[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 16, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-672 PDF 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 TOM FEENEY, Florida
LAURA RICHARDSON, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana VACANCY
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
April 16, 2008
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority
Ranking Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 13
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Witnesses:
Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme, Co-Chair, President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 24
Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 27
Biography.................................................... 29
Dr. Joseph S. Krajcik, Professor of Science Education; Associate
Dean of Research, University of Michigan
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 36
Dr. Andrew D. Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 38
Biography.................................................... 61
Dr. Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology for Industrial
Chemicals, BASF Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 61
Written Statement............................................ 63
Biography.................................................... 64
Dr. Robert R. Doering, Senior Fellow and Research Strategy
Manager, Texas Instruments
Oral Statement............................................... 64
Written Statement............................................ 66
Biography.................................................... 69
Discussion....................................................... 70
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme, Co-Chair, President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology......................................... 90
Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance...... 93
Dr. Joseph S. Krajcik, Professor of Science Education; Associate
Dean of Research, University of Michigan....................... 95
Dr. Andrew D. Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars....................................................... 99
Dr. Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology for Industrial
Chemicals, BASF Corporation.................................... 103
Dr. Robert R. Doering, Senior Fellow and Research Strategy
Manager, Texas Instruments..................................... 105
THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2008
wednesday, april 16, 2008
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, April 16, 2008, the Committee on Science and
Technology will hold a hearing to review legislation that proposes
changes to various aspects of the planning and implementation
mechanisms for and to the content of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI). The legislation includes changes to strengthen the
planning and implementation of the environment, health, & safety (EHS)
component of NNI; to increase emphasis on nanomanufacturing research,
technology transfer, and commercialization of research results flowing
from the program; to create a new NNI component of focused, large-scale
research and development projects in areas of national importance; and
to enhance support for K-16 nanotechnology-related education programs.
The legislation is based on findings and recommendations from
formal reviews in 2002 and 2006 of the NNI by the National Academy of
Sciences and in 2005 by the President's Council of Advisors for Science
and Technology, which currently serves as the advisory committee for
the NNI; witness testimony from NNI hearings from this and the past
Congress; and recommendations resulting from staff discussions with
various stakeholder groups.
A section-by-section summary of the bill is attached as an appendix
to this memo.
2. Witnesses
Mr. Floyd E. Kvamme, Co-Chair, President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology
Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance
Dr. Joseph Krajcik, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of
Education, University of Michigan
Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center
Dr. Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology, BASF Corporation on behalf of
the American Chemistry Council
Dr. Robert R. Doering, Senior Fellow and Research Strategy Manager,
Texas Instruments and on behalf of the Semiconductor Industry
Association.
3. Overarching Questions
Does the legislation address key issues for improving
the way the NNI is planned and implemented and for ensuring
that the program is positioned to help maintain U.S. leadership
in nanotechnology?
Are the changes proposed in the legislation to
strengthen the planning, coordination, and prioritization
process for research to address concerns about environmental
and safety ramifications of nanotechnology likely to be
effective? Is the requirement for a minimum funding level for
this aspect of the program reasonable and necessary?
Will the bill assist in overcoming the barriers to
commercialization of nanotechnologies, help enhance NNI support
for research in areas relevant to the needs of industry, and
make user facilities supported under the NNI more welcoming to
industrial users, thereby assisting with the transfer of
research results to usable products that benefit the public?
Is there a need for resources under the NNI to be
readjusted to include a component for support of large-scale
research and development projects focused on specific problems
of national importance?
Does the proposed legislation adequately address
support for nanotechnology education under the NNI?
4. Background
Summary of Past NNI Hearings
During the 110th Congress, the Committee has held three NNI related
hearings. The first, Nanotechnology Education [Serial No. 110-60], was
held October 2nd, 2007 by the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education. The witnesses, who represented the Federal Government,
industry, and educational institutions and science educators at all
levels, agreed that nanotechnology education is an important component
of a strategy to capitalize on the promise of this advancing field.
Several witnesses discussed the importance of early nanotechnology
education, including informal education, for generating awareness,
information and excitement about nanotechnology among young students
and the general public. Witnesses were unanimous in expressing support
for increasing formal education in nanotechnology beginning at the
undergraduate level, including at two-year colleges because of their
important role in supplying much of the 21st Century skilled workforce.
A representative from the National Science Foundation provided an
overview of the many activities in formal and informal nanotechnology
education at all levels already supported by the Federal Government.
A second hearing, Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of
Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation under the
National Nanotechnology Initiative [Serial No. 110-69], was held on
October 31, 2007. This hearing addressed the need and motivation for
research on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) aspects of
nanotechnology. In addition, the hearing sought to determine the
current state of planning and implementation of EHS research under the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), and explore whether changes
are needed to the current mechanisms for planning and implementing EHS
research. Witnesses included the representatives from the organizations
charged with the development of the EHS plan as well as non-
governmental organizations focused on the societal implications of
nanotechnology. The hearing highlighted the unanimous position by all
witnesses regarding the importance of EHS research for the development
of nanotechnology and the necessity of a well designed and adequately
funded EHS research component of the NNI. However, there was concern
that the interagency planning for and implementation of the EHS
research component of NNI was not moving with the urgency it deserved.
While the organizations responsible for plan development and
implementation claimed that the current process is effective and that
the participating agencies believe the process is working well, the
non-governmental organizations were unanimous in their recommendations
for changes in the planning process as well as increases in the
priority of EHS in the overall NNI basic research funding.
A third hearing, The Transfer of National Nanotechnology Initiative
Research Outcomes for Commercial and Public Benefit [Serial No. 110-82]
was held on March 11, 2008 by the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education. Witnesses included representatives of State- and federally-
funded nanotechnology research and user facilities, industry, and a
state-based technology transfer and funding organization. The witnesses
stressed the importance of basic research in nanomanufacturing and
adequate funding of geographically diverse user facilities. The
witnesses were clear that basic research funding should be broad to
allow for new discoveries and pioneering research; however, they
indicated that it would be wise to focus some funding and planning
toward commercialization. They suggested that this might be
accomplished through demonstration projects or by defining areas of
global competitiveness. Many of the witnesses testified that the SBIR
and ATP/TIP programs are very important for the development of
innovative technologies and felt that the program should emphasize the
funding of nanotechnology projects.
NNI Organization and Funding
The National Nanotechnology Initiative was authorized by the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-
153). In accordance with the Act, the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) through the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology (NSET) Subcommittee plans and coordinates the NNI. The Act
authorized the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) to
provide technical and administrative support to the NSET for this
coordination. There are currently twenty-six federal agencies that
participate in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, with 13 of those
agencies reporting a research and development budget. Research related
to the NNI is organized into eight program component areas including:
Fundamental Nanoscale Phenomena and Processes; Nanomaterials; Nanoscale
Devices and Systems; Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and
Standards; Nanomanufacturing; Major Research Facilities and Instrument
Acquisition; Environment, Health, and Safety; and Education and
Societal Dimensions. More information on the organization and structure
of the NNI can be found in the Congressional Research Service Report,
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and
Appropriations Issues at http://www.congress.gov/erp/rl/pdf/
RL34401.pdf.
The total estimated NNI budget for FY 2008 was $1.49 billion. Total
planned funding for the NNI in FY 2009 is $1.53 billion. More
information on the NNI program content and budget can be found at
http://www.nano.gov/
NNI-FY09-budget-summary.pdf and http:/
/www.nano.gov/NNI-08Budget.pdf.
Spending on EHS, Nanomanufacturing, and Education
EHS: The President's FY 2009 budget requests $1.5 billion for the NNI.
Of this amount, the budget proposes $76.4 million (five percent of the
overall program) for research on EHS research. This is a 30 percent
increase over the FY08 funding level. More than 40 percent of this
funding would go to NSF.
Nanomanufacturing and Commercialization: The FY 2008 estimated budget
for nanomanufacturing research (a component that is closely tied to
bridging the gap between basic research and the development of
commercial products) was $50.2 million dollars which is 3.3 percent of
the total budget. The NNI planned investment in nanomanufacturing
research for FY 2009 is $62.1 million, a 24 percent increase. This
amount is four percent of the total FY 2009 proposed budget. In
addition, $161.3 million is planned for major facilities and instrument
acquisition, which can be utilized towards production of prototypes
leading to commercialization.
Education: As part of its contribution to the NNI, NSF supports a
number of educational activities designed to teach K-16 students,
science teachers, faculty members, and the general public about
nanotechnology. Major education programs 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 nanoscale science and engineering (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 last 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.
NSF also has a Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education Program
funded at $42.7 million since 2003. The grants in this program have
gone to develop curriculum and purchase equipment for undergraduate
students in different science and engineering disciplines. As part of
the Advanced Technology Education Centers program, NSF has provided
$2.68 million since 2004 to develop nanotechnology related technician
education programs at community colleges.
Environment, Health, & Safety Planning
In October 2003, the NSET organized an interagency Nanotechnology
Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group to
coordinate environmental and safety research carried out under the NNI.
One of the NEHI Working Group's initial tasks was developing a
prioritized plan for EHS research. In March 2006, the Administration
informed the Science Committee that this report would be completed that
spring, but the document that was finally released in September 2006
was a non-prioritized list of EHS research areas. A further iteration
of the EHS research plan, which was released for public comment in
August 2007, presented a rationale for the process of defining EHS
research priorities and provided a reduced set of priorities based on
the previous report. Finally, in February 2008, the Strategy for
Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research\2\
document was released. This document provided a more in depth
assessment of current research needs and priorities; however, it failed
to provide a schedule and timelines for meeting objectives and the
proposed funding levels by topic and by agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Available at http://www.nano.gov/
NNI-EHS-Research-Strategy.pdf
Commercialization and Technology Transfer of Nanotechnology
User Facilities
The NNI funding agencies support nanotechnology user facilities to
assist researchers (academic, government, and industry) in fabricating
and studying nanoscale materials and devices. The facilities may also
be used by companies for developing ideas into prototypes and
investigating proof of concept. The National Science Foundation
supports 17 facilities under its National Nanotechnology Infrastructure
Network (NNIN), four of which are focused on nanomanufacturing. The
Department of Energy maintains five Nanoscale Science Research Centers,
each focused on and specific to a different area of nanoscale research.
The National Institutes of Health has a Nanotechnology Characterization
Laboratory in Frederick, MD and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology maintains a user facility in Gaithersburg, MD. The
application processes for each facility varies; however, all are open
to academic, government, or industry users. In addition to the user
facilities, the NNI is carried out in over 70 centers and institutes\3\
throughout the country mostly on university campuses, many of which
have user facilities that are open to all applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Information of NNI related user facilities and centers and
institutes can be found at www.nano.gov.
SBIR/STTR Programs
P.L. 108-153 encourages support for nanotechnology related projects
through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small
Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) programs by requiring the
National Science and Technology Council to ``develop a plan to utilize
federal programs, such as the Small Business Innovation Research
Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program, in
support of the [NNI activities]. . ..'' Despite the lack of a formal
plan, the SBIR and STTR programs have been used as a vehicle to bring
nanotechnology research developed by small business concerns closer to
commercialization. The total SBIR and STTR program spending in all
technology areas in FY 2006 was nearly $2.2 billion, of that budget
$79.7 million was identified as nanotechnology related research.\4\
This was 3.7 percent of the total SBIR/STTR spending in FY 2006 and
included nine federal agencies. SBIR/STTR funding is allowable for
development of technologies from concept to prototype; however, funding
of scale-up to manufacturing does not fall within the SBIR/STTR scope
of funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the
President's FY 2008 Budget. July 2007, p. 24.
5. Witness Questions
All witnesses were asked to give their views on the provisions of
the bill, including any recommendations for ways to improve it. The
list of overarching questions (item 3 above) was included in the
invitation letters.
Appendix
Section-by-Section Summary of Draft National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) Amendments Bill
SEC. 1. Short Title
National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.
SEC. 2. Amendments to the 2003 Act
Modifies the NNI strategic plan to require specification of (1)
both near and long-term objectives, (2) the timeframe for achieving
near-term objectives, (3) the metrics for measuring progress toward
objectives, and (4) multi-agency funded projects in areas of
significant economic and societal impacts (see SEC. 5).
