutes.
2003-present--College Board Consultant for Pre-AP strategies in
Science: Learner Centered Classroom
2004-present--College Board Consultant for AP Vertical Teams in
Science. Presenter for both 1-day and week long workshops.
1998-present--Sponsored and Coached Science Olympiad Team. State
Winners 8 times. Have represented Tennessee at National
Competition 8 times.
1998-present--Sponsored and coached Science Bowl team. State winners 5
times.
2000-present--Sponsored and coached Envirothon team. State winners
twice.
1997--Invited to help teach part of a course at the Academy of Science
and Math, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
1991--Coached Science Olympiad Team, Robertsville Junior High School,
Oak Ridge, TN
1992-1995--Coached Science Olympiad Team, Bearden Middle School,
Knoxville, TN
1993-1995--Organized Science Fair at Bearden Middle School, Knoxville,
TN
MEMBERSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
National Educator Association
National Science Teacher Association
TSTA
TEA
OREA
GSA
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Member of Committee of Stakeholders, along with
community leaders involved in tile designing of a new Oak Ridge
High School
Member of ORSSAB (Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory
Board)--involved with environmental cleanup issues on the Oak
Ridge Reservation
Member of SQUAB (Environmental Quality Board) in Oak
Ridge
Teach Dance to Children of Asian Indian Association
of Knoxville
OTHER INTERESTS
Aerobics, Dancing, Stamp Collecting, Reading.
PAPER PRESENTATIONS
Total of 15 presentations
1. 13th International Congress of Genetics, Berkeley,
California, 1973. Presented paper entitled: ``Induction of
dominant lethal mutations in male mice by four individual
chemicals.''
2. 3rd International Conference on Differentiation &
Neoplasia, Minneapolis, 1978. Presented paper entitled:
``Functional differentiation and neoplastic transformation of
whole mammary gland.''
3. 15th International Congress of Genetics, New Delhi, India,
1983. Presented paper entitled: ``Isolation and
characterization of glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase gene of
Drosophila melanogaster.''
PUBLICATIONS
Articles in books & monographs (representative papers)
1. Banerjee, M.R., N. Ganguly, N.M. Mehta, A.P. Iyer, and R.
Ganguly (1980) Functional differentiation and neoplastic
transformation in an isolated whole mammary organ in vitro. In:
Cell Biology of Breast Cancer, C.M. McGrath, M.J. Brennan and
M.A. Rich, eds. Academic Press, N.Y. pp. 485-516.
2. Banerjee, M.R., R. Ganguly, N.M. Mehta and N. Ganguly
(1982) Hormonal regulation of casein gene expression in normal
and neoplastic cells in murine mammary gland. In: Hormone
regulation of experimental breast tumors. Benjamin Leung, ed.,
Eden Press, vol. 2, pp. 229-283.
3. Banerjee, M.R., N.M. Mehta, R. Ganguly, P. Majumdar, N.
Ganguly and J. Joshi (1982) Selected gene expression in an
isolated whole mammary organ in vitro. 1n: 9th Cold Spring
Harb. Conf. Cell proliferation. Sibrasku, G. Sato and A.
Pardee., eds., pp. 789-805.
Articles in refereed Journals (representative papers)
4. Ganguly, R., N.M. Mehta, N. Ganguly and M.R. Banerjee
(1979) Glucocorticoid modulation of casein gene transcription
in mouse mammary gland. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 76, 6466-
6470.
5. Mellta, N.M., N. Ganguly, R. Ganguly and M.R. Banerjee
(1980) Hormonal modulation of the casein gene expression in
mammogenesis--lactogenesis two-step culture model. J. Biol.
Chem. 255, 4430-4434.
6. Ganguly, R., N. Ganguly, N.M. Mehta and M.R. Banerjee
(1980) Absolute requirement of glucocorticoid for expression of
the casein gene in presence of prolactin. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 77, 6003-6006.
7. Ganguly, N., R. Ganguly, N.M. Mehta and M.R. Banerjee
(1981) Simultaneous occurrence of pregnancy-like lobuloalveolar
morphogenesis and casein gene expression in a culture of the
whole mammary gland. In vitro 17, 55-59.
8. Ganguly, R., P. Majumdar, N. Ganguly and M.R. Banerjee
(1982) The mechanism of progesterone-glucocorticoid interaction
in regulation of casein gene expression. J. Biol. Chem. 257,
2182-2187.
9. Ganguly, N., R. Ganguly, N.M. Mehta and M.R. Banerjee
(1982) Growth and functional differentiation of hyperplastic
mammary cells of Balb/c mouse transformed in vitro. J. Natl.
Cancer Inst. 69, 453-463.
10. Levy, L.S., R. Ganguly, N. Ganguly and J.E. Manning (1982)
The selection, expression and organization of a set of head-
specific genes in Drosophila. Dev. Biol. 94, 451-464.
11. Ganguly, R., N. Ganguly and J.E. Manning (1985) Isolation
and characterization of glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase gene
of Drosophila melanogaster. Gene 35, 91-101.
Chairman Baird. Thank you very much and congratulations on
the achievements of your students. It is very impressive.
We have been joined by Mr. Neugebauer from Texas as well.
Dr. Fraser.
STATEMENT OF DR. HAMISH L. FRASER, OHIO REGENTS EMINENT SCHOLAR
AND PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Fraser. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
invitation allowing me to be here and join this hearing this
afternoon.
I have been in academia for about 35 years, about half of
that as an Illini and more recently as a Buckeye at Ohio State.
I have graduated about 40 Ph.D. students, 40 MS students, and
several hundred of engineering undergrads have been exposed to
my teaching and help, I hope.
My area of expertise is in advanced materials
characterization, which is an enabling part of nanotechnology,
and which is being able to see the material that is made that
is on such a fine scale. My area is such that I interact with
the industrial areas of aerospace and automotive materials.
So the equipment we use is extremely expensive, very
sophisticated, and quite costly to maintain. So naturally it is
the subject of a graduate focus, where we can get reasonable
funding from the Federal Government to help us in that research
activity.
But another part of my job, of course, is to be concerned
about development of the workforce in the area of material
science and engineering and also in nanotechnology. So
education in any of these areas is important. This afternoon we
are talking about nanotechnology. I have been working this
issue quite vigorously, using local funding to do that, and
what I have found most effective is to capture the imagination
of the kids. Materials characterization is a very, very
effective way of doing this, and I want to show--next view
graph, please.
What you see on the first image is just a shiny, gray piece
of metal. It happens to be an advanced titanium alloy used in
aerospace applications. It looks rather dull, of course,
because it just looks like a piece of shiny metal, but if you
look at this at higher magnification, next view graph, please,
you now see details of the microstructure. You will see that
that scale marker is five micrometers, and a human hair is
about 40 micrometers in diameter, to get an idea that we are
extremely high magnification where all the fun is happening in
the material and all the properties are being determined. This
is what will turn the kids on.
Another example, click, please, would be the eye of a fly.
It looks like one of those things that buzzes around you, and
you can even magnify the lens of the eye, click, please, and
you will see that there are other features there.
These are things that can be seen by these tabletop SEMs.
Now, this is the type of thing that captures the imagination of
these kids and will enable us to, I believe, to attract them
into science, technology and engineering.
So specifically I am very excited about this bill because I
believe a difference is is that this bill will put equipment in
the classroom for professors and high school teachers to use
with the students, and the important thing about
characterization equipment is that they will be able to see the
stuff, which they will not be able to do with their eyes.
So, specifically, I think we need to capture the
imagination of the students, and this will draw a significant
number of students into the subject. This bill will provide
equipment and the development of class modules, to allow a wide
number of faculty to be able to teach this subject who are not
yet able to do so because of their backgrounds. And I think it
will greatly assist in developing the requisite workforce.
Conversely, it will prepare our students for quite high-
paying jobs where there is, in fact, a great demand and a
growing demand, and that will permit us to remain globally
competitive.
Actually I cut a little bit out of what I wanted to say,
because I wanted to pick up on Ranking Member Ehlers' comment
about the need to impact all schools. I think you made an
extremely important point there.
I would like to offer an opinion of why I think this bill
can actually address your point. It is a very good point that
we need to have equipment at the schools, but we need
particular kind of equipment. The normal equipment you find at
industry and universities is too complicated for schools to
use. I bought a new scanning electro-microscope some years ago
at about $180,000 for undergraduate programs. It has not been
used yet by my faculty because it is just too complicated to
bring into the classroom. You need the simplified equipment,
which modern development has allowed.
Also we need to develop educational modules for teachers to
be able to use the instruments, and this bill would allow that.
In addition to the equipment, I think we need to have PC-based
simulators of this equipment that will fit on every computer in
every lab in every school. So the use of the equipment will be
much greater than just where the actual instrument resides. The
simulators will do a very good job, and we have used those, and
they are very effective.
I hope I was able to address your point somewhat.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fraser follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hamish L. Fraser
Preamble
I have been invited to testify before the Subcommittee on the
current state of education in nanotechnology within undergraduate
serving institutions and to offer my opinion concerning ways in which
this education can be enhanced at such institutions. This is a
particularly important subject at the present time as nanotechnology is
without doubt a major global focus where a competitive advantage will
be accrued by those nations having a workforce which is broadly
educated in nanotechnology. Through research, the U.S. currently has a
competitive advantage, but maintaining this advantage will depend on
the development of a well-educated workforce that is able to exploit
the various research thrusts by realizing commercial products from
ideas. In the following, I assess briefly the current status of
undergraduate education in nanotechnology and discuss ways of enhancing
this by answering the questions posed to me by the Chairman of the
Subcommittee, Congressman Baird.
Current Status: Nanotechnology in Undergraduate Education
As a result of the vigorous focus on nanotechnology, underscored by
the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), there has been a
development of courses and degree programs that involve nanotechnology.
The vast majority of these activities are aimed at graduate education,
where programs involving M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in the subject have
been established, and courses are included in the offerings in various
science and engineering programs. The degree to which nanotechnology
has been included in undergraduate education is much less than that at
the graduate level, and has involved efforts such as NSF's Research
Experience for Undergraduates programs at a number of institutions. For
example, according to the NNI, there are five graduate degree programs
and two associate degree programs (provided in conjunction with
research universities) focused explicitly on nanotechnology, but no
B.S. programs are listed. The reason for this lies in the fact that
progress in nanotechnology is the result of execution of vigorous
research programs. These are almost exclusively undertaken in our
nation's major research universities, and hence the immediate fallout
regarding education involves graduate programs in these institutions.
Barriers to Undergraduate Nanotechnology Education
In addition to the concentration of activity in nanotechnology
being in the research programs of our universities, there are two other
major problems that need to be addressed in order to realize curricula
that will serve as an attraction to students such that a significant
workforce may be developed. Firstly, in general the equipment required
for such curricula, for processing, characterization and property
assessment of nanomaterials and nanodevices, is currently expensive to
acquire and is complicated to operate. For example, it would be
necessary for much of this equipment to be operated by an expert, which
would increase an instructional budget significantly. Equally important
is the cost of maintaining such equipment, again imposing a financial
burden on the establishment of an undergraduate program.
The second problem involves, on the part of faculty at a large
number of our nation's academic institutions, the lack of experience
and knowledge required to develop an undergraduate program involving
nanotechnology, especially regarding the operation and maintenance of
equipment for either demonstrations in lectures and/or laboratory
classes, which are essential in any undergraduate program. In general,
the equipment required to develop attractive undergraduate laboratory
classes on nanotechnology, including instruments that produce
nanomaterials, characterize them and measure their properties, are
found in research laboratories and are often rather sophisticated and
complex. This lack of familiarity inhibits faculty from fully
developing effective and attractive courses in the subject.
It is my understanding that the proposed bill, H.R. 2436, aims to
obviate these barriers to permit effective and attractive courses to be
developed.
Answers to specific questions:
In the following, I have taken the liberty of reversing the order
of questions 2 and 3, because the answer to the second question draws
on the answer to the third. I have indicated the original order of the
questions.
Question 1: Please describe current nanotechnology education efforts at
the undergraduate level. As new fields emerge in science, how do
university science departments merge them into the current
undergraduate curriculum?
I have made reference above to the current state of inclusion of
nanotechnology in undergraduate studies, where the main efforts to
include nanotechnology in curricula are taking place at the graduate
level. Regarding the merging of new fields into undergraduate
curricula, generally faculty at major research universities, especially
those with research components involving a new technology, will add in
an ad-hoc manner, content to their existing classes and develop new
classes that focus on the given new technology. Such developments will
take place at a slower pace at other tier 1 and tier 2 and 3 colleges.
As an example, consider the inclusion in undergraduate curricula of a
different, but important, novel technological area, namely
computational materials science (i.e., the modeling and simulation of
the behavior and performance of materials). Having declared this a
thrust area of our department at Ohio State, and hiring three new
faculty members in this area, a highly successful undergraduate course
has been developed. This was not attempted prior to the employment of
these faculty members with the appropriate research expertise mainly
because the existing faculty did not have the requisite knowledge and
familiarity with the subject.
Of course, as a given technology matures, and its body of
literature broadens, it is possible for faculty with little initial
familiarity with the subject matter to develop undergraduate course
material by drawing on this body of literature. However, in the context
of the currently proposed House Bill, aimed in part, ``to maximize the
benefits of nanotechnology to individuals in the United States,'' it is
important to develop the course material at an early stage of the
development of this technology and hence indeed maximize potential
benefits.
Question 2 (originally question 3): What types of nanotechnology
equipment could be used for educational benefit at the undergraduate
level?
Generally, there are three types of equipment required for study of
nanomaterials and/or nanodevices, which are for processing materials
and devices, for their characterization, and for measuring their
properties. In principle, undergraduate courses on nanotechnology would
benefit from the provision of all three types of instrumentation.
However, in the following, I will argue that because of constraints of
budget, a focus should be maintained on materials characterization, as
indicated in the proposed House Bill.
Regarding processing equipment required to produce nanomaterials
and nanodevices, this tends to be of a specialist nature and not
necessarily commercially available. Where it is available for purchase,
it tends to be rather costly, requiring an expert for operation and
significant maintenance expense. In addition, the study of a range of
nanomaterials and nanodevices would require the acquisition of a number
of pieces of processing equipment since a given instrument is usually
focused on the processing of a given material type (e.g., a magnetron
sputtering device used for deposition of nanoscaled multi-layered
materials would not be used to grow carbon nanotubes). These issues
also apply to equipment required to measure properties and performance
of nanomaterials and nanodevices. For example, there is a wide range of
properties that in a comprehensive study would be the subject of
measurement, i.e., optical, electrical, magnetic, and mechanical, and
each of these would require specific instrumentation to make the
requisite measurements.
Equipment for characterization offers a number of significant
advantages regarding the provision of attractive undergraduate courses
in nanotechnology. Regarding the issues raised above, concerning the
need for a number of different instruments to process a wide variety of
materials, or to measure a broad range of properties, a single
instrument for characterization can make observations of a wide variety
of materials types. Perhaps most importantly, is the ability to see the
products of nanotechnology. This ability to observe micro-and nano-
structures is a key to attracting students to physical sciences and
engineering, and, of course, nano-technology. To serve as examples,
please refer to the two figures. Figure 1(a) shows an image of an
advanced titanium alloy that is used in aerospace applications. It
appears to be a simple shiny piece of metal, grey in color. However,
when imaged in the scanning electron microscope (Figure 1 (b) ), its
rich microstructure is revealed, and it is these nanoscaled features
that govern the properties and performance of these alloys. For
reference, a human hair is approximately 40mm in diameter. The second
example involves the imaging of the eye of a fly in the scanning
electron microscope, Figure 2 (a). Increased magnification reveals
finer scaled structure, see Figure 2 (b). It is the observation of
these regarding the development of attractive undergraduate courses.
To reveal these nano-scaled features requires the use of equipment
with the appropriate resolving power. A number of instrument types may
be used, but a most appropriate machine for use in undergraduate
education is the scanning electron microscope, largely because of its
simplicity of use. This is particularly the case for recently developed
table-top scanning electron microscopes, where the operating system and
procedures have been very much simplified, and the costs of ownership
and maintenance have been significantly reduced. It is because of the
impact of effective materials characterization of nanomaterials and
nanodevices on attracting students, and the more recent developments
regarding ease of use and reduced costs that, in my opinion, materials
characterization can be the basis for the development of very effective
undergraduate courses in nanotechnology.
Question 3 (originally question 2): How would a grant program, like the
one proposed by H.R. 2436, be used by undergraduate serving programs?
At the college level, does the opportunity to work with new technology
draw in students who might otherwise have been uninterested in science?
Do hands-on experiences offer a unique learning opportunity that is
difficult to replicate in a lecture?
The proposed grant program would be used in two ways to impact
undergraduate programs. Firstly, a part of the funding would be used to
develop undergraduate educational modules that would include versions
for both teachers and students. These modules would be lecture-based
courses where experiments involving materials characterization
(following my conclusion above) would be included, and also laboratory
courses that would be instrument intensive. These developed materials
would then be available for use by other tier 1, 2 and 3 institutions.