Authorizes agencies participating in the NNI to support travel
expenses for scientists to participate in standards setting activities
related to nanotechnology.
Provides an explicit funding source for the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office (NNCO)--each participating agency provides funds in
proportion to the agency's fraction of the overall NNI budget--and
requires the NNCO to report annually on its current and future budget
requirements, including funding needed to create and maintain new
public databases (see following provision) and to fulfill the public
input and outreach requirements specified in the 2003 Act.
Requires the NNCO to (1) develop a public database for projects
funded under the Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS), Education and
Societal Dimensions, and Nanomanufacturing program component areas,
with sub-breakouts for education and ELSI projects; and (2) develop,
maintain and publicize information about nanotechnology facilities
available for use by academia and industry.
Specifies that the NNI Advisory Panel must be a stand-alone
advisory committee (at present the President's Council of Advisors for
Science and Technology is assigned this role).
Requires the NNI Advisory Panel to establish a sub-panel with
members having qualifications tailored to assessing the societal,
ethical, legal, environmental, and workforce activities supported by
the NNI.
Revises the charge to the National Research Council (NRC) for the
content and scope of the triennial reviews of the NNI.
Provides an explicit funding authorization to OSTP of $500K/year
for FY09-11 for the NRC triennial reviews.
SEC. 3. Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology
Assigns responsibility to an OSTP associate director (to be
determined by the OSTP Director) to fulfill the role of Coordinator for
the societal dimensions component of NNI. The coordinator is (1)
responsible for ensuring the strategic plan for EHS is completed and
implemented; (2) serves as the focal point for encouraging and
advocating buy-in by the agencies, and monitoring their compliance, in
providing the resources and management attention necessary; and (3) is
responsible for encouraging the agencies to explore suitable mechanisms
for establishing public-private partnerships for support of EHS
research.
Requires the Coordinator to convene and chair a panel of
representatives from agencies supporting research under the EHS program
component area to develop, annually update, and coordinate the
implementation of a research plan for this program component. The plan,
which is to be appended to the statutorily required NNI annual report,
must contain near- and long-term research goals and milestones, include
multi-year funding requirements by agency and by goal, and take into
consideration the recommendations of the NNI Advisory Panel and the
agencies responsible for environmental and safety regulations. The plan
must include standards development activities related to nomenclature,
standard reference materials, and testing methods and procedures.
Requires that at least 10 percent of the total NNI budget be
allocated to the EHS program component area.
Establishes Nanotechnology Education Partnerships as part of the
NSF Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program to recruit and help
prepare secondary school students to pursue post-secondary education in
nanotechnology. These partnerships are similar to other MSPs, but must
include one or more businesses engaged in nanotechnology and focus the
educational activities on curriculum development, teacher professional
development, and student enrichment (including access by student to
nanotechnology facilities and equipment) in areas related to
nanotechnology.
Requires the Program to include within the Education and Societal
Dimensions program component area activities to support nanotechnology
undergraduate education, including support for course development,
faculty professional development, and acquisition of equipment and
instrumentation. To carry out these activities, the bill authorizes an
additional $5M per year for FY 2009 and FY 2010 for the NSF Course,
Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program (undergraduate STEM
education program open to all institutions of higher education) and an
additional $5M per year for FY 2009 and FY 2010 for the NSF Advanced
Technological Education program (open only to two-year institutions).
Requires formation of an Education Working Group to coordinate,
prioritize, and plan the educational activities funded under NNI.
SEC. 4. Technology Transfer
Requires agencies supporting nanotechnology research facilities
under NNI to allow, and encourage, use of these facilities to assist
companies in developing prototype products, devices, or processes for
determining proof of concept. The agencies are required to publicize
the availability of these facilities and provide descriptions of the
capabilities of the facilities and the procedures and rules for their
use.
Requires agencies to encourage applications for support of
nanotechnology projects under SBIR and STTR programs, requires
publication of the plan to encourage this within six months (plan
originally required under the 2003 Act), and requires a report that
will track the success of the programs in attracting and supporting
nanotechnology projects.
Requires NIST to encourage submission of proposals under the
Technology Innovation Program (TIP) for support of nanotechnology
related projects and to report to Congress on how this is to be
accomplished and on the outcome of the effort over time. Requires the
TIP Advisory Board to provide advice to the program on ways to increase
the number of nanotechnology related proposals and to assess the
adequacy of funding provided for such proposals.
Encourages the creation of industry liaison groups in all relevant
industry sectors (four currently exist) and specifically suggests
establishing one focused on companies that produce and use composite
materials.
Adds to the activities enumerated by the 2003 Act that are required
to be carried out under the NNI the coordination and leveraging of
federal investments with nanotechnology research, development, and
technology transition initiatives supported by the states.
SEC. 5. Research in Areas of National Importance
Requires the NNI to include support for large-scale research and
development projects involving collaborations among universities,
industry, federal labs, and non-profit research organizations to
accelerate development of promising nanotechnology research discoveries
toward near-term solutions to problems in areas of national importance,
such as electronics, energy efficiency, health care, and water
remediation.
Requires that the competitive, merit based selection process for
awards and the funding of these awards be carried out through a
collaboration between at least two agencies and that the award
selection process take into favorable consideration the availability of
cost sharing from non-federal sources.
Project awards may be for support of interdisciplinary research
centers, and all must include a plan for transferring technology
developed under the projects to industry.
SEC. 6. Nanomanufacturing Research
Specifies inclusion of research under the Nanomanufacturing program
component area to include projects to develop instrumentation/tools for
rapid characterization and monitoring for nanoscale manufacturing and
to develop techniques for scaling nanomaterial synthesis to industrial-
level production rates.
Requires that centers established under the NNI on
nanomanufacturing and on applications in areas of national importance
(SEC. 5) include support for interdisciplinary research and education
on methods and approaches to develop environmentally benign nanoscale
products and nanoscale manufacturing processes.
Requires a public meeting and subsequent review by the NNI Advisory
Panel of the adequacy of the funding level and the relevance to
industry's needs of research under the Nanomanufacturing program
component area.
SEC. 7. Definitions
Chairman Gordon. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order, and I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing to
review a draft Committee bill on the amendment in order to
amend and strengthen the National Nanotechnology Initiative. I
think this is one of the most important hearings that we're
going to have this year. I know that we have a busy day for
Members in other committees, but we have a lot of staff
watching this on TV; and so there will be a lot of information
that will be communicated from the hearing, and I appreciate
you again being here.
The term revolutionary technology has become a cliche, but
nanotechnology truly is revolutionary. We stand at the
threshold of an age in which materials and devices can be
fashioned atom-by-atom to satisfy specified design
requirements. Nanotechnology-based applications are arising
that were not even imagined a decade ago.
Nanotechnology is not a single technology, but rather is a
collection of tools and concepts for observing, controlling,
and manipulating matter at the atomic scale.
The range of potential applications is broad and will have
enormous consequences for electronics, energy transformation
and storage, materials, and medicine and health, to name just a
few. Indeed, the scope of this technology is so broad as to
leave virtually no product untouched.
The Science and Technology Committee recognized the promise
of nanotechnology early on, holding our first hearing a decade
ago to review federal activities in the field. The Committee
was subsequently instrumental in the development and enactment
of a statute in 2003 that authorized the interagency National
Nanotechnology Initiative, or the NNI. The 2003 statute put in
place formal interagency planning, budgeting, and coordinating
mechanisms for NNI. It now receives funding from 13 agencies
and has a budget of $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2008, which
represents a doubling of the budget over the last five years.
The NNI statute also provides for formal reviews of the
content and management of the program by the National Academies
and by a designated advisory committees of non-government
experts. Their assessments of NNI have been generally positive.
The cooperation and planning processes among the
participating agencies in the NNI have been also largely
effective. The NNI has led to productive, cooperative research
efforts across a spectrum of disciplines. It has established a
network of national facilities for support of nanoscale
research and development.
Therefore, the NNI does not require extensive renovation.
The draft bill leaves its major features unchanged but does
adjust some important priorities and strengthen some specific
aspects of the program. I would like to highlight two key
features of the bill.
The first area is risk reduction. Nanotechnology is
advancing rapidly. At least 600 products have entered commerce
that contain nanoscale materials, including aerosols and
cosmetics.
It is important for the successful development of
nanotechnology that potential downsides of the technology be
addressed from the beginning in a straightforward and open way.
We know too well that negative public perceptions about the
safety of technology can have serious consequences for its
acceptance and use. This has been the case with nuclear power,
genetically modified foods, and stem cell therapies.
The science base is not now available to pin down what
types of engineered nanomaterials may be dangerous, although
early studies show some are potentially harmful. We don't yet
know what characteristics of these materials are most
significant to determine their effect on living things or the
environment, nor do we even have the instruments for
effectively monitoring the presence of such materials in the
air or water.
Although the NNI has from its beginning realized the need
to include activities for increasing understanding of the
environmental and safety aspects of nanotechnology, it has been
slow to put in place a well-designed, adequately-funded, and
effectively executed research program.
The environmental and safety component of NNI must be
improved by quickly developing and implementing a strategic
research plan that specifies near-term and long-term goals,
sets milestones and timeframes for meeting near-term goals,
clarifies agencies' roles in implementing the plan, and
allocates sufficient resources to accomplish the goals.
This is the essential first step for the development of
nanotechnology to ensure that sound science guides the
formulation of regulatory rules and requirements. It will
reduce the current uncertainty that inhibits commercial
development of nanotechnology and will provide a sound basis
for future rule-making.
I am interested in hearing the views of our witnesses on
the provisions of the bill relevant to the development and
implementation of an effective environmental, health and safety
research component of the NNI, and particularly, on whether it
would be beneficial to specifically set aside a portion of the
overall NNI budget for this purpose as is proposed in this
bill.
The second area of the legislation I want to highlight
involves capturing the economic benefits of nanotechnology.
Too often the U.S. has led in the basic research on the
frontiers of science and technology but has failed to
capitalize on the commercial developments flowing from new
discoveries.
The NNI has so far invested approximately $7 billion over
seven years in basic research that is providing new tools for
the manipulation of matter at the nanoscale and is increasing
our understanding of the behavior of engineered nanoscale
materials and devices. Increased consideration should now be
given to support efforts to foster the transfer of new
discoveries to commercial products and processes.
The draft bill includes provisions to encourage use of
nanotechnology facilities by companies for prototyping and
proof of concept studies, and it specifies steps for increasing
the number of nanotechnology-related projects supported under
the Small Business Innovation Research Program and by the
Technology Innovation Program, established under the COMPETES
Act.
To increase the relevance and value of the NNI, the draft
bill also authorizes large-scale, focused, multi-agency
research and development initiatives in areas of national need.
For example, such efforts could be organized around
developing a replacement for the silicon-based transistor,
developing new nanotechnology-based devices for harvesting
solar energy, or nanoscale sensors for detecting cancer.
The draft NNI Amendments Act was developed on the basis of
recommendations from the formal reviews of the NNI by the
National Academy of Sciences and by the President's Council of
Advisors for Science and Technology, which currently acts as
the external advisory committee to NNI. It also incorporates
recommendations from witnesses' testimony from NNI hearings
during this and the previous Congress and from comments and
recommendations resulting from staff discussions with various
stakeholder groups.
This legislation is still a work in progress. Today I look
forward to the observations of our witnesses and invite them to
give the Committee their recommendations for ways to improve
the bill.
I want to thank our witnesses for their attention at this
hearing and look forward to our discussion.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
I want to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing to review a
draft Committee bill to amend and strengthen the National
Nanotechnology Initiative.
The term ``revolutionary technology'' has become a cliche, but
nanotechnology truly is revolutionary. We stand at the threshold of an
age in which materials and devices can be fashioned atom-by-atom to
satisfy specified design requirements. Nanotechnology-based
applications are arising that were not even imagined a decade ago.
Nanotechnology is not a single technology, but is rather is a
collection of tools and concepts for observing, controlling, and
manipulating matter at the atomic scale.