Secondly, the funds provided by a grant could be used to acquire a
table-top scanning electron microscope, augmented by the provision of
PC-based scanning electron microscope simulators, for use in the
combination lecture/laboratory modules and the laboratory classes
themselves. It is worth noting that at present, university faculty have
almost no access to funding to assist in the development of
undergraduate courses that would be coupled with in-class experiments,
as proposed here, and to acquire the necessary hardware. The proposed
House Bill H.R. 2436 would fill an important gap.
Without doubt, the opportunity to work with new technology acts as
a tremendous draw for undecided students. But students tend to be
rather clever and have usually done their homework regarding the impact
that studying new technologies will have on their careers (particularly
regarding employment!), and will make their choices accordingly.
Nanotechnology is not only new, but its economic implications are not
missed by the students. Promoting attractive undergraduate courses in
nanotechnology will lead to increased numbers of students studying
science and technology and will provide for a suitably trained
workforce.
Our experiences with the provision of laboratory classes in
undergraduate curricula are in concert with the notion that hands-on
experiences are essential. But, it is important to point out that
lecture courses are efficient methods of covering much basic groundwork
in a given subject for a significant number of students. However, such
courses can be very significantly enhanced by combining lectures with
hands-on experiences as I have noted above.
Biography for Hamish L. Fraser
Dr. Fraser is currently Ohio Regents Eminent Scholar & Professor of
Materials Science & Engineering in the Department of Materials Science
& Engineering at the Ohio State University. and Professor of Materials
Science and Technology (Hon.) at the University of Birmingham (UK). He
received his BSc (1970) and Ph.D. (1972) from the University of
Birmingham (UK). He was on the faculty of the University of Illinois
from 1972-1989. He has graduated 41 students with the degree of Ph.D.
and 33 students with the degree of MS. He has been a member of both the
National Materials Advisory Board (2000-2006), and the U.S. Air Force
Scientific Advisory Board (2002-2006). He is a Fellow of ASM (1993),
the Institute of Materials (2001), and TMS (2005). In 2006, he was
awarded a Senior Research Prize by the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation in Germany. He has served as a consultant for NATO, the
Governments of Great Britain and Western Australia, and currently
consults for the Air Force Research Laboratory in Dayton, OH. His
research interests include materials characterization, inter-metallic
compounds, nano-scaled metallic multi-layers, light alloys (mainly Ti
alloys), and development of research tools for the prediction of
microstructure/property relationships in materials. He has published
more than 330 scholarly publications and presented more than 200
invited talks.
Chairman Baird. Thank you very much, Dr. Fraser.
Dr. Vandiver.
STATEMENT OF DR. RAY VANDIVER, VICE PRESIDENT OF NEW PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT, OREGON MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY
Dr. Vandiver. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ehlers, Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today
about the ways in which nanotechnology education can help
inspire people to pursue careers in science, the importance of
nanotechnology as an element of 21st century science education,
and the key role of informal science education in this process.
I serve on the staff of the Oregon Museum of Science and
Industry, known as OMSI, a non-profit, independent, scientific,
educational, and cultural resource center dedicated to
improving the public's understanding of science and technology.
Informal science centers such as OMSI play an important
role in math and science education at all grade levels through
permanent and rotating exhibits, teacher training and
professional development programs, and distance learning
initiatives that are able to reach small and isolated
communities. Science centers and museums are able to compliment
and enhance efforts at schools in a large geographic region,
providing expertise and programs on a large variety of science
subjects.
Science and technology centers are motivated to present
emerging and cutting-edge concepts in science and technology.
It is inherent in our missions to strive to present the latest
achievements and breakthroughs. Nanotechnology is an important
component of OMSI's educational mission in inspiring,
informing, and involving our visitors in cutting-edge
scientific research.
It is only recently that tools and equipment in the forms
of exhibits, simulations, and models on the subject of
nanotechnology have been developed and tested with museum
educators and museum visitors. Nano is a difficult and abstract
topic to tackle in the informal setting. Additional resources
are needed to help our field advance new methods for creating
context and relevance for our audiences.
The Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network, NISE-Net,
an NSF-funded initiative, is working to develop some resources
from museums on the topic of nanotechnology. NISE-Net,
currently beginning its third year, has as its goal to create a
functioning network of 100 science and technology centers
across the United States, working together to represent the
nature and potential impacts of nanoscale science and
technology.
This is a powerful vision, and it is the largest collective
effort across the field of science and technology centers to
advance knowledge and understanding of a specific topic,
nanotechnology. As a member of NISE-Net, OMSI is active in the
development of exhibits and programs designed to inform the
general public of the topic of nanoscale science and
engineering.
Because the general public knows very little about
nanoscale science and its applications, OMSI's approach,
consistent with the other working partners of NISE-Net, is to
present nanoscale science and technology in a way that inspires
wonder and motivates the user to seek more depth and
understanding of the topic.
The front-end work within the NISE-Net has shown that less
than half of the adult population of the United States has ever
heard of nanotechnology, and less than 20 percent can provide
any level of basic definition. However, the studies also show
that the general public is interested in the topic and
possesses a positive sense about nanotechnology.
You know, in all my years in physics research and science
education, I can only think of one time that my father, who is
a carpenter in St. Louis, Missouri, has ever contacted me,
requesting information about emerging technology, and that was
nanotechnology. So that was pretty cool.
While most people think of the science museum as a place to
go to have a fun family science learning experience, most
science museums also provide community learning opportunities
outside their walls. This can be in the form of teacher
training, distance learning, and classroom programs. OMSI, for
instance, provides distance learning opportunities throughout
Oregon and southwest Washington. As an example, OMSI works with
educators in rural Fossil, Oregon, population of less than 500,
to provide resources in science learning experiences that they
would not otherwise have access to.
Science centers such as OMSI could take advantage of this
new nanotechnology education grant program, which could help to
purchase advanced equipment and educational materials, enabling
outreach and teacher development for many schools and
communities.
In conclusion, I would once again like to thank the
Subcommittee for your attention to this important issue. Our
future as a nation of discoverers, inventors, and innovators
depends on education and inspiration. I believe that the
Nanotechnology in the Schools Act will help insure that our
scientific future stays bright.
I look forward to the opportunity to take advantage of this
program.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Vandiver follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ray Vandiver
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today about the ways
in which nanotechnology education can help inspire people to pursue
careers in science, the importance of nanotechnology as an element of a
twenty-first century science education, and the key role of informal
education in this process.
I serve on the staff of the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry
(OMSI)--a non-profit, independent, scientific, educational, aid
cultural resource center dedicated to improving the public's
understanding of science and technology. Founded in 1944, OMSI is
considered one of the top ten science centers in the United States and
has earned an international reputation in science education. Its
facilities include a 219,000-square-foot museum featuring five exhibit
halls, eight hands-on public labs, a planetarium, an OMNIMAX theater,
and the USS Blueback submarine. OMSI also offers a wide range of
educational and outreach programming, including residential camps,
summer classes, museum camp-ins, after-school science clubs, and
traveling programs that deliver hands-on experiences to communities
throughout Oregon and six other western states. In addition, OMSI
provides professional development opportunities for K-12 teachers,
including workshops, a science teaching resource center, and distance-
learning programs targeted at educators in rural communities.
The Teacher Education Department at OMSI is uniquely positioned to
provide teacher professional development programs in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education throughout the
northwest. Distance education technology, supporting delivery of
professional development, allows OMSI to contribute our five decades of
science education experience to a national and even international
audience through live video-conferenccs and on-line, on-demand server-
based programs. Currently, this type of flexibility, combined with a
world-class facility and staff, make OMSI a significant resource for
teachers worldwide.
In 2003 OMSI began working with rural communities in Oregon to
bring Earth and space science programs to students, particularly those
from K-8. Through partnerships with the Libraries of Eastern Oregon and
the Oregon Department of Education, we began establishing video-
conferencing connections in schools and libraries in rural parts of the
state. We have invested in professional development for K-8 teachers
and librarians, community programs in science and technology,
telecommunications infrastructure, and delivery of science and space
science programs electronically and in-person to life-long learners of
all ages. We have also worked to develop our own curriculum focusing on
issues of particular interest to students in the Pacific Northwest, and
have worked to get scientists into the schools, in person and via
video-conference links, to provide rural schools with advantages they
would otherwise not see.
In 2006, approximately one million people enjoyed OMSI's innovative
science education opportunities. In addition to a team of motivated and
experienced science educators and demonstrators, OMSI employs a team of
highly skilled and qualified exhibit and program developers, designers,
evaluators, and fabricators.
OMSI is a leader in innovative science education and is always
looking for opportunities to captivate our patrons' attention and to
provide immersive, hands-on experiences. Nanotechnology is an important
component of OMSI's educational mission in inspiring, informing, and
exposing our visitors to cutting-edge scientific research. The
Nanotechnology in the Schools Act will help OMSI accomplish its goals,
and we strongly support the bill.
I would like to respond to the questions you raised in your
invitation to testify at this hearing. In the process, I believe it
will become clear how helpful this legislation is to us and to other
science museums.
1) Please describe the nanoscale science and engineering educational
activities the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) is engaged
in and OMSI's role in the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network.
As a member of the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network
(NISE-Net), OMSI is active in the development of exhibits and programs
designed to inform the general public on the topic of nanoscale science
and engineering. OMSI is also participating in the network's effort to
develop recruitment and distribution plans to provide exhibits,
programs, and professional development on nanotechnology to science
museums across the United States.
NISE-Net, currently beginning its third year, has as its goal to
create a functioning network of 100 science and technology centers
across the United States working together to present the nature and
potential impacts of nanoscale science and engineering. This is a
powerful vision and it is the largest collective effort across the
field of science and technology centers to advance knowledge and
understanding of a specific topic--nanotechnology.
OMSI is one often working partners on the NSF grant funded project
under the leadership of the Museum of Science-Boston, The
Exploratorium, and the Science Museum of Minnesota. Because the general
public knows very little about nanoscale science and its applications,
OMSI's approach, consistent with the other working partners of NISE-
Net, is to present nanoscale science and technology in a way that
inspires wonder and motivates the user to seek more depth and
understanding of the topic. As experiences within a science museum are
largely self-directed and free choice--that is, museum guests move at
their own pace, follow their own interests, and build on their prior
knowledge--successful exhibits and programs must have a balanced mix of
educational content and attracting or motivational elements. Evaluation
and museum visitor studies of the work performed by NISE-Net members
indicate success in creating engaging experiences for the museum
audience that build awareness of and provide context for science and
engineering at the nanoscale.
One innovative area of focus of OMSI and the NISE-Net is in the
development of nanotechnology forums where participants are encouraged
to discuss important economic, social, environmental, and ethical
issues regarding emerging nanotechnologies. By creating an atmosphere
where experts and lay persons can come together in conversation, a
greater understanding of the social and scientific context for
nanotechnology can be achieved. Two of these nanotechnology forums were
held as part of OMSI's Science Pub series at which science is discussed
in the informal setting of a local restaurant. Additional forums were
held in Eugene and La Grande, Oregon, creating opportunity for people
around the state to join in the discussion.
2) Would H.R. 2436, the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, be a
beneficial resource for informal science education institutions? What
priority should it be given relative to other kinds of support for
informal science education activities? How world science museums
integrate advanced equipment into their educational activities?
H.R. 2436 will provide needed resources, educational materials, and
professional development to assist informal science education
institutions in presenting the concepts of nanotechnology to their
audiences. Science and Technology centers are motivated to present
emerging and cutting-edge concepts in science and technology. It is
inherent in our missions to strive to present the latest advancements
and breakthroughs. Typically such concepts can be difficult to present
to museum audiences--information and educational materials may not
readily be available to the museum educator and exhibits and programs
that have been tested and shown to be effective at communicating
intended educational messages may not exist. Additionally, science
museums are challenged by the wide demographic of people that visit.
The level of knowledge and awareness on any particular science topic
varies greatly among visitors. This challenge is amplified when
referring to cutting-edge topics. Often the approach of the science
museum is to provide context and background information to help museum
visitors begin to develop a conceptual framework of emerging concepts.
The NISE-Net research has shown that most people who visit science
museums know very little about nanotechnology. The concept of the scale
involved alone is beyond the grasp of even many practicing scientists
and engineers--as well as most museum education staff. H.R. 2436
provides resources for educational materials and training specific to
nanotechnology. Without this type of support, it would be difficult for
museums to introduce these concepts. However, once awareness and
knowledge are established, it is more likely the museums will continue
to maintain and increase coverage of the topic.
There is great need in the informal science industry for
educational tools and equipment designed specifically for informal
science learners. It is only recently that tools and equipment in the
forms of exhibits, simulations, and educational props on the subject of
nanotechnology have been developed and tested with museum educators and
museum visitors. Nano is a difficult and abstract topic to tackle in
the informal setting. Additional resources are needed to help our held
advance new methods for creating context and relevance for our
audiences.
3) What types of professional development opportunities are available
to informal science educators? What types of programs would need to
exist to ensure that these educators understand both the scientific
concepts, as well as the equipment?
Professional development opportunities for Informal Science
Education interpretive staff are not common in the science museum
field. Where they do exist, they are typically in the form of
institution specific programs, which often focus on content rather than
interpretive skills. Professional development opportunities are
available to science museum educators through Association of Science-
Technology Centers (ASTC) sponsored programs that provide a forum for
museum professionals to network, to expand their knowledge base, and to
identify resources. However, relatively few science centers have the
resources to provide these opportunities to their museum education
staff. Cross-institutional programs also exist, such as the
Exploratorium led ExNet and the Fort Worth Museum of Science and
History led TexNet, which provide staff training as part of an exhibit
rental program. Government agencies, such as NASA and NOAA, offer
workshops, and the National Parks Service offers interpretive training,
to name a few. Largely, opportunities for professional development are
based on specific projects with associated funding opportunities.
Nonetheless, these opportunities are rare in the field.
OMSI's research indicates that science centers value this training.
In 2006, OMSI surveyed interpretive staff managers at 57 large science
centers around the country. Eighty-nine percent of respondents
indicated that they consider ``exhibit content training'' to be either
``extremely valuable'' or ``very valuable.''
In addition, research strongly indicates the value of skilled
interpreters in enhancing the visitor's experience and learning in
science exhibitions: ``live interpretation can support a wider range of
visitors and encourage social learning behaviors,'' especially when
facilitators are trained to promote constructivist [the active building
of knowledge and skills], self-directed learning (Marino and Koke,
2003).
Programs for ISE staff should be based on best practices and
research on adult learning and successful professional development
models (e.g., Ingvarson et al., 2005; Morrow, 2004; Loucks-Horsley et
al., 2003; National Resource Council, 1996a, 1996b; Cunningham, 2004).
Based on a review of the relevant literature, OMSI identified five
characteristics common to successful professional development;
continuously improves based on evaluations of visitor
teaming/experience
creates structure for long-term support and continued
learning opportunities
is based on current learning theory/best practices
teaches content, pedagogy, and the skills to apply
this knowledge
involves active participation by trainees during
development, implementation, and evaluation.
Providing for the training of museum staff regarding the nature of
and issues related to nanotechnology is an important element to the
success of nanotechnology education in museums. To this end,
availability of effective training materials and access to science
experts are critical. Innovative to H.R. 2436 is the potential for
focused professional development for museum educators on the use of
proven educational materials and exhibits on nanotechnology. OMSI would
encourage the development of user communities--possibly in connection
with NISE-Net--that would provide connections across the science museum
education field for sharing outcomes and improvements based on
experiences and best practices in the use of proven educational tools
and techniques.
4) How do informal science education centers decide which subject
matter they will focus on? What resources do they use to help create
exhibits and programming that matches content to the knowledge level
and interest of the audience?
OMSI's process for the selection of educational topics to feature
in the museum is based on input from museum visitors and science
education experts--including science researchers, classroom science
teachers, university professors, and science museum educators. This
input informs the museum both on what the public wants to learn about
and what science academia believes is important for the general public
to know. Content and educational approaches are informed also by the
relevant national and state science standards and benchmarks. This
approach is similar to the approach of many science museums in the
field.
In particular, OMSI typically conducts front-end research with
visitors to the museum in advance of selecting or developing a topic.
Through visitor surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus group studies,
we begin to develop a profile of what people generally know on a topic,
what their interests are, and what are likely to be effective points of
entry into a topic.
Museum visitor research and evaluation continues through the
development of exhibits and programs in the form of prototype testing.
During this phase of development, early mock-ups of planned exhibits or
programs are presented to a cross-section of museum visitors to begin
to assess how effective the strategies are in communicating intended
educational messages, how engaging the experiences are, and how
intuitive, or easy to use or grasp, the activities are. Also during
this phase, expert advisors and content specialists inform the accuracy
of content and advocate for alignment with research and science
standards--they help the development team figure out what is important
to communicate.
As part of this ongoing process, OMSI has determined that
nanotechnology is an important subject for our visitors to understand.
This is partly because of the rapid rise in nanotechnology's relevance
to the rest of the scientific world. In addition, it reflects our
surroundings in the Portland area, where major electronics companies
like Intel are operating at the nanoscale every day.