The range of potential applications is broad and will have enormous
consequences for electronics, energy transformation and storage,
materials, and medicine and health, to name a few examples. Indeed, the
scope of this technology is so broad as to leave virtually no product
untouched.
The Science and Technology Committee recognized the promise of
nanotechnology early on, holding our first hearing a decade ago to
review federal activities in the field. The Committee was subsequently
instrumental in the development and enactment of a statute in 2003 that
authorized the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative--the NNI.
The 2003 statute put in place formal interagency planning,
budgeting, and coordinating mechanisms for NNI. It now receives funding
from 13 agencies and has a budget of $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2008,
which represents a doubling of the budget over five years.
The NNI statute also provides for formal reviews of the content and
management of the program by the National Academies and by a designated
advisory committee of non-government experts. Their assessments of NNI
have been generally positive.
The cooperation and planning processes among the participating
agencies in the NNI have been largely effective. The NNI has led to
productive, cooperative research efforts across a spectrum of
disciplines, and it has established a network of national facilities
for support of nanoscale research and development.
Therefore, the NNI does not require extensive renovation. The draft
bill leaves its major features unchanged, but does adjust some
important priorities and strengthen some specific aspects of the
program. I would like to highlight two key features of the bill.
The first area is risk reduction. Nanotechnology is advancing
rapidly, and at least 600 products have entered commerce that contain
nanoscale materials, including aerosols and cosmetics.
It is important for the successful development of nanotechnology
that potential downsides of the technology be addressed from the
beginning in a straightforward and open way.
We know too well that negative public perceptions about the safety
of a technology can have serious consequences for its acceptance and
use. This has been the case with nuclear power, genetically modified
foods, and stem cell therapies.
The science base is not now available to pin down what types of
engineered nanomaterials may be dangerous, although early studies show
some are potentially harmful. We don't yet know what characteristics of
these materials are most significant to determine their effects on
living things or on the environment.
Nor do we even have the instruments for effectively monitoring the
presence of such materials in air or water.
Although the NNI has from its beginnings realized the need to
include activities for increasing understanding of the environmental
and safety aspects of nanotechnology, it has been slow to put in place
a well designed, adequately funded, and effectively executed research
program.
The environmental and safety component of NNI must be improved by
quickly developing and implementing a strategic research plan that
specifies near-term and long-term goals, sets milestones and timeframes
for meeting near-term goals, clarifies agencies' roles in implementing
the plan, and allocates sufficient resources to accomplish the goals.
This is the essential first step for the development of
nanotechnology to ensure that sound science guides the formulation of
regulatory rules and requirements. It will reduce the current
uncertainty that inhibits commercial development of nanotechnology and
will provide a sound basis for future rule-making.
I am interested in hearing the views of our witnesses on the
provisions of the bill relevant to the development and implementation
of an effective environmental, health and safety research component for
the NNI, and particularly, on whether it would be beneficial to
specifically set aside a portion of the overall NNI budget for this
purpose, as is proposed in the draft bill.
The second area of the legislation I want to highlight involves
capturing the economic benefits of nanotechnology.
Too often the U.S. has led in the basic research on the frontiers
of science and technology but has failed to capitalize on the
commercial developments flowing from new discoveries.
The NNI has so far invested approximately $7 billion over seven
years in basic research that is providing new tools for the
manipulation of matter at the nanoscale and is increasing our
understanding of the behavior of engineered nanoscale materials and
devices. Increased consideration should now be given to support of
efforts to foster the transfer of new discoveries to commercial
products and processes.
The draft bill includes provisions to encourage use of
nanotechnology facilities by companies for prototyping and proof of
concert studies, and it specifies steps for increasing the number of
nanotechnology related projects supported under the Small Business
Innovation Research Program and by the Technology Innovation Program,
established under the COMPETES Act.
To increase the relevance and value of the NNI, the draft bill also
authorizes large-scale, focused, multi-agency research and development
initiatives in areas of national need.
For example, such efforts could be organized around developing a
replacement for the silicon-based transistor, developing new
nanotechnology-based devices for harvesting solar energy, or nanoscale
sensors for detecting cancer.
The draft NNI Amendments Act was developed on the basis of
recommendations from formal reviews of the NNI by the National Academy
of Sciences and by the President's Council of Advisors for Science and
Technology, which currently acts as the external advisory committee for
NNI. It also incorporates recommendations from witness testimony from
NNI hearings during this and the previous Congress and from comments
and recommendations resulting from staff discussions with various
stakeholder groups.
This legislation is still a work in progress. Today I look forward
to the observations of our witnesses and invite them to give the
Committee their recommendations for ways to improve the bill.
I want to thank our witnesses for their attendance at this hearing
and look forward to our discussion.
Chairman Gordon. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ehlers for an
opening statement.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but first I must
mention that Ranking Member Ralph Hall is indisposed today
which means he is sick, and it takes quite a bit to keep a
Texan down. So he sends his regrets, and Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Hall's statement be entered into the
record, and I will proceed with my own statement.
I am pleased the Committee is holding this important
hearing today. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss draft
reauthorization legislation designed to improve the management
and coordination of the cross-agency National Nanotechnology
Initiative, better known as NNI. Of particular interest to this
committee is the prioritization of environmental, health, and
safety research and communication of that research to the
public.
Since the original Act was put in place in 2003, we have
heard from a number of witnesses that EHS research may need to
be increased to ensure a steady pathway for both the nano
industry success and public acceptance of new technologies.
Consequently, I am pleased that the draft legislation elevates
the environmental, health, and safety component of the NNI. At
the same time, I want to make sure we craft policy which allows
for EHS research to be embedded into product development. We
know that each nano product and process may behave differently,
and therefore, independent EHS research may not always inform a
seemingly parallel project.
I am also interested in hearing from our witnesses about
some of the proposed changes to nanotechnology education,
particularly the changes to existing education programs at the
National Science Foundation. Given the challenging funding
environment for these programs, I want to make sure such
changes would benefit students and classroom teachers and not
eat away at other important programs.
I look forward to hearing the insights of our witnesses on
how we can strengthen the National Nanotechnology Initiative so
that the United States can remain a leader in nanotechnology.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you Chairman Gordon. I was pleased to be an original co-
sponsor of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act, which established our national nanotechnology program in 2003. It
was the right thing to do, and thus far, has proven to be successful. I
hope that we can continue to work together to ensure that the
reauthorization of this vital program before us can move forward in a
bipartisan fashion and with bipartisan support.
This committee has spent some time focusing on various aspects of
nanotechnology at the Subcommittee level, much of which has been
incorporated into the draft legislation before us today. I do not need
to spend a lot of time talking about the potential benefits and
challenges of nanotechnology to our society. Mr. Chairman, you and I,
as Co-Chairs of the Nanotechnology Caucus and as Members of this
committee for many years, are well aware of them, and I am certain our
witnesses may have a point or two to make about them as well. Suffice
it to say, despite its name, this is no small issue. Our scientists are
using nanotechnology to help create clean, secure affordable energy;
low-cost filters to provide clean drinking water; medical devices and
drugs; sensors to detect and identify harmful chemical and biological
agents; and techniques to clean up hazardous chemicals in the
environment. And this is just the beginning of the list.
I recognize that as these nanotechnologies are being developed, we
have a responsibility to mitigate potential environmental, health and
safety (EHS) risks, as we do with any new technology. This work is
currently being done and as long as the need is there, agencies should
continue to fund EHS research, but it should not necessarily take
precedence over or be funded at the expense of the other component
areas identified in the strategic plan. My main interest, as we move
forward with this bill, is to make sure that we are careful to allow a
multi-agency program, which seems to be working well, to continue to
have the flexibility needed to do its work without being too
prescriptive. We can tweak it a bit, but we certainly do not need to
fix something that is not broken and, in fact, serves as a good model
for how an interagency program should work.
We have before us a well-rounded and esteemed panel of experts with
different interests in nanotechnology, and I look forward to hearing
their views on this bill and on ways that we can work to make
improvements to it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Thank you Chairman Gordon. I am pleased that the Committee is
holding this important hearing today.
The purpose of this hearing is to discuss draft reauthorization
legislation designed to improve the management and coordination of the
cross-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Of particular
interest to this committee is the prioritization of environmental,
health and safety (EHS) research and communication of that research to
the public.
Since the original Act was put in place in 2003, we have heard from
a number of witnesses that EHS research may need to be increased to
ensure a steady pathway for both the nano-industry success and public
acceptance of new technologies. Consequently, I am pleased that the
draft legislation elevates the EHS component of the NNI. At the same
time, I want to make sure we craft policy which allows for EHS research
to be embedded into product development. We know that each nano-product
and process may behave differently, and therefore independent EHS
research may not always inform a seemingly parallel project.
I am also interested in hearing from our witnesses about some of
the proposed changes to nanotechnology education, particularly the
changes to existing education programs at the National Science
Foundation. Given the challenging funding environment for these
programs, I want to make sure such changes would benefit students and
classroom teachers and not eat away at other important programs.
I look forward to hearing the insights of our witnesses on how we
can strengthen the National Nanotechnology Initiative so that the
United States can remain a leader in nanotechnology. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. It has come to my
attention that Mr. Honda, former and valued Member of the
Science Committee, is in the audience; and I would ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Honda be allowed to join this
hearing if he so chooses, and you're welcome to take a seat
here. I would also remind Mr. Honda as he remembers from being
a Member of the Committee that the current Members will have
precedence in terms of asking questions, but we certainly want
his expertise and we are glad that he is here to join us. If
there is no objection, Mr. Honda will join us.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to extend a special, warm welcome
to Dr. Robert R. Doering, who is with Texas Instruments.
T.I. is a power player in Texas and throughout the Nation.
In addition to their nanotechnology research and semiconductor
industry prominence, T.I. is a good neighbor.
The company has worked hard to reach out to schools in Dallas. By
providing extra attention to students in under-served areas, T.I. has
brought up test scores and generated interest in high-tech careers
among our young people.
That's good citizenship.
So, I want to commend industry for its role in educating tomorrow's
high-tech workforce.
During previous hearings held by this committee, the witnesses, who
represented the Federal Government, industry, and educational
institutions and science educators at all levels, agreed that
nanotechnology education is an important component of a strategy to
capitalize on the promise of this advancing field.
Witnesses discussed the importance of early nanotechnology
education for generating enthusiasm among young students and the
general public.
They were unanimous in their support for increasing formal
education in nanotechnology beginning at the undergraduate level,
including at two-year colleges because of their important role in
developing a skilled workforce.
I will be interested to hear how best to allocate our resources, as
this committee works to reauthorize the National Nanotechnology
Initiative.
To me, it seems that the priority should be to ensure that we have
the domestic workforce in place. That, Mr. Chairman, begins with
educational activities.
Again, I want to welcome today's witnesses and thank the Chairman
and Ranking Member for holding today's hearing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The advanced development of nanoscale technology has the potential
to impact virtually every sector of our economy as well as our daily
lives.
Here in the United States, we are currently the leader in
nanotechnology research and development. However, we must continue to
protect and ensure U.S. leadership in nanotechnology R&D.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has played a vital
role in supporting nanotechnology activities in 25 federal agencies.
However, as this committee has found, it is essential to ensure
that the NNI continues to focus on modern issues facing nanotechnology
development today.
As a former teacher for almost 30 years, I strongly support
enhancing K-16 nanotechnology-related education programs. As we
addressed in the America COMPETES Act, it is critical to ensure that
our workforce is educated and prepared to continue to lead in
nanotechnology R&D.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses.
I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. At this time, I would like to introduce
our witnesses. First, Mr. Floyd Kvamme is the Co-Chair of the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Mr.
Sean Murdock is the Executive Director for the NanoBusiness
Alliance. Dr. Joseph Krajcik is the Associate Dean of Research
and Professor of Education at the University of Michigan. Mr.
Ehlers, I hope you will be happy about that. Dr. Andrew Maynard
is the Chief Science Advisor for the Project of Emerging
Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. Dr.
Raymond David is the Manager of Toxicology at BASF Corporation
and is also representing the American Chemistry Council.
Finally, Dr. Robert Doering. Dr. Doering is a Senior Fellow and
Research Strategy Manager at Texas Instruments and is also
representing the Semiconductor Industry Association. Thank you
for joining us today, and we have a very distinguished panel at
this point. We will open our first round of questions--excuse
me. I guess we should hear from our witnesses, shouldn't we?
Let us begin.
STATEMENT OF MR. E. FLOYD KVAMME, CO-CHAIR, PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL
OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Kvamme. My name is Floyd Kvamme. I am Co-Chair of the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a
high-level group from academia, industry, and other entities
experienced in leading successful science and technology
enterprises. My remarks today are my own, but I am confident
that my fellow PCAST members feel similarly on the issues under
discussion.
Last week, PCAST released its second review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI, and I'd like to reference
that report in full for this hearing's record, as it includes a
detailed assessment of NNI program activities and coordination
developed through extensive review over the last 18 months.
We are here today to talk about the NNI and the Committee's
draft legislation to reauthorize this important program. What
is nanotechnology? If one drops the nano part of the word, we
are talking about technology. Technology today invades every
part of our economy, not only computers and communications, but
health care, energy, transportation, education, and in a word,
everything. As a result, a technology initiative is about a
very wide and varied range of industries and applications.
Nanotechnology is simply the continuing development of
technology to applications which take advantage of the unique
properties of some materials and is being applied in all of the
applications mentioned above and will, undoubtedly, make many
of the products in these applications better, either in
performance, cost or both.
Establishment of the NNI was a very good idea. I commend
the Congress and this committee for authorizing this initiative
in 2003. In both our first report in 2005 and now our second
one, we have had to deal not only with the diversity that is
nanotechnology but also a wide range of federal agencies
involved in supporting and/or conducting nano R&D. The
initiative did not set up a new agency with a specific budget;
rather, it set up coordination, planning, and review mechanisms
intended to ensure individual agency activities in
nanotechnology are effectively supporting program and
government-wide goals. The legislation formally established the
coordinating office which raises its budget through
contributions from the various agencies with nanotechnology R&D
budgets. Agencies with primarily regulatory missions have also
taken an active role in the initiative and have contributed to
its activities. This strong and interagency coordination, a
premier example of any such Federal R&D initiative, has been
central to the success to date of the NNI.
Appropriate and informed support for environmental, health
and safety (EHS), research within the NNI is an important
responsibility that demands strong coordination. With respect
to EHS, PCAST has found that the NNI's approach has been sound;
the interagency coordination process identified EHS research
needs, mapped those needs to current activities to identify
potential research opportunities, and then prioritized those
opportunities to inform budget and planning activities.
The provision of the draft reauthorizing legislation that
the NNI collectively allocate a minimum of 10 percent of its
nanotechnology R&D to EHS-related research is, however,
problematic in both practice and principle. In practice the
funding of each agency is independent of the NNI. The NSET
subcommittee provides the base for coordinating member agency
activities and planning efforts, but it does not direct NNI
funding. Further, it is not reasonable to exclusively designate
projects or portions of projects as exclusively EHS or not. The
reporting structure of the NNI by PCAs enables characterization
and analysis of the research portfolio that is sufficient for
policy and planning purposes. The current funding mechanisms
and structure makes it difficult for me to see how this minimum
funding across the program is practical. In principle, the set-
aside appears to be arbitrary and not based on a sound
scientific analysis of the NNI portfolio of relevant research,
including extensive relevant research not reported in the EHS
component area and what is strategically needed. Instead,
support should be guided by the identified gaps in sequential
priorities identified in the EHS research strategy. Like all
other aspects of the NNI, EHS research funding decisions should
be determined by identified R&D directives as is currently the
approach of the agencies within the NNI. Scientifically
determined, strategically planned priorities, not arbitrary
percentages, should guide funding for all nanotechnology
research.
With respect to the oversight provisions, the breadth and
depth of the high-level experience of the PCAST and its role as
the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, combined with a
detailed expertise of the ad hoc technology advisory group, has
worked quite well the last five years in providing functional
oversight for the NNI and directly advising the President on
nanotechnology. The proposed bill should maximize the
flexibility for the next Administration in establishing its own
advisory structure. As the current PCAST prepares to pass the
baton to the next administration, we will suggest they
incorporate a similar approach to oversight, leveraging the
expertise of a large technical advisory group, whether they be
within PCAST or separate.
In summary, the NNI as currently structured is a productive
and effective program and a model of interagency coordination.
Our newly released report makes recommendations for improvement
but finds the program basically sound. Industry is benefiting
from its research. A clear strategy has been developed for
nanotechnology-related EHS research, and EHS guidelines are
being presented to guide industry. International cooperation is
happening. The Coordinating Office and NNI participating
agencies have responded to past recommendations from PCAST as
well as the National Academies and have strengthened the
program. Agencies participate voluntarily because they derive
benefit from doing so. A reauthorization that avoids overly
prescriptive guidance, like an arbitrary EHS funding floor, and
bureaucratic micro-management, such as costly database
requirements, will further strengthen and promote interagency
coordination that has been vital to the success of the NNI to
date. This approach would confirm the goals as presented in the
original legislation and commend the agencies for their
coordinated efforts to maintain the leadership and
competitiveness of the U.S. in nanotechnology.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kvamme follows:]
Prepared Statement of E. Floyd Kvamme
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to testify
today. My name is Floyd Kvamme. I am Co-Chair of the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (or PCAST). PCAST
comprises a high-level group from academia, industry, and other
entities with experience in leading successful science and technology
enterprises. My remarks today are my own, but based on our recent
review, I am confident that my fellow PCAST members feel similarly on
the issues under discussion today.
Last week, PCAST released its second review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (or the NNI), and I'd like to reference that
report in full for this hearing's record. That review, required by
Congress as the primary external advisory mechanism for the NNI,
includes a detailed assessment of NNI program activities and
coordination developed through extensive review and consultation by
PCAST members over the last 18 months. The executive summary of the
report is attached to this testimony and I recommend it for your review
(full report available at: http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/
PCAST-NNAP-NNI-Assessment-20
08.pdf).
We are here today to talk about the NNI and the Committee's draft
legislation to reauthorize this important interagency research and
development (R&D) program. Let me begin by giving you my view of what
nanotechnology is. If one drops the `nano' part of the word, we are
talking about `technology.' Technology today invades virtually every
part of our economy. It's not only computers and communications, but
health care, energy, transportation, education, and--in a word--
everything. As a result, in talking about a ``technology initiative,''
we are talking about a very wide and varied range of industries and
applications. Nanotechnology is simply the continuing development of
technology to applications which take advantage of the unique
properties of some materials engineered at the nanoscale.
Nanotechnology is being applied in virtually all of the applications
mentioned above and will, undoubtedly, make many of the products in
these applications better--either in performance, cost or both. We
should not think of some narrow range of applications for
nanotechnology, but rather a vast array of potential uses.
Establishment of the NNI was a very good idea. I commend the great
work of Congress and this committee for formally authorizing this
initiative in 2003. In both our first report in 2005 and now our second
one released last week, we have had to deal not only with the diversity
that is nanotechnology but also a wide range of federal agencies
involved in supporting and/or conducting nano R&D. Appropriately, the
initiative did not set up a new agency with a specific budget; rather,
it set up coordination, planning, and review mechanisms intended to
ensure individual agency activities in nanotechnology are effectively
supporting program- and government-wide goals. I believe recognizing
this is important and instructive with respect to the draft
legislation, and I'll get to that in a few moments. The legislation did
formally establish the coordinating office which raises its budget
through contributions from the various agencies with nanotechnology R&D
budgets. Agencies with primarily regulatory missions have also taken an
active role in the initiative and have contributed to its activities.
This strong and deep interagency coordination--a premier example of any
such Federal R&D initiative--has been central to the success to date of
the NNI.
At the same time, the agencies have specific missions and objective
to address. For example, appropriate and informed support for
environmental, health and safety (EHS) research within the NNI is an
important responsibility that demands strong coordination. With respect
to this issue PCAST has found that the NNI's approach has been sound;
the interagency coordination process identified EHS research needs,
mapped those needs to current activities to identify potential research
opportunities, and then prioritized those opportunities to inform
budget and planning activities. For example, I refer you to page 49 of
the recently-released NNI Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related
Environmental, Health, and Safety Research (full report available at
http://www.nano.gov/
NNI-EHS-Research-Strategy.pdf):
In this document the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee's working group on Nanotechnology Environmental and Health
Implications (or NEHI) has developed five critical areas for EHS
research. The agencies agreed to cooperate such that while there was a
lead agency for each task, the other agencies contribute to the overall
goals agreed to within the NNI. These efforts do not take away from the
other work within the agencies to perform their mission-oriented
functions but, in our view, lead to more effective activity within the
lead agency. I point specifically to the reports and activities of
NIOSH, EPA, FDA, and NIST (detailed on page 27 in our PCAST report) as
examples of agency specific activity:
The OSTP and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) issued in November 2007 a memorandum identifying
principles for nanotechnology environmental health and safety
oversight based on interagency consensus.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/
Nano%20EHS%20Principles%20Memo-OSTP-CEQ-FINAL.pdf
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) issued a call in July 2006 for information in
Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology\2\ inviting expert feedback
from private industry and other government entities, and in
June 2007 it issued the report Progress Toward Safe
Nanotechnology in the Workplace.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/
\3\ http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-123/
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produced in
February 2007 a white paper\4\ summarizing the agency's
anticipated approach to nanotechnology EHS research, followed
in February 2008 by a nanomaterial research strategy.\5\ The
agency also has launched a Voluntary Nanoscale Materials
stewardship program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/whitepaper12022005.pdf
\5\ http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/
nano-strategy-012408.pdf
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released in
July 2007 the report\6\ of its Nanotechnology Task Force's
efforts to clarify a predictable pathway for application of
existing regulatory approaches on a case-by-case basis for
developers of nanotechnology-enabled products under its
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.pdf
NIST is producing standard reference materials for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nanoscale gold and carbon nanotubes.
The provision in the draft reauthorizing legislation that the NNI
collectively allocate a minimum of 10 percent of its nanotechnology R&D
to EHS-related research is problematic in both practice and principle:
In practice, the funding of each agency is
fundamentally independent of the NNI. The NSET Subcommittee of
the National Science and Technology Council provides the base
for coordinating NNI member agencies activities and planning
efforts, but it does not direct NNI funding. Furthermore, it is
not feasible or reasonable to exclusively designate projects
(or portions of projects) as exclusively ``EHS'' or not. The
current reporting structure of the NNI by Program Component
Areas or PCAs enables characterization and analysis of the
research portfolio that is sufficient for policy and planning
purposes. The current funding mechanisms and structure of the
NNI makes it difficult for me to see how this ``minimum
funding'' across the program is either reasonable, necessary,
or, indeed, practical.
In principle, this set-aside appears to be arbitrary
and not based on a sound scientific analysis of the current NNI
portfolio of relevant research (including extensive relevant
research not reported under the EHS program component area) and
what is strategically needed. Instead, support should be guided
by the identified gaps and sequential priorities identified in
the NNI's nanotechnology EHS research strategy. Like all other
aspects of the NNI, EHS research funding decisions should be
determined by identified R&D objectives, as is currently the
approach of the agencies within the NNI. Scientifically-
determined, strategically-planned priorities--not arbitrary
percentages--should guide funding for all nanotechnology
research, including research relevant to EHS.
It is important to note that funding for nano-related EHS research
has doubled since 2005. As industry picks up more applications
research, the Federal Government's role will change and is already
changing to work more in the EHS and regulatory areas. EHS funding will
probably continue to increase. The one area where funding is
accelerating--perhaps tied to our recommendations--is in worker safety
where we will propose in our upcoming letter on the EHS report that
NIOSH spending accelerate. The reason worker spending is so critical is
that in many instances, nanomaterials--while in nano form in the
workplace--stop being nanomaterials after production and become a
tightly, chemically bound part of a larger system.