The front-end work within the VISE Net has shown that less than
half of the adult population of the United States has heard of
nanotechnology and less than 20 percent can provide some level of basic
definition. However, the studies also show that the general public is
interested in the topic and possesses a positive sense about
nanotechnology.
5) Do science museums have resources to maintain advanced equipment?
Commonly, science museums come in three varieties: large, medium,
and small--defined by size of budget, physical size, and number of
staff. In general, the larger institutions in the science museum held
will have full-time technical support staff to repair and maintain
advanced equipment. Smaller institutions will not. Through user
communities, there is a potential for smaller institutions to partner
with other science museums, school districts, or other entities
increasing their capacity to afford and maintain advanced equipment and
provide advantages they would not normally be able to obtain on their
own.
Regardless, it is important that materials for use in museum
programs and exhibits be designed for and tested in the science museum
setting. As a result of science museums striving to engage visitors by
involving them directly in the activity or phenomenon being presented,
it is necessary that exhibits and educational props and materials be
engineered for repeat use by an inexpert audience. They must be
designed for durability, low or easy maintenance, and intuitive or ease
of use. It may not be the case that equipment or materials designed for
use in research facilities can be used straight out of the box on the
museum floor--museum exhibit and program, developers, designers, and
fabricators recognize the unique environment of the science museum and
this knowledge informs the design of successful museum experiences.
It is worth mentioning that technology advances, specifically in
electronics and computers, have made it possible to successfully create
higher technology experiences that nonetheless are considered to be
durable and low maintenance in the museum environment--and therefore
accessible to all science museums. Assuming the intent of the
Nanotechnology in the Schools Act is geared toward durable and low
maintenance equipment, I might suggest that a maintenance provision be
added to the bill to better enable institutions to take advantage of
new and advanced equipment.
In conclusion, I would once again like to thank the Subcommittee
for your attention to this important issue. Our future as a nation of
discoverers, inventors, and innovators depends on education and
inspiration. I believe that the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act will
help ensure that our scientific future stays bright, and I look forward
to the opportunity to take advantage of this program.
Biography for Ray Vandiver
Dr. Ray Vandiver is the Vice President of New Project Development
for the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI). He is the
principal department head responsible for the development, design,
fabrication, and maintenance of OMSI's public exhibitions and programs.
Dr. Vandiver received his Ph.D. in Atomic and Molecular physics from
the University of Missouri-Rolla. He has been involved in informal
science education for the past 17 years. Early in his career, Ray
founded the Bootheel Youth Museum--a hands-on museum for rural
Southeast Missouri. Ray has been the recipient of several grant awards
in the held of informal science education from the National Science
Foundation and NASA and has been invited to sit on numerous panels as a
representative of the science museum held including the NSF, National
Institutes of Health, and National Academies Committee an Assessing
Technological Literacy.
The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) is a non-profit,
independent, scientific, educational, and cultural resource center
dedicated to improving the public's understanding of science and
technology. Founded in 1944, OMSI is considered one of the top ten
science centers in the United States and has earned an international
reputation in science education. Its facilities include a 219,000-
square-foot museum featuring five exhibit halls, eight hands-on public
labs, a planetarium, an OMNIMAX theater, and the USS Blueback
submarine, OMSI also offers a wide range of educational and outreach
programming, including residential camps, summer classes, museum camp-
ins, after-school science clubs, and traveling programs that deliver
hands-on experiences to communities throughout Oregon and six other
western states. In addition, OMSI provides professional development
opportunities for K-12 teachers, including workshops, a science
teaching resource center, and distance-learning programs targeted at
educators in rural communities. In 2006, approximately one million
people enjoyed OMSI's innovative science education opportunities. In
addition to a team of motivated and experienced science educators and
demonstrators, OMSI employs a team of highly skilled and qualified
exhibit and program developers, designers, evaluators, and fabricators.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Doctor. We have been joined by
Dr. Dan Lipinski.
Mr. Murdock.
STATEMENT OF MR. SEAN MURDOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NANOBUSINESS
ALLIANCE
Mr. Murdock. I would like to thank you, Chairman Baird,
Ranking Member Ehlers, and the Members of the House
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education for the
opportunity to testify on a topic of increasing importance to
my membership, which is the need to insure a talented and
growing nanotechnology workforce in this nation.
I would also like to thank Congresswoman Hooley and
Congressman Lipinski and all the other co-sponsorers of this
important legislation.
My name is Sean Murdock. I am the Executive Director of the
NanoBusiness Alliance. We are the primary policy and advocacy
organization for the entrepreneurs and innovators working to
commercialize nanoscience innovations in America, working to
translate fundamental breakthroughs that have been created
through the Federal Government's investment in nanoscience into
real-world products and processes that improve our nation's
economy, our health, and our quality of life.
This subcommittee and the Science and Technology Committee
in general have long recognized the importance of
nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is a new way of making things
that bridges traditional disciplines like biology, chemistry,
physics, and material science. From a business and commercial
perspective, nanotechnology is really the frontier of science-
based innovation. It is increasingly being viewed as the tool
kit that businesses will need to draw upon to remain
competitive in the 21st century.
As you know, there is a global race for leadership that is
well under way. This committee got us off to a fantastic,
wonderful running start with the 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act, a very important piece of
legislation, which will be coming up for reauthorization, and
put us well on our course. Recently other countries around the
globe have elevated their commitments as well, in particular,
Europe with the 7th framework, and now Russia. I brought with
me some news that Russia has committed $5.1 billion to
nanoscience research from the oil windfall that they have.
There is a story in the Financial Times yesterday.
So this is a global competition that is getting
increasingly competitive. And folks are focused on the
research. But we must not only lead in the fundamental
research. We have to lead in the translation of that research
into new products to make us competitive, that employ people,
and that do improve the quality of life.
In order to do that we need to have a world-class work
force, and there has long been recognition of The Gathering
Storm, and I certainly don't need to tell this committee about
the dynamics of the need for technologically-proficient
scientists and engineers.
However, what I do want to impart is that this is not just
a long-term problem. We need to be thinking about solving this
and taking significant steps to address it today. Already
nanotech companies throughout the country are finding it
difficult to attract and retain the talent that they need. It
is a common topic of conversation amongst the membership.
And it is particularly acute in some of the areas that
don't have well-developed tech-hubs, you know, as Silicon
Valley and Boston do, but in the Midwest where I am from, from
Chicago, and while H1B provides a temporary solution, it is
just that. We all recognize that we need to get ahead of the
curve.
That is going to be less and less effective moving forward
as the opportunities grow throughout the world, and the world
becomes flatter. Folks will be less likely to stay here, and we
are going to see more and more of that talent that we educate
be repatriated.
So when you look at reasonable growth assumptions for what
will happen with the nanotech sector, and frankly science and
technology capabilities going forward, we are going to need to
take action now to start bridging that gap.
We are quite excited about this legislation. I think it is
important to note that this does not try to impose anything. It
is not imposing the use of the equipment, nor is it imposing
the adoption of curriculum. What it is doing is empowering. It
is empowering world class, committed, capable science teachers
in high schools, community college, and at the university level
to make use of this technology to inspire the next generation
of scientists and entrepreneurs.
And I believe Thomas Edison once said that, ``Genius is one
percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.'' It is
important to recognize that without the inspiration, no one
undertakes the perspiration, and this is an incredibly
important opportunity to really inspire the students throughout
the country.
So in closing I think it is incredibly important that we
provide these kind of programs that allow our best and
brightest wherever they may be, in high-need schools and in
low-need schools, throughout the country to reach their full
potential because we need to in order to compete in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murdock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sean Murdock
I would like to thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers,
and Members of the House Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education, for the opportunity to testify on a topic of increasing
interest to my membership: the need to ensure a steady and growing
nanotechnology workforce in America. I would also like to thank
Congresswoman Hooley, along with her co-sponsors, for introducing this
important legislation.
My name is Sean Murdock, and I am the Executive Director of the
NanoBusiness Alliance. The NanoBusiness Alliance is the nanotechnology
industry association and the premier nanotechnology policy and
commercialization advocacy group in the United States. NanoBusiness
Alliance members span multiple stakeholder groups and traditional
industrial sectors, including newly formed start-ups, Fortune 500
companies, academic research institutions, and public-private
partnerships working to derive economic development and growth through
nanotechnology. This wide group of stakeholders has come together
because we believe that nanotechnology will be one of the key drivers
of quality-of-life improvements, economic growth and business success
in the 21st century. The Alliance provides a collective voice and a
vehicle for efforts to advance the benefits of nanotechnology across
our economy and society.
This subcommittee, and the Science and Technology Committee in
general, have long recognized the importance of nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology is a new way of making things that bridges traditional
disciplines like physics, chemistry, biology, and materials science.
From a business and commercial perspective, nanotechnology is the
frontier of science based innovation. It is the new tool kit that
companies will need to draw upon to remain competitive in the 21st
century.
As you know, a global nanotechnology race is well underway. China,
Japan, the EU, India, Russia (which recently announced public
nanotechnology research funding of $1.8 billion per year, exceeding
U.S. funding), and other nations have made substantial commitments of
public funds in order to establish preeminence in nano-related research
and development, with the recognition that preeminence in R&D will
drive economic growth and enhance national security. The United States
has made a strong start in this race, and the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act had a lot to do with that.
This subcommittee will be reauthorizing that landmark legislation soon,
which is an important task.
While the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
focuses on the research side of this subcommittee's jurisdiction, the
Science Education side is just as important. We cannot realize the
potential of our federal research and development investments without a
robust, scientifically and technically proficient workforce that
understands the unique challenges and opportunities of nanotechnology.
The bill under consideration is designed to create such a workforce.
America's universities increasingly rely on foreign students to
fill their science and engineering programs, and those foreign students
tend to go home to their host countries after they receive their
degrees--in fact, they are required to do so. Once home, they enter the
workforce and compete with American workers and American companies.
This is especially true in the case of nanotechnology. At the
graduate level, the United States boasts some of the best
nanotechnology education in the world, so foreign students are
especially attracted. At the same time, the high rate of nanotechnology
investment by foreign companies pulls those foreign students just as
strongly back to their homes. We are currently creating our
competitors' workforce.
Instead, we should be creating the next generation of American
scientists and engineers, all armed with the understanding of
nanotechnology that will be a prerequisite for technological leadership
in their lifetimes. We do that in three ways:
Get students excited about science;
Start them on the right educational path earlier; and
Provide them with the learning opportunities they
need.
Getting students excited about science is the first step because it
is the most fundamental. Thomas Edison once said, ``Genius is one
percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.'' But, the
inspiration must come first. Without it, students will choose other
careers, as we have witnessed over the past decades. If students are
not inspired to become scientists, fancy labs or years of required
courses will not matter. Hands-on nanotechnology truly has the
potential to inspire our future workforce. Exploring the nanoscale,
seeing the hairs in a fruit fly's compound eye, watching nanodots light
up in different colors depending on their size, and manipulating the
fundamental building blocks of matter--these are what grab the
attention and interest of young people and make them want to do more.
Once we have their attention, we need to put our students on the
right educational path. We cannot expect to have American graduate
students pushing the frontier of interdisciplinary nanoscience unless
we have American undergraduate students--and even high school
students--developing a basic understanding of nanoscience. We need to
push nanoscience as far down the educational pyramid as possible, just
like we have done with biotechnology. The earlier a student starts, the
farther he or she can get.
As a nation, we have a strong history of responding quickly and
effectively to provide the learning opportunities our students need.
The most famous example is the aftermath of Sputnik, when Congress
passed the National Defense Education Act which enabled schools
throughout the country to purchase microscopes and other state-of-the-
art equipment. Today, although there is no single Sputnik-like event to
focus our national attention, the technological competition is stronger
than ever. We need to give our students the opportunities they need in
order to be successful and maintain American technological leadership
in this fundamental field.
The Nanotechnology in the Schools Act is an important bill because
it simply and efficiently addresses each of these requirements. By
making it possible for high schools and colleges to afford basic
nanotechnology tools for classroom use, the bill will help create the
next generation of American scientists and engineers. It will get
students excited about science. It will enable them to start ``doing
nanotechnology'' in high school, so that they are ready for advanced
work in college and graduate school. And it will provide hands-on
nanotechnology learning experiences throughout the Nation.
I would like to make two related points about this bill. The first
is that it includes facilities such as science museums in the grant
program. This provision will do even more to excite young people about
science and nanotechnology, because they will be able to try hands-on
nanotechnology in a place like OMSI or the Smithsonian Museum of
Natural History. The second is that it includes two-year colleges. This
provision will help develop a workforce of technicians--already in high
demand as nanotechnology businesses look for people who can run their
tools.
It is easy to forget that, as the field of nanotechnology expands,
we will need more and more people with high-quality vocational and
technical education. For every Ph.D. with a breakthrough idea, we will
need many people who can turn that idea into a product. As
nanotechnology moves from the lab to the factory, the ratio of
technicians to Ph.D.s will only increase. These will be good jobs, and
we need to be able to fill them with well-prepared Americans. If we
cannot, those jobs will go overseas.
The members of the NanoBusiness Alliance are mostly small
companies. The people who lead those companies are the pioneers of
nanotechnology, and they want to pass on their knowledge and their
passion to a new generation. Our members do what they can through
internships and similar programs, but because they are such small
operations there is only so much they can do. The Nanotechnology in the
Schools Act can have a tremendous impact--one that, over time, can
reach millions of young Americans.
Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in
support of this bill. I am happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Murdock, thank you.
Dr. Wheeler.
STATEMENT OF DR. GERALD WHEELER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SCIENCE TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
Dr. Wheeler. Step number one: Learn how to use the
microphone.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present
this testimony on behalf of the National Science Teachers'
Association. My name is Jerry Wheeler. For the last 12 years I
have served as the Executive Director of NSTA. I started my
career as a high school physics and chemistry teacher and then
went on to get a Ph.D. in nuclear physics, and early on in my
university research career I got bitten by the teaching bug,
and I went back. But I ended up at the National Science
Teachers' Association.
Mr. Chairman, while we understand the importance of
nanotechnology, and you have heard that testimony, and its
application to a wide range of technologies, and the importance
of introducing nanotechnology to our students, we do have
concerns about H.R. 2436.
In light of the many challenges we face in science
education, we believe this legislation places inappropriate
attention and emphasis on nanotechnology at the high school
level. I would like to bring five points to your attention
concerning, again, high school. I am not talking about the
other domains.
First, we believe the legislation does not recognize the
serious concerns about high school lab exercises and
experiences raised by the National Academy of Sciences report,
America's Lab Report, Investigations in High School Science.
The NAS report found that in the vast majority of schools there
is a lack of agreement of how to define the high school lab, on
the goals of the lab experience, and it also found, again, in
the vast majority of the schools, many teachers are not
prepared to even lead the lab, high school science lab.
In an e-mail survey that NSTA did this past March I think
further illustrates the points, and my written testimony I have
added a lot more of these, and so these are just indicative. I
am only picking two short things.
We asked teachers in science to describe their problems of
the lab experiences in their schools. ``Dear NSTA, I have no
specific safe area in which to conduct labs. My yearly budget
is the same as it was 12 years ago. I must purchase all my own
equipment and supplies. I have no safety equipment other than a
portable eye wash station and a fire extinguisher.''
One more quote and then I will go on. ``Dear NSTA, my high
school building was built in 1970. The budget for yearly
supplies has not changed in the six years I have been here. I
have a supply budget of $750 a year. I teach between three and
four science subjects per year, seven classes per day, two of
them being chemistry and physics. I have absolutely no supplies
to teach electricity or magnetism or optics.''
Mr. Chairman, it is clear the biggest need is not for high-
tech specialized equipment in the classroom. Many high schools'
labs are in desperate need of facilities, basic equipment, and
teacher training to simply teach physics, chemistry, and
biology. Teachers need basic solid equipment and more of it.
The second point I want to make to you today is the limited
role that the high-tech equipment in high schools play. Most
teachers would have limited use of the electron microscope in
their schools. It might be valuable to select schools with
cutting-edge science fair projects or schools where Intel
talent search is encouraged. That would be a very valuable
experience for that small number of students. But we question
how many labs could realistically be structured around
nanotechnology.
There are space limitations, safety limitations, training
and service limitations, budget limitations, and curriculum
limitations, that all hinder the full use of specialized
equipment in most schools. The training to incorporate the use
of this equipment into the curriculum and the training to use
and maintain the high-tech equipment almost nullify any hope of
seriously implementing them into secondary schools. The vast
majority of the teachers would be unable to service or repair
these instruments.
Fourth, nanotechnology is not tied to any existing content
standards. Many high school teachers have a pre-determined
number of topics to cover in the short time allocated for
science and lab. For the most part when teachers enter this new
experience to students, the curriculum they use must be mapped
onto learning outcomes that are defined in their state content
standards. This is especially true in this time of No Child
Left Behind, and this is the year when the science assessment
begins.
Given the research on student misconceptions and poor
scores that we are experiencing on NAEP and the international
tests, focusing on nanotechnology may result in under-prepared
teachers doing a lot of hand waving rather than focusing on the
instruction of fundamental science.
Fifth and final point, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee
Members, science must be for all. As noted earlier, grants for
nanotechnology equipment will undoubtedly benefit the schools
that already have strong AP programs in affluent neighborhoods.
But there are far too many high-risk schools with limited lab
resources. Still fewer qualified science teachers. These needs
must be addressed first so that science truly can be for all.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of critical
needs in science education that can and must be addressed by
federal programs. These needs have been identified in the
report we are all familiar with, ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm'' or the ``Augustine Report,'' and it has been raised
repeatedly in hearings before this subcommittee and in the
Senate. With so many challenges to the current high school lab
sciences and science education in general, the National Science
Teachers' Association does not believe that legislation that
would authorize $15 million to ``strengthen the capacity of the
United States secondary schools to prepare students for careers
in nanotechnology,'' is the best use of our limited federal
funds.
NSTA would prefer that the grant funds be provided so that
labs could be able to purchase basic equipment and supplies so
that every high school lab will have enough basic microscopes
so that every child could use a microscope rather than two or
three students on one.
Grant funds should also be used for more highly-qualified
teacher training in lab science. I assume that is not for me,
but I see the red light, so I will stop, and I will be
available for answering questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wheeler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gerald Wheeler
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of
the National Science Teachers Association. My name is Gerry Wheeler and
for the last 12 years I have served as Executive Director of the
National Science Teachers Association.
The National Science Teachers Association is committed to promoting
excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all. We
offer members a wide variety of resources and support, including high
quality professional development, publications, networking
opportunities, and curriculum materials. The majority of our members
are high school teachers and supervisors responsible for the lab
experiences of hundreds of thousands of students every year.
Mr. Chairman, NSTA has been privileged to provide testimony on a
number of key issues before this committee in support of very valuable
initiatives, such as the Partnerships for Laboratory Access bill, and
federal programs available to K-12 STEM. We thank you for again
inviting us to speak to this important issue of labs and
nanotechnology.
While we understand the importance of nanotechnology and its
application for a wide range of technologies, and the importance of
introducing nanotechnology to our students, we have serious concerns
about H.R. 2436, the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act. In light of the
many challenges we face in science education, we believe this
legislation places inappropriate attention and emphasis on
nanotechnology at the high school level. I would like to bring five key
points to your attention.
First, we believe this legislation does not recognize the serious
concerns about high school laboratory experiences raised in the
National Academy of Sciences report America's Lab Report:
Investigations in High School Science and other key federal reports.
The NAS report found that in the vast majority of schools, which
includes schools with AP and IP programs, there is a lack of agreement
on how to define high school science laboratories and a defined lack of
consensus on the goals of laboratory experiences.
The report also found that many teachers are not well prepared to
lead high school labs. There is a lack of effective undergraduate
laboratory experiences for future teachers. Further, there is a lack of
comprehensive systems of support at the school, district, and state
levels for high school laboratory experiences.
Laboratory science is a high-priced luxury beyond the reach of far
too many public high schools, especially high need schools. A 1995
report from the U.S. General Accounting Office titled School
Facilities: America's Schools Not Designed or Equipped for the 21st
Century, found that 42 percent of all schools surveyed nationally
reported that they were not well at all equipped in the area of
laboratory science. In addition the report found that:
43 states reported that one-third or more of their
schools met functional requirements for laboratory science not
well at all.
49 percent of schools with a minority student
population greater than 50 percent reported meeting functional
requirements for laboratory science not well at all.
Over 48 percent of schools where 40 percent of the
student population qualified for free or reduced lunch reported
meeting functional requirements for laboratory science not at
all.
An e-mail survey we did this past March further illustrates the
points made in the NAS lab report. We asked teachers and science
supervisors to describe the problems with the lab experience in their
school. I have included some of the more representative comments in my
written testimony, and would like to share a few comments here today.
In my urban, inner city school, I teach a lab science
in an old business room. There are no tables, benches, water or
gas service, sinks, fire extinguisher, eye wash stations, fire
blankets, or other equipment. In addition, while there is a
high rate of attrition towards the end of the year, each
September starts with 50 students in each class.
I have no specific, safe area in which to conduct
labs. My yearly budget is the same as it was 12 years ago. I
must purchase all my own equipment and supplies. I have no
safety equipment other than a portable eye-wash station and a
fire extinguisher. My district claims labs are
``extracurricular'' and not mandated by my subject. My kids are
used to labs using kitchenware or materials purchased at Wal-
Mart. They have no idea how to use scientific equipment or even
what it looks like due to a lack of funding.
I have been teaching high school biology for ten
years. I have old microscopes that I could swap for coke
bottles and not notice a difference. However, the greatest
problem I see is my lack of skill in the area of lab
investigations. I agree that this is the best source of
learning that my kids can get; I just simply do not have the
skill to design these labs. IF the NSTA wants to make a change
in science education, THIS is where it should be done. .
.TRAINING.
My high school building was built in 1970. The budget
for yearly supplies has not changed in the six years I have
been here. I have a supply budget of $750 per year. I teach
between three and four science subjects per year seven classes
per day, two of them being chemistry and physics. I have
absolutely no supplies to teach electricity and magnetism or
optics. My chemistry supplies are even worse. My lab facilities
are set up for physics, but I am expected to teach chemistry in
low benches. I don't know a chemist who will use a Bunsen
burner sitting down. Hence, I do not teach the labs that
require Bunsen burners because I feel it is unsafe to use the
burners in my room. I also do not have a ventilation hood in my
room.
We do not have any rooms to use as actual
laboratories. Although we have lots of equipment, we have no
place to safely use it and few teachers who know how to use it.
Currently the one room that had been a lab is used by teachers
to sell hot chocolate and nachos to students to raise money for
trips to Washington, DC for a very small group of students. .
.the lab cannot be used as a lab. . .they removed the lab
tables and installed desks for all the students.
I have not learned how to facilitate real thinking
and essential planning for authentic lab experiences. I don't
know what students really need in an introductory chemistry
experience at the high school level, and I cannot figure out
how to teach logical thinking and sequencing to 20+ students in
lab at the same time. My time management skills are lacking.
There's much more, too.
I teach chemistry and Earth science in a room with
six lab tables; it was originally designed to be a physics lab
room. There is electricity to the tables, but it doesn't work.
There are not sinks, therefore no eye-washes; there are no gas
outlets. The sink at my instructors table has the water turned
off and the gas turned off. We were given a budget of $5,000
for each department last year, but the orders were not filled
because. . .who knows? I have not received the supplies I
ordered for eight out of the last 10 years. When first took
over this class-lab room and associated storeroom, there was a
great amount of equipment and glassware and old kits and a
little of everything. It is not possible to do any other than
the most elementary labs at this school. It would be unsafe and
probably criminally liable to attempt most chemistry labs. The
fire extinguisher doesn't work.
While I do not teach high school science currently
but do teach in a two-year community college, I see many
students entering with virtually no lab experience. While some
students come quite prepared, it's very frustrating for me to
have students coming into a college biology class with no
knowledge of basic lab equipment and techniques, such as using
beakers, graduated cylinders, pipettes, or even basic
microscopy skills.
Our school does not provide enough funding for lab
experiments. In addition, senior members of the department do
not believe that other than AP students and some honors
classes--should have access to lab experiments. Therefore the
classes I teach--college bound and special education--have
little to no money that goes towards lab science in the Biology
classroom. Furthermore, the set up of the classroom also is a
problem when it comes time to do lab experiments.
I teach biology in a portable without any sinks, no
storage, and only four outlets. It's such a challenge to put
together a real lab. My portable is far away from the real
science labs so it's hard to even get materials over here.
There's no prep area out here so I have to go to one of the
main buildings to prep. Yet those prep rooms are not easily
accessed if you don't have an attached classroom. My room has
carpet so I am reluctant to use many chemicals because they are
difficult to clean up if spilled.
Our school has minimal funding for improving the
quality of lab sciences. Individual teachers are encouraged to
write for grants using their own time without pay. Three of our
four science rooms do not have eye wash stations or proper
venting equipment. There is no interest in funding the purchase
of electronic data collection equipment/computer based labs by
the administration. Little effort is made in our district to
train teachers to improve the quality of lab experiments and
the necessary follow-up assessment.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the biggest need is not for high
tech, specialized equipment in the classroom. Many high school labs are
in desperate need for facilities, equipment and teacher training simply
to teach chemistry, physics or biology. Teachers need basic, solid
equipment--and more of it.
Second, the role of high tech equipment in secondary schools is
extremely limited. Most teachers would have limited use for an electron
microscope in their schools. It might be of value to select schools
where great emphasis and opportunities exist for cutting edge Science
Fair projects or where Intel Talent Search type of programs are
encouraged. It might have some use in a specialized science magnet
school. But we question how many labs could realistically be structured
around nanotechnology.
Third, space limitations, safety limitations, training and service
limitations, budget limitations, and curriculum limitations all hinder
full use of such specialized equipment in most schools. The training to
incorporate into the curriculum and the training to use and maintain
the high tech equipment alone almost nullify any hope of seriously
implementing it into secondary schools. Even if the high tech equipment
were donated, the vast majority of teachers would be unable to service
and repair these instruments.
Fourth, nanotechnology is not tied to any existing content
standards. High school teachers have a number of topics to cover in the
short time allotted for science education and labs For the most part
when teachers introduce new experiences to students, these experiences
and the curriculum they use must be mapped to the learning outcomes as
defined in their state content standards. Given the research on student
misconceptions and the poor scores we are experiencing on NAEP and on
international tests, focusing on nanotechnology may require under-
prepared teachers to do lots of ``hand waving'' rather than focus on
the instruction of the current fundamental sciences.
Fifth, science must be for all. As noted earlier, grants for
nanotechnology equipment would undoubtedly benefit schools with already
strong AP/IB programs in affluent neighborhoods. There are far too many
high-risk schools with limited lab resources, few AP/IB programs, and
fewer still qualified science teachers that desperately need assistance
to teach even the basic sciences. These needs must be addressed first
so that Science truly can be for all.
Mr. Chairman, the Internet can and does provide a host of rich
learning experiences for students on nanotechnology. A search on NSTA
SciLinks shows a number of rich learning experiences for both students
and teachers, sponsored by universities such as Leigh University and
Rice University; Foresight, a leading think tank and public interest
institute on nanotechnology; Quanteg LLC, a company which focuses on
nanotech education and networking; and Technology Research News also
provide good resources on this subject. Some of these sites are listed
below.
For teachers: All About Nanotechnology
Find the answer to that question and discover additional
information on Nanotechnology, what it consists of as well as its
current and future impacts on the world of science.
http://www.livescience.com/nanotechnology/
Nanotech Now: Tiny Technology All Around You
Scientists who work in the nanotech industry have long promised
better products in basic technologies and human health. While many of
the applications have yet to leave the lab, nanotech is all around you.
Discover some products of nanotechnology.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/
060330-nanotech-now.html
About Nanotechnology
Here you will find the answers to eleven of the most frequently
asked questions about nanotechnology.
http://www.foresight.org/nano/whatisnano.html
It's a Small, Small, Small, Small World
Learn the advantages of nanotechnology.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=nanotechnology.htm &
url=http://www.actionbioscienc...
For students: Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production
What nano-engineered food products will appear on the market over
the next year or two? What are the potential benefits and risks? Who
will be affected? And how can consumers become engaged early on?
http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/
Nanotech-agfood-090406.pdf
Introduction to Nanotechnology
Discover how the discovery of the bucky ball has helped pave the
way for nanoscience research.
http://www.lehigh.edu/?inimagin/intronano.html
How Nanotechnology Will Work
In this edition of How Stuff Will Work, you will learn how
nanomachines will manufacture products, and what impact nanotechnology
will have on various industries in the coming decades.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nanotechnology.htm
Nanokids: Explore
Nanotechnology becomes fun with the adventures of NanoKidsTM, who
materialize after a computer crashes in chemist Jim Tour's lab!
Information is fun for the user to learn with and contains basic
nanotechnology information.
http://cohesion.rice.edu/naturalsciences/nanokids/explore.cfm
Nanotube Memory
This is a news article of the scientific publication of a joint
design by two universities for a magnetic nanotube flash memory, which
promises to be very compact and fast.
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/051805/
Nanotube-memory-scheme-is-ma
gnetic-051805.html
Understanding Nanotechnology
This site gives the past, present, and future of nanotechnology
with some palatable science. It may spark attention with some of the
nanotechnology in everyday life. A phone interview with a high school
class is one article.
http://www.understandingnano.com/
Introduction to Nanotechnology
Here you will learn about nanotechnology and what it may bring in
the future.
http://www.nanoword.net/pages/intro.htm
In closing Mr. Chairman, as clearly identified in the report Rising
Against the Gathering Storm, and raised repeatedly in Science Committee
hearings and in the Senate, there are a number of critical needs in
science education that can and must be addressed by federal programs.
With so many challenges to current high school lab science and
science education in general, we do not believe that legislation that
would authorize $15 million to ``strengthen the capacity of United
States secondary schools to prepare students for careers in
nanotechnology'' is the best use of limited federal funds.
NSTA would prefer that grant funds be provided so that labs could
be able to purchase basic equipment and supplies so that EVERY high
school lab in America have enough microscopes so that EVERY child could
use one rather than two or three students sharing one old microscope.
Grant funds should also be used for more high-quality teacher
training. Science teachers don't need more ``fun'' activities for
students. Don't give teachers more pretty toys to play with--toys that
don't have a strong base in a fundamental science curriculum tied to
standards. Instead, teach them how to structure solid lab experiences
and incorporate them into a well-organized and rich science curriculum
for students.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Biography for Gerald Wheeler
Dr. Gerald Wheeler is the Executive Director of the National
Science Teachers Association, the largest science teacher organization
in the world. Prior to joining NSTA, Dr. Wheeler was Director of the
Science/Math Resource Center and Professor of Physics at Montana State
University. He also headed the Public Understanding of Science and
Technology Division at the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) and has served as President of the American Association
of Physics Teachers (AAPT).
Since joining the Association in 1995, Dr. Wheeler has overseen the
creation of several science education initiatives and resources aimed
at strengthening the quality of science teaching and learning. Dr.
Wheeler was the driving force behind SciLinks, a collaborative project
with major publishers that links science textbooks to teacher-approved
web sites, and Building a Presence for Science, a program that works to
identify then connect science education contacts in each school
building nationwide and provide them with teaching resources and
professional development opportunities. Most recently, Dr. Wheeler was
instrumental in the formation of the NSTA Learning Center, the national
``home base'' for science educators in search of quality content-based
professional development and the NSTA New Science Teachers Academy, a
professional development program, co-founded by the Amgen Foundation,
designed to encourage and support new middle and high school science
educators in their first few years of teaching.
For much of his career Dr. Wheeler has played a key role in the
development of mass media projects that showcase science for students.
He was involved in the creation of 3-2-1 Contact for the Children's
Television Workshop, served on advisory boards for the Voyage of the
Mimi and the PBS children's series CRO, and created and hosted Sidewalk
Science, a television show for young people on CBS-affiliate WCAU-TV in
Philadelphia. Dr. Wheeler has co-directed the National Teachers
Enhancement Network, an NSF-funded distance learning project offering
science and math courses nationwide.
Dr. Wheeler received an undergraduate degree in science education
from Boston University and a Master's degree in physics and a Ph.D. in
experimental nuclear physics, both from the State University of New
York at Stony Brook. Between undergraduate and graduate school, he
taught high school physics, chemistry, and physical science.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you very much. We will start
instituting buzzers instead of lights, but in that case that
just means we are going back into session over at the Capitol
Building, but we should have at least a fair bit of time before
votes are called.
I will recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
This is, in my judgment, a good hearing, because good
hearings you come away from somewhat torn, because there are
good arguments made on both sides. I think there is consensus
from what I hear that nanotechnology is absolutely important to
teach people, that it is clearly something that we need to know
now but will even grow in importance in the future.
But at the same time the question is what is the efficacy
of this particular legislation vis-a-vis other needs. One of
the questions that runs through my head is Dr. Wheeler's point,
and we have heard this in this committee before, about people
having no lab space or no equipment at all, just even for
rudimentary science.
On one hand one could say, well, that should be the
priority. On the other hand to be perfectly blunt, $15 million
isn't going to remedy that either. If we took all this proposed
$15 million from the bill that has been described it would be a
drop in the bucket on that, to be perfectly honest, at the
federal level. Most of that responsibility probably ought to be
borne by the local school districts.
Conversely, my question then, though, is how, if we were to
authorize this bill and put forward the $15 million, how can
you scale up nanoscale research? How can you get this
information out beyond the lucky few schools, be it high
schools, secondary, or post-secondary schools? How do you get
it out there in ways that you couldn't through just computer
simulations, or something like that, or just some eloquent
graphic illustration of the kind of things we have here? How do
you do that, and I am open to that question. That is the
question. Where, how do you do it, and where do we get the bang
for the buck if we do that?
I open that to whoever wants to address it.