With respect to the oversight provisions in the proposed
reauthorization, the breadth and depth of high-level expertise of the
PCAST in its role as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel
combined with the detailed expertise of the ad hoc Technical Advisory
Group has worked quite well the past five years in providing functional
oversight for the NNI and directly advising the President on
nanotechnology. The proposed bill should maximize the flexibility for
the next Administration in establishing its own advisory structure. As
the current PCAST prepares to pass the baton to the next
administration, we will suggest they incorporate a similar approach to
oversight, leveraging the expertise of a large technical advisory
group, whether they be within PCAST or separate.
With respect to overcoming barriers to commercialization and
facilitating tech transfer, again I refer to the report of the PCAST
review of the NNI. The NNI's unparalleled infrastructure of centers,
networks, and user facilities is working very well, geographically
distributed and with a wide array of expertise. These facilities are
serving their purposes well based on all inputs we have received from
both our TAG members and personal experience. Furthermore, the NNI
already supports ``large-scale research and development projects'' on
problems of national importance, for example, in energy and
biomedicine. The National Cancer Institute, for example, supports a
five-year, $144 million program developing nanotechnology for cancer
diagnostics and therapeutics that involves eight centers and over 400
investigators.
With respect to overall funding, the NNI seems well funded in
balance to other programs in the S&T budget. PCAST had hoped that the
America COMPETES Act funding would have been passed and will continue
to support those priorities of this Congress.
In summary, the NNI as currently structured is a very productive
and effective program and a model of interagency coordination. Our
newly released report makes recommendations for improvement but finds
the program basically sound. Industry is benefiting from its research.
A clear strategy has been developed for nanotechnology-related EHS
research, and EHS guidelines are being presented to guide industry.
International cooperation is happening. The National Nanotechnology
Coordinating Office and NNI participating agencies have responded to
past recommendations from PCAST as well as the Academies and have
strengthened the program. Agencies participate voluntarily because they
derive benefit from doing so. A heavy-handed reauthorization with
overly prescriptive guidance (like an arbitrary EHS funding floor) and
bureaucratic micro-management (such as costly database requirements)
will weaken and inhibit the interagency coordination that is vital to
the success of the NNI to date. Rather, this reauthorization should be
an opportunity to strengthen and support the interagency coordination
founding the NNI, confirming the goals as presented in the original
legislation and commending the agencies for their coordinated efforts
to maintain the leadership and competitiveness of the U.S. in
nanotechnology.
Appendix:
Executive Summary of6
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel
(April 2008)
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-153) calls for a National Nanotechnology Advisory
Panel (NNAP) to periodically review the federal nanotechnology research
and development (R&D) program known as the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI). The President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) is designated by Executive Order to serve as the
NNAP. This report is the second NNAP review of the NNI, updating the
first assessment published in 2005.
Including the NNI budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2009 of $1.5
billion, the total NNI investment since its inception in 2001 is nearly
$10 billion. The total annual global investment in nanotechnology is an
estimated $13.9 billion, divided roughly equally among the United
States, Europe, and Asia. Industry analysis suggests that private
investment has been out-pacing that of government since about 2006. The
activities, balance, and management of the NNI among the 25
participating U.S. agencies and the efforts to coordinate with
stakeholders from outside the Federal Government, including industry
and other governments, are the subject of this report.
The first report answered four questions: How are we doing? Is the
money well spent and the program well managed? Are we addressing
societal concerns and potential risks? How can we do better? That
report was generally positive in its conclusions but provided
recommendations for improving or strengthening efforts in the following
areas: technology transfer; environmental, health, and safety (EHS)
research and its coordination; education and workforce preparation; and
societal dimensions.
Since the first report, increasing attention has been focused on
the potential risks of nanotechnology, especially the possible harm to
human health and the environment from nanomaterials. In this second
assessment, the NNAP paid special attention to the NNI efforts in these
areas. During its review, the NNAP obtained input from various sources.
It convened a number of expert panels and consulted its nanotechnology
Technical Advisory Group (nTAG) and the President's Council on
Bioethics. NNI member agencies and the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office (NNCO) also provided valuable information.
The NNAP finds that the United States remains a leader in
nanotechnology based on various metrics, including R&D expenditures and
outputs such as publications, citations, and patents. However, taken as
a region, the European Union has more publications, and China's output
is increasing. There are many examples of NNI-funded research results
that are moving into commercial applications. However, measures of
technology transfer and the commercial impact of nanotechnology as a
whole are not readily available, in part because of the difficulty in
defining what is, and is not, a ``nanotechnology-based product.''
The NNAP commends and encourages the ongoing NNI investment in
infrastructure and instrumentation. Leading-edge nanoscale research
often requires advanced equipment and facilities. The NNI investment in
over 81 centers and user facilities across the country that provide
broad access to costly instrumentation, state-of-the-art facilities,
and technical expertise has been enormously important and successful.
These facilities, which have been funded by many different agencies in
order to address a variety of missions, support a diverse range of
academic, industry, and government research. In addition, the NNI
investment has been used to leverage additional support by
universities, State governments, and the private sector.
Advances in nanotechnology are embodied in a growing number of
applications and products in various industries. Many early
applications have been more evolutionary than revolutionary. However,
research funded by the NNI today has the potential for innovations that
are paradigm shifting, for example in energy and medicine. As with any
emerging technology, there is potential for unintended consequences or
uses that may prove harmful to health or the environment or that may
have other societal implications. The NNAP notes that existing
regulations apply to nanotechnology-based products, and those who make
or sell such products have responsibilities regarding workplace and
product safety. As in 2005, the NNAP believes that the greatest risk of
exposure to nanomaterials at present is to workers who manufacture or
handle such materials. However, environmental, health, and safety risks
in a wide range of settings must be identified and the necessary
research performed so that real risks can be appropriately addressed.
The NNAP views the approach for addressing EHS research under the NNI
as sound. The recent reports by the interagency Nanotechnology
Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group are good
steps by the NNI to prioritize needed EHS research and to coordinate
EHS activity across the Federal Government. The NNAP feels that calls
for a separate agency or office devoted to nanotechnology EHS research
or to set aside a fixed percentage of the budget for EHS research are
misguided and may have the unintended consequence of reducing research
on beneficial applications and on risk.
In addition to EHS implications, the NNAP considered ethical and other
societal aspects of nanotechnology. In consultation with the
President's Council on Bioethics, the panel concluded that at present,
nanotechnology does not raise ethical concerns that are unique to the
field. Rather, concerns over implications for privacy and for equality
of access to benefits are similar to concerns over technological
advances in general. This finding does not diminish the importance of
continued dialogue and research on the societal aspects of
nanotechnology.
Overall, the members of the NNAP feel that the NNI continues to be a
highly successful model for an interagency program; it is well
organized and well managed. The structure of the interagency Nanoscale
Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the
National Science and Technology Council effectively coordinates the
breadth of nanotechnology activities across the Federal Government. The
NSET working groups target functional areas in which additional focus
is required. The NNCO provides important support that is a key to the
success of the program. The Strategic Plan updated in 2007 clearly
communicates the goals and priorities for the initiative and includes
actions for achieving progress. With the separation in the updated plan
of EHS research from that on other societal dimensions, the NNAP finds
the Program Component Areas (PCAs) that are defined for purposes of
tracking programs and investments serve the NNI well.
The NNAP has a number of recommendations for strengthening the NNI,
which are grouped into six areas.
1. Infrastructure, management, and coordination. The NNAP feels that
the substantial infrastructure of multi-disciplinary centers, user
facilities, along with instrumentation, equipment, and technical
expertise, is vital to continued U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology
and should be maintained. Whereas the NNAP finds the coordination and
management among the NNI participating agencies to be generally strong,
intra-agency coordination should be improved, especially in large,
segmented agencies. The NNI member agencies should continue to support
international coordination through effective international forums, such
as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Such efforts will aid in the development of information related to
health and safety, as well as addressing economic barriers and impacts.
Implementing and monitoring this recommendation should lead to more
effective use of agency resources.
2. Standards development. Nanotechnology standards are necessary for
activities ranging from research and development to commerce and
regulation. Federal agencies should continue to engage in national and
international standards development activities. The NNI should maintain
a strong U.S. representation in international forums and seek to avoid
duplicative standards development work. Where appropriate, NIST and
other NNI agencies should develop reference materials, test methods,
and other standards that provide broad support for industry production
of safe nanotechnology-based products.
3. Technology transfer and commercialization. The NNI should continue
to fund world-class research to promote technology transfer. Strong
research programs produce top-notch nanoscale scientists, engineers,
and entrepreneurs, who graduate with knowledge, skills, and innovative
ideas. Such programs also have the potential to attract more U.S.
students to related fields. NNI-funded centers should be structured to
spur partnering with industry, which enhances technology transfer. The
NNI should seek means to assess more accurately nanotechnology-related
innovation and commercialization of NNI research results. These efforts
should be coordinated with those of the OECD to assess economic impact
of nanotechnology internationally.
4. Environmental, health, and safety implications. The NNAP feels that
the NNI has made considerable progress since its last review in the
level and coordination of EHS research for nanomaterials. Such efforts
should be continued and should be coordinated with those taking place
in industry and with programs funded by other governments to avoid gaps
and unnecessary duplication of work. Moreover, EHS research should be
coordinated with, not segregated from, applications research to promote
risk and benefit being considered together. This is particularly
important when development and risk assessment research are taking
place in parallel, as they are for nanotechnology today. The NNI should
take steps to make widely available nonproprietary information about
the properties of nanomaterials and methods for risk/benefit analysis.
5. Societal and ethical implications. Research on the societal and
ethical aspects of nanotechnology should be integrated with technical
R&D and take place in the context of broader societal and ethical
scholarship. The NNAP feels that this approach will broaden the range
of perspectives and increase exchange of views on topics that affect
society at large.
6. Communication and outreach. The NNAP is concerned that public
opinion is susceptible to hype and exaggerated statements--both
positive and negative. The NNI should be a trusted source of
information about nanotechnology that is accessible to a range of
stakeholders, including the public. The NNI should expand outreach and
communication activities by the NNCO and the Nanotechnology Public
Engagement and Communications Working Group and by coordinating
existing agency communication efforts. To enhance effectiveness, the
information should be developed with broad input and through processes
that incorporate two-way communication with the intended audiences.
This review complements an assessment by the National Research
Council (NRC) of the National Academies. The NNAP agrees with many of
the NRC recommendations. However, the NNAP questions the recommendation
for a formal, independent advisory panel. The panel feels that the
current arrangement-whereby the NRC panels of technical experts, the
high-level science and technology management leaders of PCAST, and the
nanotechnology experts on the nTAG each provide distinct and useful
input to the NNI review process--provides a broader perspective than
would a single group consisting of a smaller number of advisors.
Biography for E. Floyd Kvamme
E. Floyd Kvamme is a Partner Emeritus at Kleiner Perkins Caufield &
Byers, a high-technology venture capital firm and, presently, serves on
six high tech company boards including National Semiconductor,
Harmonic, and Power Integrations. Since 2001, Kvamme has served as Co-
Chair of President Bush's Council of Advisors in Science and
Technology, (PCAST). He helped found National in 1967, serving as
general manager of Semiconductor Operations. In 1982, he became
Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Apple Computer. He
holds a BSEE from the University of California, Berkeley, and an MSE in
semiconductor electronics from Syracuse University.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you. Mr. Murdock, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF MR. SEAN MURDOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NANOBUSINESS
ALLIANCE
Mr. Murdock. Thank you, Chairman Gordon. Chairman Gordon,
Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the House Committee on
Science and Technology, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.
My name is Sean Murdock, and I am the Executive Director of
the NanoBusiness Alliance. The NanoBusiness Alliance is the
premier nanotechnology policy and commercialization advocacy
group in the United States. 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.
The NanoBusiness Alliance strongly supports the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 as drafted.
This committee has long recognized that nanotechnology is
one of the most important frontiers of science and technology,
and that nanotechnology has the potential to dramatically
improve our quality of life, our health, our environment, and
our economy. The National Nanotechnology Initiative, which this
committee led Congress in authorizing in 2003, provided the
framework for coordinated federal research and development.