Dr. Wheeler. I think it was mentioned by two people
testifying that, in fact, there are plans for extending
distance learning and plans for simulation, use of simulations
and models, et cetera, and again, I would concur with you and
echo your comments that in no way does NSTA think that
nanotechnology isn't important. What we are talking about is
what is the appropriate use at this particular stage.
But there is a lot that has occurred with nanotechnology.
The one that, I mean, excuse me. With distance learning. The
one that comes to mind, Chairman Baird, is the Jason Project in
remote access, and that kind of has the best of both worlds.
Still pricey, but at least the child, the young learner, gets a
chance to get his or her hand on the joystick and do something
with it.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Fraser.
Dr. Fraser. What we have been doing in Columbus is working
with the Columbus City Schools, which are mostly
underprivileged, of course. We are working with kids who come
to use these new tabletop SEMs and so we can see how best we
can work with the schools. We have had the teachers over, and
the teachers are excited. I can't think of one who has not been
very excited about the possibilities offered by the
instruments.
The plan is that we are going to take these SEMs and move
them for a week at a time to the schools. Because they are
highly transportable, we will prepare the students before the
SEMs get there with simulators and leave them with the
simulators afterwards on the computers. So that effectively for
just a couple of machines we will be able to influence a large
number of students that way.
The key thing is, though, and it is quite rightly brought
up by Dr. Wheeler, that we have to prepare modules so that the
teachers can teach the stuff, and it has to fit into their
lesson plan. So we can't just go to professors and say, you
should do this, because that is not going to work. But working
together with the teachers, they know where they can fit things
in and where they could enhance their teaching. The students
themselves are taught a great deal about that by working with
the equipment and saying, oh, if we were to do this or if we
were to do that.
So I think it is about working together. I view that part
of this bill involves the preparation of modules to help the
teachers, and the students, to use the equipment and then have
the equipment go around to school districts in that way. So I
think it can be quite effective for, well, compared with our
research funding, quite effective in terms of the size of
funding.
Chairman Baird. They could do something away from the
machinery so to speak.
Dr. Fraser. Absolutely. They could do it at home.
Chairman Baird. And then when it becomes available, then
you execute that during the week in which it is at your school
or the few days it is at your school.
Dr. Fraser. They could put their own samples in then.
Before that they would have samples that we would have
essentially imaged for them, but the simulator works as though
they are at the microscope. It is a very, very useful
simulator.
Chairman Baird. So the combination of the simulation plus--
--
Dr. Fraser. Yes.
Chairman Baird.--the occasional hands-on opportunity is
what you see as the benefit, and that is where you get the
scaling of it.
Dr. Fraser. And what you would want, of course, is the
machines in every school obviously, but if you can't do that,
then I think this is a very effective alternative.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ganguly.
Dr. Ganguly. I would just like to add to that.
Chairman Baird. Please hit the mik button.
Dr. Ganguly. It is, because this is just a tool, and if we
are comfortable with the teacher training, and actually, we
have been talking about that, we will incorporate it. It isn't,
this won't take the place of anything. What it will do is it
will enhance our method of delivery and will empower our
students, because that is what we are trying to do, is we are
trying to make them excited about it and to see the leg of a
fly or the--in something that they have done, not something
that they looked at, not the image that they looked at.
If they were able to do this by punching a couple of
buttons and then looking at the leg of the fly, that is, I
mean, I cannot tell you how exciting that would be for the
students. It would be something that they did themselves. It is
not something that somebody did and posted on the computer and
they looked at that picture.
So it will empower our students and give them that level of
excitement.
Chairman Baird. In a way beyond just the simulation.
Dr. Ganguly. Beyond just the simulation.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ucko and the Mr. Murdock, and then we
will-
Dr. Ucko. One of the things I think that will help to
increase dissemination is the whole aspect of cyber learning,
and that is an area that the National Science Foundation is
getting increasingly involved in.
There is one study that came out recently that I think
speaks exactly to this question, involving high school students
who were connected remotely to an atomic force microscope using
a nanomanipulator with haptic capabilities so they could
actually feel what it felt like moving the probe across
materials. It was a virus that they were studying, and the
research they did indicated that the kids learned about the
morphology of viruses much more using this technique than they
did from the classroom type of teaching.
So I think cyber learning offers a way to make these kinds
of equipment more widely available to basically anybody with
computer access. If they have a haptic interface, such as for
this nanomanipulator, that would be even better.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Murdock.
Mr. Murdock. If I could talk about the human factors rather
than the technology for a minute, and to borrow a term from
nanotechnology, I think this can do it from the bottom up. I
think it is a novel approach to create a significant incentive
for those, you know, world class, driven, capable teachers to
go and go to the NCLT, for example, and do the research
experience for teachers and develop that greater understanding
of the body of knowledge and to bring that back to the
classroom and to become agents of change, if you will. You
know, to inspire other teachers within their schools as well as
within their geographies.
And it can, you know, change the system over time. It will
take time. Any solution to our needs will take time, but
through those students, and I think that what it does, it
creates a distributed leadership network that we can draw upon
over time.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much. Several comments, perhaps
questions.
First of all, I think the real issue is the high schools
because the universities, some of them will have nano equipment
ready, some of it may have been passed down from laboratories
that have used it.
Also, universities, colleges, and community colleges are
already eligible to purchase such equipment under funding from
the current National Science Foundation programs.
So I think we are really talking about the high schools.
You know, this is something that would be wonderful to have,
but I get back to the real world. I spent a good share of my
life trying to help teachers in schools, elementary and
secondary schools, do a better job of teaching science, and I
would have to agree with Dr. Wheeler, this is wonderful, but
you can't ignore the incredible problems that we already have
in the schools. In many of the schools you can't even use this
properly without doing a lot of other steps as well.
And that is what we have empowered the National Science
Foundation, and we are also empowering the Department of
Education to work on these issues. First of all, the
professional development of teachers, and secondly, through
purchase of equipment.
So the question of the bill is do we really need a
specialized bill to cover one area when we already have a lot
going in more general areas, and we are trying to build up
space? If we had an infinite amount of money, no problem. This
would be a great bill.
But we don't, and so the question is as I indicated in my
opening statement, do we want to do this to help the schools
that are really very good, where students already have many
advantages, or do we want to try to reach the entire system?
I don't have the answers, but I am just telling you these
are some of the problems we face here. Are we really going to
allocate money for a rather specialized use for the benefit of
a small number of schools which are not high-need schools and
students, small, relatively small number of students who are
not high-need students.
And I am not saying I don't like it. I am just saying we
have some other problems to address here, too. And to optimize
the use of the funds.
Now, perhaps the easiest way would just be to put this new
program in the Defense Department, and there would be plenty of
money to--if you label it properly, there might be plenty of
money to accomplish what you are interested in or what the
sponsor of the bill is interested in.
But unfortunately that is probably not an option here. So I
have just rambled on a bit, but I welcome any comments anyone
would have on my concerns that I have expressed. Fire away.
Yes. Dr. Vandiver.
Dr. Vandiver. I would suggest that as nanotechnology is a
very difficult and abstract topic, the challenge is not only
with an understanding among the students but among the
teachers, and providing resources to those teachers to help
their understanding and comfort with the topic. I think we have
to be focused and directed as to how we provide our resources,
if we, in fact, intend for nanotechnology to be part of our
classroom experience.
I think that the context and background in nanotechnology
is essential for the beginnings of understanding. So I think
providing the resources will help focus attention and
understanding among teachers and students in nanotechnology.
Mr. Ehlers. Anyone else? Yes. Mr. Murdock.
Mr. Murdock. Thank you very much.
A few thoughts. One, I think it is important that the
program makes use of leverage, ties into all the programs that
are out there, and I referred to the NCLT earlier and there are
many others that I think can effectively coordinate with
leverage.
But I think there is also a lot of value in having a well-
defined program and clarity and focus. You know, it generates a
lot of excitement and awareness, and I don't know the answer to
this question, but I am not sure how broadly those programs are
used by the folks that would be using this program. And so by
creating a new vehicle, having it, you know, very clear and
communicating it broadly, I think you might find that
participation is, in fact, broadened and that you do reach more
of those needy schools in so doing than the alternative path of
what is out there today.
As I said, I don't know the answer to the question, but I
think it is quite possible that that would happen.
Mr. Ehlers. Under the bill only a quarter of the grant can
be used for teacher education, and of course, as I mentioned
already, we have other teacher education programs, but those
are more broadly based.
I guess I am also concerned, let me also just mention if a
school would desire to do that, this is already available and
nano equipment would qualify under the PALS Program, which we
already passed as part of the American--so it is not that it
can't be done already.
Anyone else want to comment back to my comments?
Okay. Just to wrap it up, a great idea. I taught many years
myself, and I was taught, started teaching in an era when
lasers were brand new. I made the local newspaper when I got
the first laser within 50 miles. It was a great thing in the
classroom. Everyone loved it.
But it was hard to build a curriculum around that. We did
wonderful things with it and got some interest developed. It
almost sounds to me like from some of the comments you have
made this is in the same category. This will attract student
interest, being something new and groundbreaking. And, again,
is it worth the price we are paying here? How would it--and the
biggest question frankly is how would it match with other
programs that the National Science Foundation already has?
I am certainly not, in despite my negative comments, I am
not totally negative. I am just saying we have got to work all
this through before we consider passing this bill.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. This Committee
benefits tremendously from Dr. Ehlers' science knowledge but
also his background as a science teacher and his critical
approach to whatever topic is before us. Thank you.
Dr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Chairman Baird.
You know, both the Chairman and the Ranking Member have
alluded to the limitation of this bill, i.e., the $15 million.
With that amount you really can't touch that many classrooms,
but one thing you could do is develop a curriculum that
teachers could use and learn from.
If you were to do that, Dr. Ucko, what would you include in
that kind of curriculum that would be beneficial to students
transferring to job skills or so on? And what would you want to
include in that kind of----
Dr. Ucko. I guess what I would say is that we are already
developing curriculum in this area through the NCLT and some of
the other grants, the Nano-Instructional Materials Development
grants that have been funded previously. And what is really
part of the challenge is figuring out how do you take this new
emerging area and insert it into the curriculum. Do you use it
to teach something new? This whole new domain? That is probably
very difficult to do.
Perhaps easier would be to teach existing science and
technology using nanotechnology as examples because that is
already part of the national standards and the testing.
So that is a real issue. How do you take advantage of
nanotechnology however you teach it and use it in the
curriculum? It is not a trivial issue, and it is really early
to answer that question, because the things that we funded are
still in their second or third year in most cases, and we don't
have the answers yet. There is very little research out there
in terms of how do you develop curriculum, what curriculum
works, what are the most effective strategies for teaching
nanotechnology?
So I guess I would say we need to wait a little bit longer
to answer that question.
Mr. McNerney. Thanks. Well, clearly, Dr. Ganguly had sort
of indicated one of the priorities is to inspire the kids. You
want to inspire them, not just to go into nanotech but to also
go and study their math or do the other things that they need
to do to be successful when they get to college and move on
from there to contribute to the country.
So that would be something that would be a challenge, a
huge challenge, and, like I said, it is something we all need
to think about.
Dr. Wheeler, one of the things you said the sort of sparked
my interest is you mentioned safety. And I know nanotechnology
has safety issues. How big of an issue would that be for a
classroom, a lab in nanotechnology?
Dr. Wheeler. I don't think that is an issue, Congressman. I
mean, there are issues, but I don't think that is a very big
one. The issues in terms of that equipment coming into the
classroom, and again, forgive me for my nuclear physics
background and my age, it doesn't translate as well to
nanotechnology.
But I don't think safety is an issue. I think the bigger
issues, the points I made, but within that point, the bigger
issue would be the maintenance costs, the training of the
teachers to keep that equipment active.
If I could take, since I have the microphone, just put a
quick answer on your last question, I am not sure that I would
invest--and it is a little bit related to Congressman Baird's
question earlier on--I am not sure I would invest $15 million
into new curriculum projects, in part because NSF has said they
are doing some, but in part because I was a junior in high
school when Sputnik went up. The Federal Government has
invested a lot in curriculum projects, and we are still in deep
trouble right now.
What we have to deal with is the teaching of the science;
are the standards clear, does he or she have the training they
need, does it align to the assessment, and a new curriculum is,
I am afraid, not going to solve the problem we are in right
now.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you for that assessment. You know, I
have to say Sputnik did inspire me to go into science, so I
mean, I don't know if it was the curriculum or if it was the
actual threat that we perceived from Sputnik, but I----
Dr. Wheeler. But I didn't play with a rocket after that.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think this high school training could
lead to jobs, to actual jobs, Mr. Murdock?
Mr. Murdock. Well, I think, obviously downstream. I think
that the high school training, and in particular, as I said
earlier, what it will do is it will provide the inspiration to
undertake the work going forward in the collegiate level and in
the postgraduate level to keep more folks into the sciences.
I will tell you a related thing that we at the NanoBusiness
Alliance have been working toward launching, and haven't
launched yet, we refer to it as the NanoBusiness Talent
Program, Total Applied Learning Through Entrepreneurship, and
the idea is to get top math and science students in high school
into entrepreneurial environments to begin working with and
understanding the impact of science, and again, how it relates
to the world at large, how it relates to businesses, to
improving quality of life, and you know, frankly, to national
competitiveness and security as well.
And so I think there is a very important thing about
getting exposure to the importance and the impact of sciences
as early as practical into our educational setting, and that
will downstream lead to those opportunities.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
Mr. Ehlers. Very quickly.
Mr. McNerney. I will yield the time that I don't have
remaining.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay.
Chairman Baird. The Chair will yield.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. Just the interplay of two people
being influenced to go into science by Sputnik made me feel
very old, because when Sputnik went up, I was inspired to go
into politics. If we had a government that couldn't even launch
a rocket, obviously they needed some scientists here. Thank
you.
Chairman Baird. Another good thing Sputnik did. One
scientist and one politician out of it.
Mr. Neugebauer from Texas.
Mr. Neugebauer. Sputnik? What is that? No, just--the gray
hair probably gives me away.
You know, I follow with interest in Texas Tech University
in my district has very robust nanotechnology program there,
and it is very interesting. In fact, I had an opportunity to
tour there a year or so ago. I guess the question is as we hear
a lot of people coming and saying we have got to get more of
our young people interested in math and science because the
industry comes and sees members of Congress and saying, you
know, one of the reasons we are outsourcing jobs to other parts
of the world is we don't have the folks here to do that. And
the reason we are asking for more VISAs for people is to fill
that need.
And so, I guess, the question today, one of the questions
would be is who is filling the jobs in nanotechnology today?
Somebody want to field that question?
Mr. Murdock. Well, I think you have to look at it in terms
of the evolution of the technology. Right now with the federal
funding, you know, primarily driving through the 21st Century
Nanotech R&D Act, there have been a lot of scientific
breakthroughs, and so many of these companies that have been
formed are really in the earliest phases, right, they are just
transitioning off, you know, university campuses or federal
laboratories. And it is really translational research that is
taking place.
So it is drawing upon the Ph.D. scientists and engineers,
you know, by and large. As a class if you look at my
membership, most of them are what I would characterize as the
translational research or product development phase as opposed
to the manufacturing phase.
And so who is meeting that need right now? It really is the
universities, Ph.D.s, and post-docs and the folks that are, you
know, trained in that avenue. As it will evolve over time,
though, we are going to need, you know, technicians, non-Ph.D.
level, you know, Master's and undergraduate level engineers and
technically-proficient folks. And you see that in some of the
more mature nanotechnology companies that are moving to the
manufacturing phase, that the skill set migrates over time. But
all of them need to have some base level of scientific
engineering and technological proficiency.
Mr. Neugebauer. I think the other issue that I thought was
interesting, and I think in probably more alignment with my
thinking is with the computer technology that we have today in
simulation and how we are teaching young people today, I mean,
how they learn, how young people, I mean, video games and so it
is very much an interactive with computers. If it doesn't make
sense at least in the initial phases until this industry is a
little more robust to generate some curriculum, the other
gentleman was saying is based around using some interactive
software to stimulate, you know, the interest in that
technology. And then the other piece of that is that is more
widely distributable. I mean, most every school are working in
that direction and has some computer technology available to
it, so you get it to more kids to see if their appetite is
interested in that area before you go invest a lot of money in
equipment to do that.
I thought it was kind of interesting what Dr. Vandiver
said, we have a science spectrum in our community and they
bring a lot of exhibits and stuff in, and it is regional,
probably serves 20, 30 counties in my district because of the
rural part of the country. That is certainly the ability to
compliment the curriculum that you might put in the schools,
where you are letting them to do it in a simulation, then you
can pull that resource into where more people can go and
actually see and play with, if you want to say, because they
all want to play with it obviously.
But I think the underlying question is the role for the
Federal Government, or is this something that school districts
and communities that want to have economic development entities
to, giving their communities an edge? Is that something they
should be doing?
Question. Anybody got any answers?
Yes, sir.