That authorization bill, the 21st Century Nanotech R&D Act,
focused on fundamental nanotechnology research.
Now, five years later, it is time to reauthorize and update
this legislation. Much has changed in the past half-decade;
nanotechnology is beginning to move from the laboratory to the
store shelf.
American nanotechnology companies are beginning to shift
from prototype development to large-scale manufacturing.
Employers are beginning to look for nanotechnology-qualified
workers. And the public is beginning to take notice of
nanotechnology, with its many benefits and some potential
risks, which need to be examined and managed.
That the landscape has changed so much in five years is in
no small part due to the success of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative itself. But its success at jump-starting the
Nation's nanotechnology development means that the Initiative
now needs to be updated to reflect five years of growth.
We are pleased that the Committee has thought carefully
about how best to bring the National Nanotechnology Initiative
up to date. The draft legislation will improve the Initiative's
capabilities in several key areas, including translational
research and development for commercialization, nanotechnology
education, and environmental, health, and safety research.
As the Members of this committee know, America faces
intense global competition in every field. But nowhere is this
competition more intense than in the field of nanotechnology.
Its economic development potential has led countries across
Europe and Asia to make large and strategic investments in
nanotechnology research and development. The stated goal of
many of these countries is to dominate one or more sectors and
change their geopolitical position. Russia has announced a $7
billion nanotechnology initiative that will spend nearly $750
million more on nanotechnology research each year than the
United States. China is investing, on a purchasing power parity
basis, approximately $1 billion and growing rapidly.
The United States continues to lead the world in
fundamental nanotechnology research, but over the last five
years we have seen our foreign competitors demonstrate that
they are becoming equally capable of commercializing
nanotechnology. We must reverse this trend. While we cannot and
should not adopt our competitors' model of direct state
investment in private companies, we can and should take steps
to ensure that innovative American companies have unfettered
access to American research and that they are able to
commercialize that research efficiently and effectively. We
should encourage programs such as the SBIR, the STTR program,
and the Technology Innovation Program. We should focus our
efforts on goal-oriented research in areas of national
importance. And we should do everything we can to see that
federal, state, and private resources are working together to
bring these technologies to market.
The draft legislation does this. It retools the National
Nanotechnology Initiative to focus more on applied research
while maintaining a commitment to fundamental research. It
supports large-scale collaborative efforts to develop
nanotechnology solutions to key public policy challenges such
as energy efficiency, environmental cleanup, and health care.
And it updates the Initiative to include databases and other
information-sharing mechanisms that actually help companies and
the public understand what resources and opportunities to
engage in are available.
The NanoBusiness Alliance is firmly committed to advancing
nanotechnology education. We cannot expect to compete in the
global economy if we are not generating nanotechnology-literate
students who will go on to become leaders and workers in the
nanotechnology economy of the future. We need to inspire
American students to choose science tracks in high school and
then provide them with hands-on nanotechnology opportunities in
colleges and technical colleges.
As it stands, we are educating foreign students and then
sending them home to compete against us. According to the NSF,
foreign students on temporary visas earned 32 percent of all
science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United States
in the last year for which data is available. Foreign students
earned 55 percent of engineering doctorates. Many of these
students will ultimately return home. We must develop more
domestic scientific talent if we are to lead in nanotechnology
commercialization over the long haul. We believe that
inspiration and inquiry-driven learning are key to
accomplishing that.
The Alliance supports putting nanotechnology tools in the
hands of students in community colleges and campuses so that
they can see first-hand what nanotechnology is and why it is
important. The Alliance also supports integrating local
nanotechnology businesses into the program, and many of our
members are already reaching out to schools to do that.
In terms of environmental health and safety research,
nanotechnology has tremendous potential benefits for the
environment, health and safety. But as we develop
nanotechnology applications, we must do so responsibly,
identifying and addressing any risks or hazards associated with
nanotechnology before it causes environmental, health, or
safety problems. The Alliance has called for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative to include a comprehensive, fully
funded environmental, health, and safety research program, and
this legislation does that.
The NanoBusiness Alliance believes that the environmental,
health, and safety research should be fully funded and based on
a clear, carefully-constructed research strategy. While we
believe that 10 percent of the total funding for nanotechnology
research and development is a reasonable estimate of the
resources that will be required to execute the plan, we also
believe that actual resource levels should be driven by the
strategic plan, as they will vary significantly across
agencies.
The Alliance appreciates the Committee's commitment to
developing a broader understanding of nanotechnology before
erecting an extensive new regulatory structure. We hope that
Congress will see the wisdom of the Committee's approach and
will use the research authorized by this bill as a basis for
deciding what, if anything, is needed.
I would like to thank the Committee once again for the
opportunity to testify and its leadership on this issue. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murdock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sean Murdock
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the House
Committee on Science and Technology, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2008.
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.
The NanoBusiness Alliance strongly supports the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 as drafted.
The Need for This Legislation
This committee has long recognized that nanotechnology is one of
the most important frontiers of science and technology, and that
nanotechnology has the potential to dramatically improve our quality of
life, our health, our environment, and our economy. The National
Nanotechnology Initiative, which this committee led Congress in
authorizing in 2003, provided the framework for coordinated federal
research and development. That authorization bill, the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, focused on fundamental
nanotechnology research.
Now, five years later, it is time to reauthorize and update this
legislation. Much has changed in the past half-decade; nanotechnology
is beginning to move from the laboratory to the store shelf. American
nanotechnology companies are beginning to shift from prototype
development to large-scale manufacturing. Employers are beginning to
look for a nanotechnology-qualified workforce. And the public is
beginning to notice nanotechnology, with its many benefits--and some
potential risks, which need to be examined and managed.
That the nanotechnology landscape has changed so much in five years
is in no small part due to the success of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative. But its success at jump-starting the Nation's
nanotechnology economy means that the Initiative now needs to be
updated to reflect five years of growth.
We are pleased that the Committee has thought carefully about how
best to bring the National Nanotechnology Initiative up to date. The
draft legislation will improve the Initiative's capabilities in several
key areas, including translational research and commercialization;
nanotechnology education; and environmental, health, and safety
research.
Translational Research and Commercialization
As the Members of this committee know, America faces intense global
competition in every field. But nowhere is this competition more
intense than in the field of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology's economic
potential has led countries across Europe and Asia to make large
strategic investments in nanotechnology research and development. The
stated goal of many of these countries is to dominate one or more
sectors of the nanotechnology economy. Russia has announced a $7
billion nanotechnology initiative that will spend nearly $750 million
more on nanotechnology research each year than the United States will.
China already is on par with the United States, when purchasing power
is taken into account.
The United States continues to lead the world in fundamental
nanotechnology research, but over the last five years we have seen our
foreign competitors demonstrate that they are becoming equally capable
of commercializing nanotechnology. By leveraging our research, these
foreign governments and foreign companies are skipping the hard work
and reaping the economic benefits.
We must reverse this trend. While we cannot and should not adopt
our competitors' model of direct state investment in private companies,
we can and should take steps to ensure that innovative American
companies have unfettered access to American research, and that they
are able to commercialize that research efficiently and effectively. We
should encourage programs such as Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR), and the Technology
Innovation Program (TIP). We should focus our efforts on goal-oriented
research in areas of national importance. And we should do everything
we can to see that federal, State, and private resources are working
together toward the goal of bringing as much nanotechnology to market
in the United States as possible.
The draft legislation does all of this. It retools the National
Nanotechnology Initiative to focus more on goal oriented research,
while maintaining a commitment to fundamental research. It gives the
SBIR, STTR, and TIP programs a leading role. It supports large-scale
collaborative efforts to develop nanotechnology solutions to key public
policy challenges such as energy efficiency, environmental cleanup, and
health care. And it updates the Initiative to include databases and
other information-sharing mechanisms to help companies and researchers
understand what resources are available.
Nanotechnology Education
The NanoBusiness Alliance is firmly committed to advancing
nanotechnology education. We cannot expect to compete in the global
economy if we are not generating nanotechnology-literate students who
will go on to become leaders and workers in the nanotechnology economy.
We need to inspire American students to choose science tracks in high
school, and then provide them with hands-on nanotechnology
opportunities in colleges and technical colleges.
As it stands, we are educating foreign students, and then sending
them home to compete against us. According to the NSF, foreign students
on temporary visas earned 32 percent of all science and engineering
doctorates awarded in the United States in 2003, the last year for
which data is available. Foreign students earned 55 percent of
engineering doctorates. Many of these students expressed an intent to
return to their country of origin after completing their studies.
The Alliance strongly supported the Nanotechnology in the Schools
Act, and we are pleased to see that the current legislation reflects
the goals of that bill. In particular, the Alliance supports putting
nanotechnology tools in the hands of students, so that they can see
first-hand what nanotechnology is and why it is important (and
exciting). The Alliance also supports integrating local nanotechnology
businesses into the program; many of our members are already reaching
out to schools in their areas to help introduce students to
nanotechnology.
Environmental, Health, and Safety Research
Nanotechnology has tremendous potential benefits for the
environment, health, and safety (EHS). But as we develop nanotechnology
applications, we must do so responsibly--identifying and addressing any
risks or hazards associated with nanotechnology before they cause
environmental, health, or safety problems. The Alliance has called for
the National Nanotechnology Initiative to include a comprehensive,
fully funded environmental, health, and safety research program, and
this legislation does just that. We strongly support this EHS research.
Americans need to know that the products they use are safe, or else
they will not purchase or use them and the market for those products
will collapse. The way to reassure consumers is not by ignoring any
problems but by finding and dealing with any problems that may exist. A
clear understanding of the environmental, health, and safety impacts of
various kinds of nanoparticles is necessary, and that understanding
must expand as new nanoparticles are developed.
The NanoBusiness Alliance believes that environmental, health, and
safety research should be fully funded and based on a clear, carefully-
constructed research strategy. While we believe that 10 percent of the
total funding for nanotechnology research and development is a
reasonable estimate of the resources that will be required to execute
the strategic plan, we also believe that actual resource levels should
be driven by the strategic plan as they will vary significantly across
agencies.
The Alliance appreciates the Committee's commitment to developing a
broader understanding of nanotechnology before erecting an extensive
new regulatory structure. We hope that Congress will see the wisdom of
the Committee's approach, and will use the research authorized by this
bill as a basis for the decision of what, if any, new regulation is
needed.
Conclusion
I would like to thank the Committee once again for the invitation
to testify today, and for its leadership in working to ensure that
America maintains its nanotechnology preeminence in the midst of
intense global competition. The NanoBusiness Alliance commends this
committee and its staff for the careful research and extensive
collaboration that have led to this proposed legislation. We strongly
support the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008
as drafted.
Biography for Sean Murdock
Sean Murdock is the Executive Director of the NanoBusiness
Alliance, the nanotechnology industry association and the premier
nanotechnology policy and commercialization advocacy group in the
United States.
Prior to becoming the Executive Director of the NanoBusiness
Alliance, Sean was the Executive Director and a founding board member
of AtomWorks, an initiative formed to foster nanotechnology in Illinois
and more broadly throughout the Midwest.
Sean has established himself as a leading thinker in the areas of
nanotechnology commercialization and economic development. He has
delivered keynote speeches on the commercialization of nanotechnology
at nanotechnology conferences throughout the world. Sean has been
quoted extensively on the subject in many leading publications
including Fortune, The Economist, and the New York Times. He has also
appeared on CNBC to discuss nanotechnology trends.
Sean has been very active in nanotechnology trade and economic
development issues. He helped to organize and execute the first
Nanotechnology Trade Mission to Europe in conjunction with the
NanoBusiness Alliance and the U.S. Department of Commerce. He has also
been engaged with senior officials of the U.S. Department of Commerce's
Technology Administration on the potential impact of export control
issues on nanotechnology development and commercialization.
Sean had more than seven years experience in management consulting,
most recently as Engagement Manager at McKinsey & Company. Sean served
a variety of Fortune 500 companies, focusing primarily upon the
industrial and chemicals sectors. While there, he developed some of the
firm's early perspective on the business opportunities created by the
nanotech revolution, publishing the first two internal documents on the
subject.