Dr. Fraser. I think the intention of the bill is not to
fund these instruments at all schools, but it is to spark the
whole program so that local districts will start joining in and
leverage federal investment. And the federal investment is
worthwhile because we as a nation would like to remain globally
competitive, and to do that we have to have this workforce that
will eventually develop through I believe the use of the
instruments and capturing people into science and having them
highly motivated. I think that is the idea. It is not for the
Federal Government to support the whole program but to kick
start it with getting something back from, you know, their
dollar investment, which will be the workforce.
Mr. Neugebauer. And the question is, are we far enough
along with this curriculum yet to start buying devices, or do
we need to get the high school curriculum a little bit further
along with the simulation there and see if there is demand? I
am new to the political arena. I come from the business world,
and before we went out and manufactured a lot of things or
developed a lot of lots, we always wanted to make sure that
somebody wanted one when we got them done. And so I guess that
is the question.
Dr. Wheeler, do you want to run with that?
Dr. Wheeler. Yes, Congressman. Thank you. And that takes me
back to my first point is the National Academy of Science's
report said that as a nation we are confused even about the
role of our labs. Is it to excite the student because they can
move it, is it to teach them the nature of science, is it to
have them verify some law of science? And so I would concur
with your last comments, except I probably wouldn't stress just
curriculum. It is even more fundamental than that: is what the
role of the lab within the curriculum and what kinds of other
ways within the curriculum or the child's experience can we
accomplish the things we want to accomplish?
So I think that that is a very good comment and worth
answering carefully.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman. You surprised me there.
I thought we were going to go to Ms. Hooley there.
I wanted to thank Ms. Hooley for introducing this bill. I
have really been convinced that nanotech really is the new
industrial revolution. I have been working with Northwestern
University, and Mr. Murdock and I have that in common. We are
both alums of Northwestern, and I know he is working with a lot
of people there in terms of nanotech. Northwestern right now is
ranked 5th in the Nation in nanotech, and there have been about
10 spin-off companies that are conducting cutting-edge nanotech
research that have come from Northwestern and, you know, they
do have the International Institute for Nanotechnology there.
So I am very proud as an alum of Northwestern, and also very
happy representing part of Chicago, representing the district
in the Chicago area and that Chicago area is doing this in
Illinois. Small Times magazine ranked Illinois 8th in the
Nation in nanotech. The University of Illinois also doing some
good work on nanotech. There are four centers dedicated to
nanotechnology, so it is great to see this all taking off, and
I think it is important for all to be looking at science and
technology, it has to start with early education.
But I want to ask Mr. Murdock, in the NanoBusiness
community, what is the greatest concern when it comes to
education right now? Is it at the elementary level, secondary
level, or higher education level? I mean, where is the interest
focused in the nanotech business community as to where the
education has to be, nanotech has to become more priority
education or the future of nanotech, what does it rely most
upon right now? Which level of education seems to be most
important or stands out most in the community?
Mr. Murdock. Well, I think right now just by nature of the
demands in immediacy, when you look at these companies, they
are endeavoring day in and day out to, as I said, to translate
this science into real-world products. And so the immediate
needs at this stage are in the Ph.D. level. But there is
recognition. I think what is incredibly positive about the
community and my membership is that they are thinking long-
term. There is recognition that that is today's battle, if you
will. That is today's challenge and that we, I think there is
recognition that the next step, getting the broader technical
workforce is going to be very problematic as you look at, you
know, as a company grows, you have the couple founding
scientists, and you have a couple Ph.D.s that work on, you
know, those companies when they are in the five to 10 people
range. But as they grow, getting that next level of talent in
there, and you know, I think that is at the Master's and
collegiate level, is going to be challenging.
But, you know, it is something that we are going to have to
address across all levels over time. I think there is broad
recognition that we just simply don't have a large enough
technical workforce, and that is why everyone is here all the
time looking at the H1B issue, is that folks are looking to
import the talent because they are not finding what they need
out there today.
Mr. Lipinski. Is it more a concern with more basic levels
STEM ed rather than, you know, we are looking at nanotech, and
we are speaking specifically about nanotech here, but as we all
know nanotech covers a lot of different areas. It is a real
concern that we just don't have the students, we are not
teaching students to even have the basics in engineering,
science and math, to be able to even become interested and to
do any kind of work that will help in the nanotech field.
Mr. Murdock. Let me try to take that. I think there is
broad recognition that there is a shortage of STEM ed across
the board. I think what is more unique about nanotechnology and
what the companies need are folks that are trained in an inter-
disciplinary fashion. Think of a T if you will. Broad enough to
bridge two disciplines and deep enough to have the capability
within one to do something distinctive. And that is kind of the
model of, typically, what folks are looking for, and that means
you need to have a robust foundation in science and technology,
engineering, mathematics across the board to have that breadth
and then to be able to go deep.
Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else have any? Yes.
Dr. Vandiver. I still want to make the case that it is
about context. I was also inspired by space science and
astronomy to go into science, and if I understand correctly,
the best radio telescopes looking out are looking at a
resolution of about 10 to the eighth, 10 to the ninth meters.
Take that the other way and look in, so we are in the same
realm, and if you will, it is like a universe within. Just like
we discovered, all of the strange behaviors and new concepts
looking out, we are discovering those looking in as well, but
the context isn't readily available to students.
So the materials are behaving in ways unexpected, and the
properties of matter are going against intuition, and you know,
I think this is the stuff that inspires, just like cosmology
inspired me when I was young, I can see this, if you really
understood the context of what science is achieving today, I
think you will get that inspiration, and I think that is the
context that we are talking about.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Saving the best for last, the author of the
bill, Ms. Hooley.
Ms. Hooley. Well, first of all I so appreciate all of our
panelists for being here today and their thoughtful
presentations.
I am just going to make some comments and then would like
some reaction.
It seems to me not too long ago computers were in great
big, huge rooms and then we got them into our universities, and
then we got them into our high schools, and now every grade
schooler has a laptop on their desk. And it wasn't just
exclusive for some schools. It is really now generally used in
all of our schools.
As far as whether the Federal Government should have a role
or not, we have a role in a lot of things. I mean, any time we
are talking about an emerging technology that we want to
encourage happening, we get involved in it. This committee just
passed a significant bill on, to make sure that we have enough
science and math teachers, because we don't have enough science
and math teachers.
So I look at this piece of legislation really as, and I
think a couple of you said this, as an agent of change, as an
inspiration, because you have to, first of all, inspire
students. They have to get interested. They have to be excited
about something. And I think this is exciting. And they have to
be inspired if they are going to go into the field of math and
science and to teach it.
We did a symposium in Oregon. We have got a collection of
universities working on nanotechnology. We did a symposium, and
you know, frankly, most people had no clue what nanotechnology
was, and if you went out on the street and you talked about
nanotechnology, they wouldn't know what it was. Just like they
didn't understand or know what computers did and what they were
30 years ago.
I guess I see this as a little piece that adds a little
spark to inspire people to become teachers or to go into that
field, and it is a small way of saying we think this is going
to be one of the industries in our future, and we need to do
something with this. And I mean, that is the reason I
introduced the bill. I think it has a lot of merit. I think it
is a very modest start. I understand that it is going to, you
know, not cover that many schools and that many students, but
if we get people to at least understand what nanotechnology is
all about and some of our students to understand what it is all
about and we inspire people to go into math and science, it may
help.
So that is, I don't know if you want to respond to any of
that, but any of you that would like to respond to those
comments. Not really a question.
Dr. Ganguly. I would like to thank you on behalf of all
students for introducing the bill, because it will be a
powerful tool which will transcend all fields of science.
Because it will just, it will let the students get involved,
get excited, and be involved in their own learning. That is
much more of an empowerment than anything else. They have to be
involved in their own learning, and they will be if we have
these kinds of tools available to us.
In 30 years time it will be what computers are now.
Ms. Hooley. Yeah.
Dr. Ganguly. So, yes, we have to start somewhere.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you. Any other comment?
Mr. Murdock. If I could just----
Ms. Hooley. Yes.
Mr. Murdock.--comment briefly. I think you are absolutely
right about the inspiration, and we did have Sputnik, and that
inspired a whole generation of folks to go into science and
technology, and honestly, we haven't had the next Sputnik over
the past couple decades. And I think that is a significant part
of the erosion, if you will, of the math and science and
technology base. It is quite possible that maybe the Russians
see that. As I said before, they committed $5 billion to
nanoscience research, which I find to be pretty extraordinary.
And they recently announced that. And so maybe it will engender
a little bit more of the same response.
But I think the framing of this as a seed program to, you
know, kick start a virtuous circle of distributed technology
that gets in the hands of the students so that they can be
inspired and engage in honestly self-directed learning where
they can take control is a neat framework, and I think what I
talked earlier, about trying to change, viewing this as a
bottom up. I think it is a bottom-up way to empower world class
teachers in all schools and students to really become the
leaders of tomorrow.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you. And I do want to acknowledge, Dr.
Wheeler, I understand, I have been in our schools. I visited
our schools, and I know how bad some of our labs are and how
much help that they need. I look at our community colleges and
look at the number of students that are turned away because we
don't have the right labs and the right equipment and enough
buildings and enough teachers. So, again, we tried to put a
program into place to inspire people to go into math and
science, and if we can add to that inspiration by some event
that is happening, I think that is to everybody's benefit and
hopefully then that in turn also helps schools decide that it
is really important that we upgrade and try to put some money
into our science labs.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Baird. I thank the gentlelady and applaud her for
her initiative, and as a former teacher I know how much you
value the importance of exciting students and getting them
interested in the topic. And there is just no substitute for
that.
We may do just a couple of remaining questions, and the
puzzle for me is, let us suppose we did this. Let us suppose
the money were made available. I have been to a number of high
schools that have CAD CAM systems, which were once, you know,
state of the art, gee whiz things, and now are actually in
fairly common in some of our voc ed, career, and tech ed
programs.
But what has troubled me a little bit is that some of the
exercises I have seen the students doing are: write your name
on the computer and then make the CAD system carve your name
into a piece of plastic. Okay. So you got a nice nametag with
your name on it. I am not sure what they got out of that.
And so my question, obviously there are more intricate and
interesting ways to use the CAD System and to make it an
educational experience, but as someone who visits every high
school in his district every two years, I see amazing things
done, and I see wastes of time.
What would each of you say is the most, what would be the
key criteria, if you were to say two or three things that you
would put on this if the program were to move forward, in terms
of using this money? What would be the most important thing? If
the Congress were to decide, yes, Ms. Hooley has it right,
nanotech is something we need to invest in, this money will be
well spent, what would be the most important things that would
have to happen to make sure it was indeed well spent?
And I will just, Dr. Ucko, and then we will work our way to
the right and----
Dr. Ucko. I guess I would answer that by saying that it
would be part of a well-tested, well-developed program and not
just a piece of equipment that is put into a facility. Using
development, figuring out what kids need to learn, how is
whatever intervention you are doing going to help kids learn,
does it build on learning progressions? That is, does it tie
into what they already know and take them to the next level of
what they need to know? Has it been tested, has professional
development been done for teachers to make sure that they know
how to properly use whatever this is in the best way? And that
it ultimately has an affect that shows up on student
assessments.
Dr. Ganguly. That is, I mean, he put it in a nutshell
actually, is that, you know, you have to have professional
development for the teachers, because we are life-long
learners, and we like to learn, but we have to have the
opportunity and the chance to learn it. And once we do, we will
be able to apply it into our teaching, and then, of course,
finally there has to be an assessment for it. But with the
professional development we can use this to enhance our
teaching.
Dr. Fraser. And obviously I agree with what has been said
so far except I think most of the nanotechnology work is done
at the graduate level right now. That is at universities, so I
think it would be highly effective in the short-term to develop
modules in collaboration between high school teachers and
faculty.
Dr. Vandiver. I think part of a competitive grant process
where, based on the merits of the proposal, innovative ideas
building on best practices could be rewarded and advance the
field.
Mr. Murdock. I guess two thoughts. One obviously it has to
be integrated into professional development. I referred earlier
to the research experience teachers that exist in many of the
NFS Centers and NCLT that it could be integrated with.
The second, you know, we talk about the curriculum
development efforts, and that is, you know, a research
enterprise, developing the next curriculum. There is also
translational work that has to take place to translate that
into a school and a classroom environment, and I think this
could be a very elegant way to develop, if you will, a beta
group for the translation of that curriculum development, to
see how it is going to play in the schools, and frankly to
accelerate the development and the translation of the
curriculum from the research-driven curriculum to what is going
to get in the schools and work.
So it can be part and parcel of making that happen more
effectively and more rapidly.
Dr. Wheeler. I think, excuse me, I think Congressman Ehlers
kind of hit it on the head when he said something about the
high school. And you can even hear it in our comments and your
questions, we have all drifted towards the high school. We talk
about the teacher. The fact is the bill is very rich in very
good ideas in terms of two-year college, undergraduate, and
informal. So I am in that delightful position of saying you
really ought to give the money to somebody else.
It would be much more used, it would excite the Nation
more. I am being a little bit sophomoric in my comment, but it
will excite the Nation a little bit more if there were good,
rich experiences where families can go in and see this exciting
stuff. It would pump up the two-year college and I would say
the undergraduate much more, and what I would do, the same
thing we did after Sputnik. I was a customer, but the same
thing the country did after Sputnik was it brought teachers
into the universities during the summertime, and it increased
the university professor, researcher, teacher conversations,
and it was extremely exciting. I was a brand new high school
physics teacher at that time. Extremely exciting to go the
University of Connecticut, go to Boston University during the
summertime and talk to people about some of these new ideas.
So I would say that we have to be very careful as we talk
and ask questions of each other that we don't drift to just
automatically assuming the high school teacher or school is
going to get it. I think the richness of this bill, and I do
appreciate the bill and I think the richness lies outside or at
least around the corner when you get into the high school.
Chairman Baird. Very, very thoughtful answers. Thank you.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. I agree. Very good answers and I am not sure
what wisdom I can add to it other than for some observation.
All the talk about Sputnik makes me feel good because I just
finished writing an article which was entitled, ``Where Is
Sputnik When We Need It?'' Because that is what we have here.
We need a reawakening of the importance of science.
During my years working with elementary schools and trying
to put science programs in before I got into politics, and also
visiting a lot of schools now, and when they have something
special dealing with science, whether it is a NASA Program on-
line or Jason Program, then they want me to come out and
participate.
A couple of things have impressed me. Number one is
something we haven't talked about here at all. In my
experience, and I have a district that is largely urban, the
single-most important factor in the success of a student is to
have at least one interested and involved parent. If you have
that, the school and the teachers have a chance. If you don't
have that, it is very, very tough for them.
Second element is the teacher. And you must have a well-
trained teacher, and I can't tell you how many, I have seen
very few poor teachers. I have seen a lot of teachers who
wanted to teach better in math and science, but they never had
the proper training in the subject matter or in the
methodology.
And I think the most effective use of our money is, first
of all, to train the teachers so that they themselves are
excited. And then, of course, beyond that you need a good
curriculum, and you have to have the money for the equipment.
Trying to teach science without equipment is I think quite
meaningless. You can do it at the theoretical physics level,
but it is kind of backwards to me that we wait until high
school and college level to really get students involved in
laboratories when the time they really need it is when they are
in elementary school. It gets them more excited, gets them more
involved. So I am totally in agreement with what you are
suggesting.
And Mr. Murdock, you hit it on the nail. We really have to
do a better job of developing a scientific core within this
country. We can't depend forever on people from other
countries.
So we have, it is clear what the problems are. It is
relatively clear what the solutions are, whether we decide we
have to do nanotech in a small number of schools or a large
number or do telescopes or what have you. We just have to do
it.
But putting it together in a comprehensive, workable way
and above all providing the training for the teachers is
crucial to this. And that means some reforms at the university
level and the requirements for students, requirements for
teachers, the training of teachers, providing adequate
equipment, and the schools which I think is one of the most
crucial parts. That is why I have been somewhat negative here,
because I want to look at the broad picture and see how does
this fit into all of this? How can we really get the kids
excited, and how can we do two things here, three things
actually?
Excite and innervate the future scientists and engineers.
That is number one.
Secondly, how can we prepare the kids for the jobs of the
future so that they will be able to work in plants that deal
with nanotechnology or silicon wafers or what have you?
And thirdly, how can we keep the populous at large excited
about these things so they are willing to pay the bills and
support this?
So we have a lot of work ahead of us. By we I mean the
scientific and engineering community as well. When speaking to
scientists and engineers I always encourage them to go out to
their kid's school or to their nearest school to their
business, volunteer to speak to a classroom about why they like
science or why they like engineering, take along some stuff to
demonstrate, some gee whiz equipment, invite the kids to come
to their lab or if they are field engineers, to come out and
see a bridge they are building or what have you.
That is the real way to get the kids involved, hands on,
with a lot of things that they normally would never encounter
in their lifetime. And I think we have a unique problem today,
have had for close to a century. You never had to worry about
that in about 1860, to 1880, when 80 percent of the population
lived on farms. You learn an awful lot of chemistry, physics,
and biology just by living on a farm.
And so a lot of it didn't have to be taught in schools, and
today we have to assume they know zero from day one and work
from there.
Having pontificated long enough, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Chairman Baird. Just long enough, though.