Sean received his Master's in Business Administration and Master's
in Engineering Management from Northwestern University. He holds a BA
in Economics from the University of Notre Dame.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you. Dr. Krajcik, you are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH S. KRAJCIK, PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE
EDUCATION; ASSOCIATE DEAN OF RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Dr. Krajcik. Chairman Gordon, Mr. Ehlers, and Members of
the Committee, I am honored to present testimony on the
National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. My
name is Joe Krajcik, and I have been involved in science
education for the last 34 years, first as a high school science
teacher and now as professor of science education at the
University of Michigan. I am currently co-PI in a National
Science Foundation Center for Teaching and Learning in
Nanoscale Science and Engineering; and because of this, I will
speak primarily about the educational components of the Act.
Let me begin by stating that we live in a very exciting
time with respect to advances in science and technology. We
also live in a very exciting time with respect to education
because we now know more about how people learn than ever
before. The advances of nanoscale science and the global
economy in which we live challenge the educational community to
help all children develop deeper and more useful understanding
of core science ideas that underlie nanoscience. Unfortunately,
despite what we know about learning, the current education
system is failing to produce a populace scientifically literate
enough to understand the advances of nanoscience and to prepare
a workforce for the new jobs and professions that are emerging
from this field. Children in our country continue to lag behind
in science and mathematics on international assessments.
Perhaps most unfortunately, the most under-served children are
in locations where typically children do not succeed in
science: our nation's larger urban cities and rural areas.
As a nation, as we become more diverse, the challenge of
how to provide quality science instruction is amplified. Our
children will grow up in a world where they will need to apply
and communicate scientific ideas, make sound decisions based
upon this understanding, and collaborate with other people to
solve important problems.
The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act provides
important support to improve the education of children in this
country. Although this is an important first step, I question
whether this Act will provide sufficient resources to make a
difference for all children. The advances in nanoscience
requires a commensurate response from the educational
community. As such, the financial resources needed to make this
response possible must be provided by the national government
with the private sector sharing in this responsibility.
To provide world-class science education so that all
children learn ideas about nanoscience, our country needs to
invest in several important initiatives. First, we need to
invest in sustained professional development to support sixth
through 12th grade teachers in learning content in the
interdisciplinary way of thinking that is pervasive in
nanoscience. Many teachers studied science when nanoscience
ideas and the phenomena they explained had not emerged. Without
providing teachers the opportunity to learn new content in this
interdisciplinary way of thinking, they will not be able to
instruct our children in these emerging science areas.
Sustained professional development is also needed to help
teachers learn new pedagogical strategies and teaching
techniques. We have learned much in the last 10 years about how
to promote science learning. But unfortunately, many of these
practices are not seen in science classrooms.
Second, our country needs to develop new standards and
assessments that focus on the core ideas of science including
those central to nanoscience. Although the National Science
Education Standards moved this country forward in promoting
standard-based reform, the standards are now at a stage for
renovation, as they do not include ideas related to nanoscience
and still cover too many ideas that prevent learners from
developing useful understanding.
We also need to provide incentives to align all states in
this country with this new shared vision of science teaching
and learning.
Third, this country needs to develop new instructional
resources including new learning technologies. Most instruction
materials used in classrooms today do not include emerging
science ideas and do not include the latest ideas about how
children learn.
Fourth, we need to ensure that 6th through 12th grade
science classrooms have appropriate equipment and facilities to
allow all students to experience and explore doing science.
When not feasible, partnerships with private sectors and
universities need to provide this equipment.
Fifth, we need to redesign undergraduate education,
including science teacher preparation programs, so that new
ideas in science and learning and the interdisciplinary manner
of thinking that nanoscience incorporates are included. It is
only through revamping undergraduate education, including
teacher preparation, that we will make lasting changes in
science education. We need teachers who understand emerging
ideas in science and the new ideas in teaching and learning. As
such, we need to provide incentives to attract the very best
science majors to teaching careers.
Finally, we need to build partnerships with the private
sector in sharing in the cost of this effort.
In summary, to ensure all children in this country have
access to world-class science education that will help them
understand nanoscience and prepare them for fruitful lives in
the future economy, we need to provide sustained professional
development, renovate science education standards, develop and
test new instructional materials, provide for appropriate
equipment and resources, and redesign undergraduate education
and build partnerships with the private sector.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my professional
view.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Krajcik follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph S. Krajcik
Dear Chairperson and Members of the Committee,
I am honored to present testimony on the ``National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.'' My name is Joe Krajcik, and I have
been involved in science education for the last 34 years, first as a
high school science teacher and now as a Professor of Science
Education. As a Professor of Science Education, I have focused my work
on improving the teaching and learning of science at the middle and
high school levels. I am co-PI on an NSF-funded center, the National
Center for Teaching and Learning in Nanoscale Science and Engineering,
whose primary goal is to enhance the teaching and learning of
nanoscience in grades 7-16 through learning research.
Let me begin by stating that we live in an exciting time with
respect to the advances in science and technology, and that we know
more about how people learn than ever before. Rapid advances in
nanoscience have provided us with new products that have enhanced the
quality of our lives ranging from diagnosing disease to improving the
clothes we wear. At the same time, these new advances have also raised
potential new dangers, because we have now created products that can
penetrate the protective layer of skin that covers our bodies.
Nanoscale science and engineering are at the core of these changes
and advancements. These new advances in nanoscience also have the
potential to make the teaching of science more exciting and to build
student engagement. Unfortunately, this promise has not been realized
in most of our 7-12th grade science classrooms. These breakthroughs in
science have brought new challenges to science teaching and learning.
The advances of nanoscale science and the global economy in which we
live challenge the educational community to help students develop
deeper and more useful understanding of core science ideas that
underlie nanoscience. Unfortunately, the current education system is
failing to produce a populace scientifically literate enough to
understand the scientific advances of nanoscience. It is also failing
to prepare a workforce for the new jobs and professions that are
emerging from nanoscience. Children in our country continue to lag
behind in science and mathematics on international assessments; yet
understanding science and mathematics is critical both for informed
citizenship and for global competitiveness. To remedy these problems
our country needs to invest in 1) professional development to support
6-12 science teachers in learning content related to nanoscience and
new pedagogical ideas that are supported by learning research; 2)
develop new standards and assessment that focus on the core ideas in
science, including those central to nanoscience; 3) develop new
instructional resources, including new learning technologies, that
focus on nanoscience; 4) redesign undergraduate education, including
science teacher preparation programs, so that new ideas in science and
learning are incorporated into them; and 5) incentives to attract
science majors and people who currently hold science majors into
teaching careers.
We are also living in an exciting time because of the breakthroughs
in understanding how to promote learning in science in general.
Learning scientists and science educators are making important
discoveries about ways to support learners in various aspects of
inquiry, including the use of evidence and the construction of
scientific explanations (Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R.,
1999; Duschl, Schweingruber, Shouse, 2007). The science standards on
inquiry, described in the National Science Education Standards (1996)
and the habits of mind articulated in Benchmarks for Science Literacy
(American Association for the Advancement of Society, 1993), provide
guidelines for how teachers should teach science. The science standards
and benchmarks provide direction on the content ideas that children
should know and the scientific practices they should be able to apply
in order to be scientifically literate. New breakthroughs in
technologies allow scientists and learners to explore the nanoworld and
visualize data in new ways. Yet, even with these fascinating
breakthroughs, many science classrooms in the United States still
resemble classrooms of the early 1950s, with outdated equipment and
pedagogical strategies that lack support for most learners. Perhaps
most unfortunate, many of these classrooms are in locations where,
typically, children do not succeed in science--our nation's large urban
cities and rural areas. As our nation becomes even more diverse, with
growing populations of Hispanics, African-Americans and other cultures,
the challenge of how to provide quality science instruction is
amplified. These children will grow up in a world where they will need
to apply ideas, communicate ideas, make sound decisions based on
evidence, and collaborate with others to solve important problems. Many
of the new discoveries are in the area of nanoscience, and our children
need to be prepared to enter this world. Yet most of our schools are
not providing our students with the opportunities to develop the level
of science understanding they will need to grasp emerging ideas of the
nanoscale. Our science curriculum still concentrates on covering too
much content without focusing enough on developing deep, meaningful
understanding that learners will need to grasp these new areas or that
they will need to make personal and professional decisions. Research
has shown that students lack fundamental understanding of science in
general and in particular the ideas that will help them understand
nanoscience. What content should be taught? How should new ideas about
nanoscience be introduced into 7-12 classrooms?
Through the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C.
7501(d) ), the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of
2008 provides for the establishment of Nanoscience Education
Partnerships. This Act will help provide important support to improve
the education of all children in this country with respect to
nanoscience education. The Act calls for 1) professional development
activities to support secondary school teachers to use curricular
materials incorporating nanotechnology and to inform teachers about
career possibilities in nanotechnology; 2) enrichment activities for
students, and 3) the identification of appropriate nanotechnology
educational materials and incorporation of nanotechnology into the
curriculum of schools participating in a Partnership. Although
important first steps, I question whether this Act through the
formation of Partnerships will provide sufficient resources that will
make a difference for all children throughout the country. The advance
in nanoscience requires a commensurate response from the educational
community to prepare our youth. As such, the financial resources needed
to make this response must be provided by the national government with
help from the private sector. In particular, we need to ensure that all
children in our country have access to first-rate science education
that will help them understand the ideas of nanoscience and other
emerging ideas.
The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act calls for providing
support for professional development of teachers in nanotechnology.
Yet, we need to make sure that this professional development is
grounded in the science that teachers teach, focuses on teachers'
practices and provides long-term, standards-based support (Garet,
Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). The short-term professional
development that most teacher experience will not provide enough or the
type of support needed for most teachers to understand many of the new
ideas and the changing ways of thinking about science at the nanoscale.
The ideas of nanoscience were not in textbooks when many of our current
teaching force attended college. As such, professional development will
be needed that focuses on helping teachers understand the new ideas of
nanoscience. Moreover, sustained professional development must provide
science teachers support to use pedagogical strategies and techniques
that will help students understand ideas behind nanoscience. One
critical area that professional development needs to focus on is how to
help teachers support students to generate, use, and evaluate evidence
to create scientific explanations (Duschl, Schweingruber, Shouse,
2007). Another critical area includes support in using new learning
technologies to engage students in visualizing the nanoworld; there are
some good resources (see the Concord Consortium Web site, Concord.org,
and the NCLT web site, NCLT.US) available to teachers already. Use of
these new resources and instructional strategies will require sustained
professional development.
Nanoscience is also an interdisciplinary field. Advances in science
and technology are blurring the lines between the individual scientific
disciplines. As science becomes more interdisciplinary, we can no
longer rely on the traditional ways of teaching science as a set of
well-understood, clearly depicted, stand-alone disciplines. However,
how to teach in this fashion is not easy, particularly when teachers
themselves did not experience education in this manner and pre-service
programs preparing science teachers require science majors in specific
science disciplines rather than providing interdisciplinary education.
These present realities further the cycle of thinking within
disciplines rather than between disciplines. We need to provide
professional development and universities need to prepare teachers to
teach in this interdisciplinary manner. Moreover, our nation needs to
have learning research to support models of how to support teachers
teaching in this manner.
Once teachers develop the content knowledge and pedagogical skills
to teach nanoscience, they still will still face challenges teaching
these new ideas to children unless they have appropriate classroom
materials and resources. Some good instructional materials are
beginning to appear, but more development and research is necessary to
understand how they promote student learning. Although some teachers
can develop curriculum materials, teachers modify curriculum to their
local needs. If teachers can start with coherent materials that are
known to promote learning, there is a great chance that students will
learn important ideas (Kesidou, & Roseman, 2002).
Although the national science education standards in this country
helped to bring about a focus on standards-based reform and coherent
educational materials and assessments, the standards are now outdated
and need revamping. New standards that focus on the big ideas of
nanoscience (Stevens, Sutherland, Shank, & Krajcik, 2008) and other
knowledge essential for the 21st century need to be developed and
adapted by schools. Important ideas in nanoscience are not currently
incorporated in the national standards. Nanoscience education
introduces students to emerging ideas of science and supports
understanding of the interconnections between the traditional
scientific domains by providing compelling, real-world
interdisciplinary examples of science in action. However, standards-
based teaching with an interdisciplinary focus will also require
extensive and sustained professional development.