Dr. Lipinski, Ms. Hooley, either of you have follow-up
questions or comments?
With that I want to thank our panelists for an outstanding
and very informative and stimulating series of presentations.
Thank our audience Members and our fellow panelists, and with
that the meeting stands adjourned.
Thank you very much. The record will be kept open for two
weeks if anyone wishes to add additional comments.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by David A. Ucko, Deputy Division Director, Division of
Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings;
Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science
Foundation
Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. You suggest in your testimony that the Committee may want to
revisit the issue of improving the nano education component of the NNI
after NSF has carried out its evaluation of the activities currently
underway. What is the timeframe in which we will have this additional
information needed to formulate the most effective educational
strategies?
A1. Because the NSF-funded projects in nano education in formal and
informal settings are still underway, evaluation is formative. These
evaluation efforts are designed to produce data that can guide the
projects and suggest mid-course corrections and revision. For example,
instructional materials being developed for high school students have
been pilot-tested in an Advanced Placement chemistry class; formative
evaluation revealed that teacher background is the biological aspects
of the topics was weak, and as a result, the professional development
component was enhanced. Project summative evaluations will be available
within the next 12 to 18 months. In addition, the Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Education program evaluation now being planned should be
completed in about 24 months.
Q2. In your testimony you stated that the total NSF investment to Nano
education awards in fiscal year 2007 was $28 million. How does this
number break down among the kinds of activities that you described in
your testimony: instructional resources for grades 7-12, two-year and
four-year undergraduate programs, informal science programs and
outreach associated with nanoscience research centers?
A2. About half of the FY07 funds in nano education were direct
investments in new or continuing awards directed at the following
audiences: students and teachers in grades 7-12: 43 percent; public
(informal science education): 30 percent; undergraduate (two- and four-
year) students: 18 percent; graduate: 9 percent. (Because many projects
address more than one audience, these percentages are estimates.) The
remaining funds support the education and outreach components of
nanoscale science and engineering research centers; they also target
these audiences but are not specifically broken down by audience type.
Q3. For the undergraduate projects and for the informal science
education projects, approximately what percentage of funding is
allocated to equipment or instrumentation acquisitions for each use?
A3. For projects funded through the Nanotechnology Undergraduate
Education (NUE) in Engineering program, nearly half have included the
purchase of scanning or atomic force microscopes over the past several
years. These awards provide up to $200,000 for college curriculum
development over two years; on average, 20 percent of the project
budget is devoted to the purchase of equipment or instrumentation.
Informal science education awards, typically made for the development
of exhibits, media, and programs, do not typically require funds for
purchase of major equipment.
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. What research has been done on the learning and teaching of
nanotechnology? Do we know how kids best learn this subject? Is high
school nanotechnology curricula currently being developed and, if so,
by whom?
A1. Because the field is now and emerging, educational research studies
are just beginning on the learning and teaching of nanotechnology. The
NanoEd Resource Portal of the NSF-funded National Center for Learning
and Teaching in Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NCLT) [http://
www.nanoed.org/nlr/nlr.html] identifies several such studies, such as
the development of student's conceptions of size and using learning
progressions to inform curriculum, instruction, and assessment design.
These studies build on the existing literature on how students learn
science and on educational research on learning of related topics, such
as the atomic nature of matter.
Development of coherent high school nanotechnology curricula is
also beginning under several NSF grants. For example, NanoLeap (Mid-
Continent Regional Educational Laboratory) is creating and testing two
month-long units in nanoscience to be used as replacement units in high
school physics and chemistry courses. NanoSense (SRI International) is
creating, testing, and disseminating a larger number of shorter
curriculum units. Because they follow research and development
methodologies, these projects are helping to build the knowledge base
about effective learning and teaching along with creating instructional
materials.
Q2. What other models exist in other disciplines (pharmacology,
physics, chemistry, etc.) for continuous federal support of lab
equipment? Along the same lines, if H.R. 2436 singles out
nanotechnology, will this create tension between the disciplines/
employers of other high tech industries?
A2. I am not generally aware of models for federal support of lab
equipment other than its acquisition as part of research or education
grants. It is possible that singling out nanotechnology might create
tension, but I have no specific knowledge in this area.
Q3. What existing NSF programs can already fund this type of
nanotechnology equipment?
A3. As noted, the Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) program
funds the purchase of this type of equipment as part of college course
development. The Advanced Technology Education (ATE) program funds
equipment or instrumentation for technician education at the two-year
college level. Equipment also can be funded through the NSF Major
Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program, which is designed to increase
access to scientific and engineering equipment for research and
research training in organizations of higher education, research
museums, and nonprofit research organizations. In addition, the EPSCoR
Research Infrastructure Improvement Grant Program (RII) supports the
acquisition of equipment for research and other discovery-based
learning activities at predominately undergraduate and minority serving
institutions.
Q4. You state in your testimony that ``widely used and tested
nanoscale science and engineering curricula do not yet exist, and it is
difficult to add new content to existing overcrowded curricula, State
standards, assessments, and textbooks.'' That being the case, is there
any research being done to tell us if there is even a need for this,
particularly at the high school level?
A4. The following arguments based on professional judgment and
expertise can be made for nanotechnology education at the college and
high school level. One is the need for a future workforce, which will
require trained scientists, engineers, and technicians capable of
working in the field; nanotechnology education at both these levels
could add to the pipeline. Another is that current and future
nanotechnology applications offer topics of relevance to the study of
STEM that could make it more engaging to students. A third is that the
intrinsically interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology could provide
a more effective approach for students to learn STEM content. Given the
early stage of development of the field and of nanotechnology
education, there is not enough evidence at this point to support or
counter these arguments.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Many of you testified that American students at all levels and the
public in general must have a significant understanding of
nanotechnology if America is to stay ahead in this field. Is this field
different from other emerging scientific areas, either past or present,
in a way that makes such widespread knowledge vital for the continued
success of American endeavors in this area?
A1. Nanotechnology differs from many other STEM areas in its highly
interdisciplinary and integrative nature, since the field brings
together aspects of physics, chemistry, biology, materials science,
environmental sciences, engineering, and medicine. In addition, large
workforce needs have been projected, and the emerging applications of
nanotechnology may have significant impact on people's lives and
society. Therefore, one can argue that students and the public should
have an awareness and basic understanding of the field and its
applications and implications.
Q2. Dr. Fraser indicated in his testimony that university faculty have
almost no access to funding support to assist to the development of
undergraduate courses that would be coupled with lab experiences. Dr.
Ucko, do the NSF programs for nanotechnology education at the
undergraduate level support the types of activities described by Dr.
Fraser and how widely available are they to college and university
faculty?
A2. Yes, NSF provides funding for the development of undergraduate
courses that can be coupled with lab experience. The Nanotechnology
Undergraduate Education (NUE) in Engineering program funds course
development in this area; it emphasizes new approaches to undergraduate
engineering education through interdisciplinary collaborations. NUE in
Engineering proposals must be submitted by U.S. universities and two-
and four-year colleges (including community colleges) located and
accredited in the U.S. that have a College/Department of Engineering or
Engineering Technology with undergraduate programs in disciplines
usually supported by NSF. Projects may be proposed by individual
investigators or by groups from a College/Department of Engineering or
Engineering Technology. In addition, the Division of Undergraduate
Education offers another program that addresses this need more broadly,
such as the Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI)
program. This program is open to all organizations that can apply for
NSF funding, including colleges and universities.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Does NSF currently make any grants directly to secondary schools?
If not, why not?
A1. Yes, NSF has made, and continues to make, grants directly to
secondary schools and school districts, based on the merit review of
proposals submitted to programs such as Information Technology
Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST). In addition, secondary
school teachers are extensively involved in many awards made to other
organizations, such as universities, including nanotechnology education
awards that focus on instructional materials and professional
development.
Q2. You mention in your testimony that the University of Michigan
``has assembled the most significant and developmentally appropriate
learning goals in nanoscience for grade 7-12 learners.'' Can you
elaborate?
A2. NSF funded ``A Workshop to Identify and Clarify Nanoscale Learning
Goals'' (University of Michigan, PI Joseph Krajcik) to create learning
goals for grades 7-12. The three-day workshop held at SRI International
in Palo Alto, Calif., on June 14-16, 2006 identified key nanoscience
learning goals, which the PI and his team have developed into a
manuscript, ``The Big Ideas of Nanoscience.'' This report has been
widely circulated, discussed, and refined in the nanoscience education
community, and is scheduled to be published by the National Science
Teachers Association.
``Big Ideas'' identified in a recent draft of the report include
the following:
Size and Scale. Factors relating to size and scale
help describe matter and predict its behavior.
Structure of Matter. All matter is composed of atoms
in constant motion. Atoms interact to form molecules or
nanoscale structures interacting with each other to form
nanoscale assemblies. The arrangement of the building blocks
gives matter its properties.
Size-dependent Properties. The properties of matter
can change with scale. As the size of a material approaches the
nanoscale, it often exhibits unexpected properties that lead to
new functionality.
Forces. All interactions can be described by multiple
types of forces. On the nanoscale, electrical forces with
varying strength tend to dominate interactions.
Self-Assembly. Some materials can spontaneously
assemble into organized structures. The process provides a
useful way to manipulate matter at the nanoscale.
Tools and Instrumentation. Development of new tools
and instruments drives scientific progress. Recent development
of specialized tools has led to new understanding of matter by
helping scientists detect, manipulate, isolate, measure,
fabricate, and investigate nanoscale matter.
Models and Simulations. Because they are too small to
see, models are needed to understand, visualize, predict,
explain, and interpret data about nanoscale phenomena.
Nano and Society. The field of nanotechnology is
driven by the aim to advance broad societal goals. The products
of nanotechnology may impact our lives in both positive and
negative ways.
Quantum Mechanics. As the size or mass of an object
becomes smaller, the wave character becomes more important and
quantum mechanics becomes necessary to explain its behavior.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Nivedita M. Ganguly, Chairperson, Science Department, Oak
Ridge High School, Oak Ridge, TN
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. What research has been done on the learning and teaching of
nanotechnology? Do we know how kids best learn this subject? Is high
school nanotechnology curricula currently being developed and, if so,
by whom?
A1. Students agree almost unanimously that when they have done inquiry-
based labs with a variety of tools in a nanoscale it ``has changed
their view of the sciences and scientists.'' They also said that ``this
was the best experience that they had ever had in a science class and
they hoped that one day all high school students would have the
opportunity to have the same experiences.'' (Orange High School, North
Carolina)
There are a number of different sources of Nanotechnology Curricula
USA Nanotechnology Initiative has set up a
nanotechnology website for K-12 students. A Teacher's Guide has
also been written.
Nanaoscale Science is also in the process of
developing Teaching Modules.
National Center for Learning and Teaching in
Nanoscale Science (NCLT) at Northwestern University.
These are just two examples of a number of different sources.
Q2. What other models exist in other disciplines (pharmacology,
physics, chemistry, etc.) for continuous federal support of lab
equipment? Along the same lines, if H.R. 2436 singles out
nanotechnology, will this create tension between the disciplines/
employers of other high tech industries?
A2. There is not a continuous support of federal funds for lab
equipment. The way that we have been able to get them is through grants
from different agencies--National Science Foundation, Bioteach Grants
(started in Massachusetts, now slowly extending to other states).
Teachers write grants to equip their labs and through professional
development they are trained in their usage.
There will be no tension among the departments because
nanotechnology is a very specific tool which will be applicable to
every discipline.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Many of you testified that American students at all levels and the
public in general must have a significant understanding of
nanotechnology if America is to stay ahead in this field. Is this field
different from other emerging scientific areas, either past or present,
in a way that makes such widespread knowledge vital for the continued
success of American endeavors in this area?
A1. Because nanotechnology can be linked to a variety of applications,
we can help students of all ages understand how nanotechnology concepts
are relevant to their everyday lives. This relevance will get them more
excited about learning science and math. And because it integrates many
disciplines (chemistry, physics, biology, environmental science,
engineering etc.), it can build a strong interdisciplinary science
literacy, which is absolutely imperative in today's world.
Q2. What broader STEM education goals could exposure to nanotechnology
in high school help achieve?
A2. The reason why exposure to nanotechnology would help STEM education
is related to question 1--since it is a tool that underlies all the
sciences, it is a way to be kinesthetically, learn trouble-shooting
skills, and most importantly it will relate to their lives, they will
be more engaged and hence more likely to remain in the fields of
science and math. The number of students going into these areas is
steadily decreasing and we have to find ways to stop that.
Q3. In your interactions with other science teachers and department
Chairs across the country, do you sense that they want to push their
students further and keep them on the cutting edge, or are they simply
worried about teaching the basics?
A3. As a National Leader for the College Board I get a chance to travel
all over the country. So , I get a chance to meet and talk to a lot of
teachers and administers. We all agree that the basics have to be
taught. But, it should not stop there. To be competitive in the world
arena we have to make sure that our students are the cutting edge in
their learning. World wide there will be a need for two million nano
workers and we have to make sure that our students are part of the $2
trillion nanotechnology market.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Hamish L. Fraser, Ohio Regents Eminent Scholar and
Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
Ohio State University
Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. There is ongoing tension at the undergraduate level between
providing a strong disciplinary education as a foundation for almost
any STEM related academic or professional career, versus offering
broad, interdisciplinary undergraduate programs. Nanotechnology clearly
falls in the middle of that debate. Can you elaborate on whether you
are advocating individual courses in nanotechnology or whether you
would support the concept of a B.S. in nanotechnology, and if so, what
that might look like?
A1. I am not a strong advocate of the immediate establishment of a B.S.
in nanotechnology. I believe that nanotechnology impacts a large number
of courses that are presently taught and so faculty have the
opportunity to modify these existing classes to include relevant
aspects of nanotechnology. Of course, faculty will also establish new
courses with nanotechnology as the subject matter. As the number of
these modified and new courses grow, I would expect, and support, the
notion of a degree in a traditional area with specialization in
nanotechnology (for example, similar to our materials science and
engineering degrees with specializations in metals, ceramics, or
polymers, etc.).
Q2. You mentioned in your testimony working with Columbus City schools
to expose high school students to scanning electron microscopes. How
did this partnership begin and how is it funded?
A2. The interaction with the Columbus City Schools began as an
educational outreach activity of our Center for the Accelerated
Maturation of Materials (CAMM). We made contact with a number of school
districts, including Columbus, and found students from the Columbus
Alternative High School to be very eager to become interns for one day
per week. In this way, our outreach program was initiated and we have
been working in this mode for several years. I have no specific source
of funding for this activity and so make use of discretionary funds
that are generated by some of the activities of CAMM.
Q3. Is this type of nanotechnology equipment aligned with the
curricula currently in place? What prevents high schools from
purchasing this equipment now?
A3. The equipment is now available, at a cost of $60k per microscope.
We have not yet aligned the use of the equipment with current high
school curricula. We have been working with our high school interns to
ascertain what sort of projects on the microscope are feasible and
which will stimulate the imagination of students. It is our intention
to collaborate with high school teachers to effect the inclusion of the
instruments in their instructional materials. It is the cost of the
instruments that prevents high schools from acquiring the microscopes.
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Can you please explain how a course on nanotechnology differs from
materials science? Instrumental analysis? Characterization? Is your
goal to supply such equipment to majors and non-majors alike? If just
majors, are these students already exposed to this type of equipment in
their junior and senior years?
A1. In principle, a course on nanomaterials would be somewhat similar
to a course on materials science. There would be an emphasis on
understanding the role of scale, i.e., nanoscale, on the behavior and
properties of these types of materials. I would not advocate
establishing courses on instrument analysis or characterization
specifically for nanotechnology, as the present courses cover the
relevant material well.
I assume that your question refers to majors in materials science.
It is my experience that juniors and seniors are exposed to materials
characterization techniques, but their ``hands-on'' experience is
rather limited. I am an advocate of including use of these recently
developed and simplified instruments in a number of existing courses to
assist in familiarizing students with characterization.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Many of you testified that American students at all levels and the
public in general must have a significant understanding of
nanotechnology if America is to stay ahead in this field. Is this field
different from other emerging scientific areas, either past or present,
in a way that makes such widespread knowledge vital for the continued
success of American endeavors in this area?
A1. I believe that nanotechnology is rather different from other recent
technologies which have been the subject of national and international
focus. The reason is that nanotechnology impacts a very broad set of
disciplines, for example, physical sciences and engineering, medical
and bio-sciences, environmental sciences, food sciences, etc. It is
because of this very broad impact that in the future this technology
will have a very major influence on the Nation's economy. In contrast,
take for example high temperature superconductivity. The scientific
underpinning of this very important technological area is centered in
solid state physics and so, from an educational viewpoint, the
scientific impact is rather narrow.
The requirement for widespread knowledge in the case of
nanotechnology arises from the need to develop a workforce that will be
sufficiently equipped to permit exploitation of the economic advantages
that nanotechnology will offer.
Q2. You indicated in your testimony that university faculty have
almost no access to funding support to assist in the development of
undergraduate courses that would be coupled with lab experiences. Were
you aware of the NSF-funded undergraduate programs described by Dr.
Ucko?
A2. I am aware of the funding opportunities currently offered by NSF.
It has been my experience that faculty apply for instruments which may
be used both for research and instruction. In this case, the complexity
of the operation of the equipment limits its useful application in the
classroom. The proposed bill is focused on education, involving
acquisition of simplified instruments and the development of education
modules that will increase the ``hands-on'' time for students.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ray Vandiver, Vice President of New Project Development,
Oregon Museum of Science and Industry
Question submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Many of you testified that American students at all levels and the
public in general must have a significant understanding of
nanotechnology if America is to stay ahead in this field. Is this field
different from other emerging scientific areas, either past or present,
in a way that makes such widespread knowledge vital for the continued
success of American endeavors in this area?
A1. Nanotechnology has been described as the convergence of physics,
chemistry, and biology. The study and use of nanotechnology covers a
broad range of disciplines and industries and can be thought of as its
own area of science focus. It is more comparable to the field of
chemistry or physics rather than a specific area of study such as
genetic engineering or particle physics.
Nanotechnology is projected to have large impacts on the economy,
the environment, and on quality of life. It will likely become embedded
or play a significant factor in many of the products and procedures
that will influence our lives and future. It is important for the
general public to have context and confidence in this emerging field as
it will have direct impact on them.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. You testified that professional development funding is rare,
incredibly valuable, and in great need to the informal science
community, yet the bill before us today limits funding for this to 25
percent of the grant amount. Is this sufficient? Would you purchase
nanotechnology equipment for your museum patrons to use? How many
people do you estimate would use the equipment each year?
A1. Twenty-five percent of the grant amount could cover either the
development of or the delivery of facilitated instruction and workshops
for the professional development of museum educators. The amount would
not be sufficient to cover both development and delivery. OMSI is
always striving to provide direct access and experience to our visitors
with exhibits and props that communicate cutting edge and emerging
science and technology topics. We would be interested in purchasing
exhibits and equipment that are designed specifically for use in the
hands-on setting of a science museum. OMSI receives on average 750,000
visitors annually to our facility. Of that number, any one exhibit or
lab experience will typically be experienced by 10 percent of the
total. Based on this estimate, we would expect 75,000 people annually
to be impacted by an exhibit or program on nanotechnology.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Submitted to Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance
These questions were submitted to the witness, but were not
responded to by the time of publication.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Many of you testified that American students at all levels and the
public in general must have a significant understanding of
nanotechnology if America is to stay ahead in this field. Is this field
different from other emerging scientific areas, either past or present,
in a way that makes such widespread knowledge vital for the continued
success of American endeavors in this area?
Q2. What is the nanobusiness community's chief concern relating to
STEM education?
Q3. Are nanotechnology businesses currently able to hire enough
qualified people? Can you predict a future trend? What is the impact of
the high level of reliance on foreign students in American graduate
science programs?
Q4. After the Sputnik launch 50 years ago this Thursday, we passed the
National Defense Education Act to jump-start our nation's ability to
generate aerospace scientists and engineers. There may not be a nano-
Sputnik right now to focus our attention, but are we in danger of
falling behind in nanotechnology? Specifically, are we going to be in
trouble as we try to move beyond academic research to applications?
Q5. Technical education is undervalued in America, but I believe it is
only going to become more important in the future. Recognizing that we
are very early in the process of commercializing nanotechnology, what
skills do you think will be required by nanotechnology businesses as
they scale up and hire not just scientists and researchers, but
technicians?
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. What is the average cost of the nanotechnology equipment your
members wish to have the government purchase? What are the maintenance
costs? What is the useful life of the equipment?
Q2. Are your members currently working on nanoscience education
curricula? If so, are they collaborating with anyone on this effort and
what type of research has been completed to help develop these
curricula? Are you working with school districts to gauge where they
are in being prepared to utilize this equipment?
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director, National Science
Teachers' Association
Q1. What research has been done on the learning and teaching of
nanotechnology?
A1. One of the goals of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a
long-term research and development program, is to educate and train ``a
new generation of skilled workers in the multi-disciplinary
perspectives necessary for rapid progress in nanotechnology.'' To
support these educational goals, the National Science Foundation has
funded several groups, including Nanoscale Science Engineering Centers
(NSECs), Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSECs),
National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network sites (NNIN), Nanoscale
Informal Science Education network (NISE), and the National Center for
Learning and Teaching Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NCLT), and
Nanoscience Instructional Materials Development (NIMS) projects to
create materials to inform the public (and then students) about
nanoscience.
Q2. Do we know how kids best learn this subject?
A2. In an upcoming publication from the National Science Teachers
Association titled ``The Big Ideas of Nanoscience,'' authors Shawn
Stevens, LeeAnn Sutherland, and Joseph Krajcik from the University of
Michigan Ann Arbor, and Patricia Schank, from SRI International,
discuss this issue.
Much more work is needed to determine how children can best learn
this subject. According to the authors, we first need to ``clarify the
significant and developmentally appropriate learning goals in
nanoscience for grade 7-16 learners. For nanoscience ideas to be used
in schools, they need to be a component of the recognized learning
goals for the Nation's youth.''
``Because this is such a new field, debate exists about what should
be included under the nanoscience and nanotechnology umbrella-the only
agreement being that `very small things' are involved. Although
nanoscale concepts may be addressed in particular fields and courses,
education has yet to systematically address nanoscale concepts in an
integrated, cross-disciplinary fashion. The basic physics of atoms and
molecules, for example, is the foundation of all science; therefore,
early emphasis on these concepts would likely prove beneficial for
students as they study biology, chemistry, physics and Earth science.
Building understanding in all of these disciplines from the atomic and
molecular level can facilitate the interdisciplinary connections that
students need to make to understand nanoscience and other emerging
science. However, education traditionally presents concepts in a
discipline-defined rather than cross-disciplinary manner.''
``Incorporating any emerging scientific field into the classroom
presents many challenges. As with any addition to the curriculum, new
materials must be developed, and professional development must be
implemented in order to prepare teachers to successfully support
student learning. However, emerging science brings with it unique
challenges and questions. Which topics are the most important? Which
ones can and should be incorporated into the curriculum? At what grade
level is it appropriate to introduce particular concepts? Where in the
instructional sequence do concepts logically build on what came before
and what will follow? How do new ideas connect to those already a part
of the traditional science curriculum? How are these new topics
prioritized relative to traditional science concepts? Determining the
answers to these questions is a difficult and complex process that
requires a coordinated effort between scientists, educators,
researchers and policy-makers.''
``Increasing the challenge for the educational community is the
interdisciplinary nature of nanoscience, which sets it apart from the
disciplines contained in a traditional grades 7-16 science curriculum.
Science in American schools tends to be taught in disciplinary fashion,
with emphasis on biology, chemistry or physics, rather than on concepts
important across disciplines. Emphasis on cross-disciplinary concepts
would arguably enable students to develop deeper conceptual
understanding than is currently the case. The interdisciplinary nature
of nanoscience (and other emerging science) necessitates erasure of the
curricular demarcations traditionally supported in schools. As a model,
science laboratories that are the source of major breakthroughs are
often comprised of interdisciplinary teams (Ref). The learning goals
associated with nanoscience must explicitly foster interdisciplinary
connections as well as deeper understanding of fundamental, core
concepts and principles.''
``It is important to consider how the learning goals in nanoscience
align with national standards. In the current educational climate,
schools are under increasing pressure to show that their students can
succeed on high-stakes examinations aligned with Standards. But,
without explicit links to the national, State or local standards, new
scientific ideas are difficult to introduce into the curriculum.''
``Related to that is the question of how nanoscience is introduced.
It is imperative that nanoscience not be considered a ``topic'' in the
curriculum, but must be integrated such that nanoscience concepts are
brought to the fore at appropriate points within the curriculum. In the
past, emerging science topics were often taught as separate entities,
and the links between traditional science ideas and new ones were not
emphasized (i.e., newer topics are often taught in stand-alone units).
Because they are not part of the formal curriculum, new ideas may not
be well connected to traditional concepts either in their presentation
or in terms of students' conceptual development, even though
connections can illuminate the process of science for students as well
as provide a motivation for them to learn science.''
``It seems clear that a better strategy would be to carefully and
systematically integrate new scientific ideas into the curriculum,
making it more interdisciplinary in the process. Connections between
nanoscience and traditional mathematics and science must be explicit
for students. These connections should be made not just within a single
class, but across grades. In order to achieve this, materials must be
developed that support learning core principles, while also aligning
with the national, State and local standards. However, as the
nanotechnology revolution was in its infancy when the Benchmarks (AAAS,
1993) and Standards (NRC, 1996) were written, many concepts critical
for understanding nanoscale science were not included or explicitly
specified.''
``Therefore, the learning goals associated with nanoscience must
explicitly foster the necessary interdisciplinary connections. Because
these connections have not historically been fostered at either the
secondary or post-secondary level, the teachers themselves may not have
made them. Therefore, these connections must be made explicit to
teachers through professional development and curriculum materials.''
``Having a set of agreed upon learning goals for nanoscience will
help ensure that all components of the educational system including
curriculum, instruction, and assessment can be aligned. Alignment
occurs once learning goals are clearly defined, specified, and
developed. Learning goals drive state assessments that, in turn drive
materials, resources and teacher education. Identifying appropriate
nanoscience learning goals will allow the development of aligned
science education that will provide students with the ability to
explain phenomena within and between disciplines (Wilson & Berenthal,
2006). Aligning all parts of the system to learning goals fosters the
development of instructional tools and resources, educational
experiences for teachers, research studies, and policies that are
focused on these same critical ends.''
Q3. Is high school nanotechnology curricula being developed and, if
so, by whom?
A3. The NanoLeap project is developing instructional materials that
teach high school students about nanoscale science. The curriculum
modules, entitled A NANOLEAP INTO NEW SCIENCE, will include student
activities, experiments, and assessments for use as replacement units
in high school physical science and chemistry courses. The materials
will promote student learning of the interdisciplinary nanoscale core
concepts of force (physics) as it relates to properties of matter
(chemistry), scale (mathematics), scientific instrumentation
(technology), and processes (inquiry). Teacher guides and professional
development opportunities will address the varied needs of the science
education community and ensure effective classroom implementation. This
work is supported by the National Science Foundation, Division of
Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education award #ESI-0426401.
SRI International, an independent research and development
organization, received a four-year, $925,000 grant from the National
Science Foundation to help high school students visualize the
principles of nanoscience and nanotechnology--the physical, chemical,
and biological behavior of particles on a nanoscopic scale. SRI's
program, NanoSense, brings an interdisciplinary approach to viewing
core concepts from physics, chemistry, biology, materials science and
engineering through a different lens. The NanoSense curriculum will
include classroom-tested activities to help high school students
understand the underlying principles, applications and implications of
nanoscale science. Some of the activities will be simple, one-day
enrichment activities, and others will span several class periods.
These activities will be conducted in science-related classrooms at
five high schools prior to national dissemination. Teachers will work
with the NanoSense team to advise on activity development and conduct
pilot tests. A few hundred students are expected to engage in program
activities.
During the program, SRI researchers will study how students improve
their understanding of nanoscience concepts and technological
applications over time, and how teachers use the NanoSense tools and
activities to support student discourse and understanding.
NanoSense builds on ChemSense, an NSF-funded SRI program to study
students' understanding of chemistry and develop software and
curriculum to help students investigate chemical systems and express
their ideas in animated chemical notation. SRI is working closely with
chemists, physicists, educators and nanoscientists to generate
nanoscience activities that build on ChemSense activities.
The NSF funded Center for Learning and Teaching in Nanoscale
Science and Engineering (NCLT), under the direction of Northwestern
Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Robert P.H. Chang, will
develop scientist-educators who can introduce nanoscience and
nanoengineering concepts into schools and undergraduate classrooms.
Additionally, it will play the key role in a national network of
researchers and educators committed to ensuring that all Americans are
academically prepared to participate in the new opportunities
nanotechnology will offer.
The NCLT is a partnership between Northwestern University, Purdue
University, the University of Michigan, Argonne National Laboratories,
and the Universities of Illinois at Chicago and Urbana-Champaign.
Drawing on the strengths of the various partners in nanotechnology,
instruction-materials development, educational assessment, and student
cognition, the NCLT will create modular education materials designed to
integrate with existing curricula in grades 7-12, and to align with
national and state science education standards. Each module will be
based on topics from nanoscience and nanoengineering, selected and
developed by an interdisciplinary team including scientists, engineers,
education researchers and graduate students, and practicing teachers.
Expanded versions of the modules will be targeted at community colleges
and undergraduate institutions and will eventually serve as the core of
semester-long courses in nanotechnology.
Exploring the Nanoworld website, an offering of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison Materials Research Science and Engineering Center
(MRSEC) Interdisciplinary Education Group (IEG), is an excellent
resource for teachers and students of all ages. Available on the site
are movies, slide shows, kits and references (including the Lego
nanobricks booklet), and modules for K-12 teachers. See also UW's
Educator Resources page from the Internships in Public Science
Education program.
Northwestern University's Materials World Modules. This center has
produced a series of interdisciplinary modules based on topics in
materials science, including composites, ceramics, concrete,
biosensors, biodegradable materials, smart sensors, polymers, food
packaging, and sports materials. The modules are designed for use in
middle and high school science, technology, and math classes and have
been used by over 9,000 students in schools nationwide.
Nanotechnology Education Kits, experiential learning materials for
middle and high school students, are available from NanoSonic,
Blacksburg, Va. See also Nanoscience Education online.
Nanoscale Science Education Center at University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill, shows middle and high school students how an atomic force
microscope works and features experiments on live viruses. One of their
partners is the Nanoscale Science Education Group at North Carolina
State University's College of Education.
Penn State University's Center for Nanotechnology Education and
Utilization offers resources such as Workshops for Educators and a
video about ``Careers in Nanofabrication'' that you can view online or
order a free copy. High school students from across Pennsylvania can
attend a three-day summer ``Nanotech Camp.'' These nanotech camps
provide secondary school students with an orientation to basic
nanofabrication processes and applications, and the opportunity to
observe these same nanofabrication processes in the Penn State
Nanofabrication Facility.
The Nanotechnology Simulation Hub centered at Purdue University has
online experiences in nanotechnology available.
The Nanobiotechnology Center located at Cornell University has
special Teacher Resources, including online lesson plans for K-12
student activities and information about Montessori curriculum
development.
NanoKidsTM, is a project of Rice University's Tour Group. An
overview of the program is online.
Interactive Nano-visualization in Science and Engineering Education
(IN-VSEE) is a consortium of university and industry scientists and
engineers, community college and high school science faculty and museum
educators with a common vision of creating an interactive web site to
develop a new educational thrust based on remote operation of advanced
microscopes and nano-fabrication tools coupled to powerful surface
characterization methods.
NANOPOLISTM offers intuitive multimedia educational material on
nanotechnology, a result of the collaboration with more than 200
research groups worldwide.
New programs to promote, educate and excite young people about the
amazing world of nanotechnology are being designed under a partnership
between the NanoBusiness Alliance and the National Science & Technology
Education Partnership (NSTEP).
Q4. Is this type of nanotechnology equipment aligned with the
curricula currently in place?
A4. We know of no research that has determined if this type of
nanotechnology equipment is aligned with current curriculum.
Q5. What prevents high schools from purchasing this equipment now?
A5. A lack of funding prevents high schools from purchasing this
equipment. According to the 2000 National Survey of Science and
Mathematics Education, an NSF-funded project conducted by Horizon
Research, the median amount high schools spent per year on science
equipment was $1,000. The median amount high schools spent per year on
consumable supplies was $1,500, and the median amount high schools
spent per year on software was $100. Broken down on a per pupil basis:
$2.05 was the median amount high schools spent per
pupil on science equipment
$3.12 was the median amount high schools spent per
pupil on consumable supplies
$0.19 was the median amount high schools spent per
pupil on software.
Q6. Many of you testified that American students at all levels and the
public in general must have a significant understanding of
nanotechnology if America is to stay ahead in this field. Is this field
different from other emerging scientific areas, either past or present,
in a way that makes such widespread knowledge vital for the continued
success of American endeavors in this area?
A6. While we believe that nanotechnology is an emerging important
research area and employment opportunity, it is difficult to see how
this is different from microbiology and global climate change, to
mention just two examples. What our nation's children need is a solid
foundation in the fundamental aspects of science that are the
precursors of success in any of the emerging 21st century technologies.
Q7. Your testimony has focused on the need to address fundamental
problems in our science classroom--the need to bring up the trailing
edge of our nation's science education infrastructure. But should we
not at the same time push forward the leading edge, by giving good
schools the opportunity to teach their capable students 21st century
science?
A7. Yes, we need to address both ``ends of the spectrum'' (as well as
the middle). In the 21st century our nation needs to invest its limited
resources in areas that will have the largest impact. The fundamental
problems in our nation's science classrooms (specifically the science
laboratory experiences) is not confined to just cohort of students. As
stated in the National Research Council's report, America's Lab Report,
our nation's science education laboratories are in dire shape with
researchers and educators not even agreeing on how to define high
school science laboratories or on their purposes.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record