The national science education standards also need renovation
because there are too many standards. We know from successes in other
countries and from research studies that attempting to cover too many
ideas leads students to develop superficial knowledge that they cannot
use to solve problems, make decisions, and understand phenomena. Hence,
our national science education standards need reworking, updating and
consolidating.
Renovating the standards is critical because assessments are driven
by standards. If we develop standards that include the content
understandings and scientific practices that we cherish for our
children to develop, then more appropriate assessments will follow. Our
current testing practices, however, put stress on classroom teachers,
particularly when the testing practices do not align with important
learning goals. Assessment, particularly assessment that challenges
learners to use ideas and inform their development, is a good thing. We
know that learners need to experience science in engaging contexts and
apply ideas in order to learn; yet with so many standards, teachers
feel as if they must cover topics in fear that students will not
succeed on high stakes examinations rather than focus on helping
students develop understanding. The national standards have allowed us
to make headway in improving science instruction, but they still focus
on too many content ideas and do not emphasis emerging ideas. Rather
than focusing on covering too many ideas, our nation needs a long-term
developmental approach to learning science that focuses on the ideas we
most care about and takes into consideration learners' prior knowledge
and how ideas build upon each other. The Act needs to include
provisions that take into account this development and research work to
develop new standards that can drive development of appropriate
assessments, and new instructional materials and resources.
As our country now exists, each state has different standards, in
addition to the national standards. This is not a workable system. We
need to make certain that states buy into any new national standards
and assessments by providing appropriate incentives. We need to find
ways to ensure that states align themselves with these renovated
national standards.
Learning nanoscience will not occur without appropriate resources
for teaching these new ideas. The resources also need to include new
laboratory equipment and technology equipment to teach nanoscience.
Although the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act provides funds
for course, curriculum and laboratory improvement for undergraduate
education, the Act does not call for updating secondary science
laboratories. The Act needs to provide support for improving secondary
school science laboratory equipment. In order to learn science,
students need to have essential firsthand experiences when possible and
secondhand experiences to understand the complex ideas underlying
nanoscience. Nanoscience cannot be taught and students will not develop
understanding of the ideas underlying nanoscience without first- and
secondhand experiences. Students need to experience and do science if
they are going to learn with understanding. However, most U.S. high
schools and middle school are ill-equipped for students to have these
experiences. Budget cuts have caused schools to stop purchasing
consumable science supplies and new materials, preventing students from
experiencing phenomena. New laboratory equipment needs to allow
learners to take part in inquiry experiences that will allow learners
to put ideas together so that they can solve problems, make decisions,
use and evaluate evidence, and explain phenomena.
The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act includes funds to
revamp undergraduate education. Because of new content and the
interdisciplinary nature of nanoscience, a revamping of how science is
taught at the undergraduate level needs to occur. Lasting change,
however, will only occur in K-12 education if support is provided to
revamp how we prepare new teachers to teach emerging sciences such as
nanoscience. We need to provide incentives to attract college students
who have a deep understanding of the science into the teaching
profession by providing new models of how they can enter certification
programs. A major recommendation of the Glenn Report is that we need to
find ways to attract science and mathematics undergraduates into the
field of teaching and provide viable ways for them to learn how to
teach and obtain certification. Preparing science teachers to teach in
schools so that they can help all learners develop the level of
understanding of science they need requires the revamping of
undergraduate science and mathematics courses so that they reflect more
what it is like to do science and mathematics as well as new models of
how to prepare teachers. The Act needs to provide funds for both of
these critical efforts. We will not change K-12 schools in the long run
unless we change undergraduate teacher education programs that better
prepare teachers how to teach.
To summarize, schools face pressing challenges with respect to
resources, assessment and professional development. Many teachers did
not experience science in which ideas built upon each other in a
developmental approach, where evidence was used to support claims and
where science ideas were used to explain important problems and
phenomena; as such, we need models of professional development and the
resources that can support teachers as life long learners to learn new
pedagogical strategies and new assessment practices. New ideas that
emerge in science, such as nanoscience, also present challenges for
teachers with respect to integration into curriculum.
For our children to live fruitful and fulfilled lives in an ever-
globalizing world, our nation needs a system of science education that
can prepare a scientifically literate population and a competent
scientific workforce that has a useful understanding of the big ideas
of science, including those of nanoscience. We are at a moment in
history in which we, as a nation, need to provide learners with the
scientific experiences, skills, and habits of mind that will allow them
to make important decisions regarding the environment, their health,
and our social policies. We have a growing body of knowledge that can
help bring about this reform to science education.
We are at a crossroads in science education. We can continue to
push and build upon the knowledge, resources and models of exemplary
teachers who know how to engage students deeply to reform science
education, or we can retreat to old pedagogical strategies that don't
work. We need to build upon the strengths we have as a nation and
resist yielding to testing pressures that focus on unimportant ideas
and pedagogical strategies that we know do not work. Yet, we will only
do so with leadership and support from our national government. We need
funding to provide for and study the impacts of sustained professional
development and the development of new science standards that take into
consideration what we know about how children learn. We also need
support to design curriculum resources and assessments that align with
the new standards and to study the impact of these high quality
resources on student learning. Finally we need support for the
revamping of undergraduate education and developing new models of
preparing teachers to teach. The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2008 provides some support for these important
initiatives, but to provide the education that all children, regardless
of their backgrounds and culture, need to live in a technology-driven
world will require more support for improving teaching and learning.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony
to the House Committee on Science and Technology. I hope that you have
found some of my remarks valuable.
References:
American Association for the Advancement of Society. (1993). Benchmarks
for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford Press.
Before It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National
Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st
Century, 2000, www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (1999). How
People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., Shouse, A. (2007). Taking Science to
School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S.
(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results
from a national sample of teachers. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J.E. (2002). How well do middle school science
programs measure up? Findings from project 2061's curriculum
review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-
549. National Research Council. (1996).
National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Stevens, S. Sutherland, L., Shank, P., Krajcik, J. (2008). Big Ideas in
Nanoscience. http://www.hice.org/projects/nano/index.html
Biography for Joseph S. Krajcik
Joseph S. Krajcik, a Professor of Science Education and Associate
Dean for Research in the School of Education at the University of
Michigan, works with teachers in science classrooms to bring about
sustained change by creating classroom environments in which students
find solutions to important intellectual questions that subsume
essential learning goals and use learning technologies as productivity
tools. He seeks to discover the depth of student learning in such
environments, as well as to explore and find solutions to challenges
that teachers face in enacting such complex instruction. In
collaboration with colleagues from Northwestern University, American
Association of Science, and Michigan State, Joe, through funding from
the NSF, is a principle investigator in a materials development project
that aims to design, develop and test the next generation of middle
school curriculum materials to engage students in obtaining deep
understandings of science content and practices. Professor Krajcik has
authored and co-authored over 100 manuscripts and makes frequent
presentations at international, national and regional conferences that
focus on his research as well as presentations that translate research
findings into classroom practice. He is a fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and served as President of
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching in 1999. Joe
co-directs the Center for Highly Interactive Classrooms, Curriculum and
Computing in Education (hi-ce) at the University of Michigan and is a
co-principle investigator in the Center for Curriculum Materials in
Science and The National Center for Learning and Teaching Nanoscale
Science and Engineering. In 2002, Professor Krajcik was honored to
receive a Guest Professorship from Beijing Normal University in
Beijing, China. In Winter 2005, Joe was the Weston Visiting Professor
of Science Education at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot,
Israel. Before obtaining his Ph.D. in Science Education, Joe taught
high school chemistry for seven years in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He
received a Ph.D. in Science Education from the University of Iowa in
1986. His home page is located at: http://www.umich.edu/ krajcik. His
project web sites include: http://hice.org and http://hice.org/IQWST.
Current Projects:
Longitudinal Student Outcomes in a Scaling Urban Inquiry-Based Science
Intervention (Co-PI with Phyllis Blumenfeld). Spencer
Foundation, $351,900, 7/1/2006 to 6/30/2008.
A Learning Progression for Scientific Modeling, PI, Brian J. Reiser,
Co-PIs: Joseph S. Krajcik, Elizabeth Davis, Christina Schwarz,
David Fortus. National Science Foundation, ESI-06281099,
$1,738,829, October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2008.
Education for Community Genomic Awareness, from the National Institutes
of Health (Co-PI with Toby Citrin from Public Health, #1 R25
RR022703-01, $1,341,329).
National Center for Teaching and Learning in Nanoscale Science and
Engineering. National Science Foundation Center for Teaching
and Learning (ESI-0426328), Co-PI (Robert Chang from
Northwestern University, PI).
Collaborative Research: Developing the Next Generation of Middle School
Science Materials--Investigating and Questioning our World
through Science and Technology. National Science Foundation.
Award Number--ESI-0439352. Krajcik, PI. Collaborative grant
with Northwestern (Brian Resier)--five years for $6,267,023.
Chairman Gordon. Dr. Krajcik, I have some good news and bad
news for you. The good news is that 99 percent of your
recommendations were incorporated into a bill that we passed
and the President signed last year called the America COMPETES
Act. Amazingly, you recited the bill, basically. The bad news
is that the tree doesn't fall if you don't hear it in that we
have not been able to get the proper funding, or any funding
really, for the bill yet. However, working with Dr. Ehlers, we
are working in a bipartisan way to try to at least start that
funding process. We have circulated a letter. Again, we have
several Members on that. I see representatives from Texas
Instruments here. They have been a part of bringing together I
think 175 to 200 major industries and associations also
recommending that the America COMPETES Act gets funded. So
hopefully at least the good news there is we have the
authorization, and we are working very hard to try to get the
funding for your almost exact recommendation.
Now, Dr. David, you and Dr. Ehlers, would you like to just
say amen?
Dr. Maynard, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW D. MAYNARD, CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR,
PROJECT ON EMERGING NANOTECHNOLOGIES, WOODROW WILSON
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
Dr. Maynard. Thank you very much. I would like to thank
you, Chairman Gordon, Mr. Ehlers, and the Members of this
committee for holding today's hearing. My name is Dr. Andrew
Maynard. I am the Chief Science Advisor to the Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies which is a partnership between the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew
Charitable Trusts. But of course, the views I express here are
my own.
Nanotechnology is counter-intuitive. It involves a world
where materials just don't play by the rules as we know them
but demonstrate many strange and wonderful behaviors. Metals
change color, inert materials become highly reactive, what was
once weak becomes strong. For instance, if you take a material
like this, this is nanoscale titanium dioxide, it looks like a
mundane, white powder. But this material's superfine structure
which is invisible to the naked eye allows this particular
material to be used to kill microbes, make self-cleaning
windows, and ensure that mineral-based sunscreens go onto the
skin transparently.
Because nanotechnology is counter-intuitive, safe
nanotechnolo-gies will not just happen. We will need leadership
and guidance to help overcome our human scale perspective and
ensure the rule book for safe nanotechnology is built on sound
science.
In this context, I want to highlight five areas I believe
are essential to underpinning the development of safe and
therefore successful nanotechnologies.
First and foremost, I believe we need a top-level research
strategy that identifies the goals of nanotechnology research
across the Federal Government and provides a roadmap for
achieving these goals.
Secondly, I strongly believe a minimum of 10 percent of the
Federal Government's nanotechnology R&D budget should be
dedicated to goal-oriented environmental, health, and safety
research. Any less than this will risk compromising the success
of emerging nanotechnologies.
Thirdly, a coordinator should be appointed with
responsibility for overseeing and implementing a nanotechnology
environmental, health, and safety research strategy across the
government.
Fourthly, public-private partnerships are needed that
leverage government and industry funds to address critical
nanotechnology oversight issues in an independent, transparent,
and timely manner.
And finally, government actions to support the development
of safe nanotechnologies must be transparent. Without
transparency, there is no clear foundation for enabling
strategic planning or engendering trust within industry or the
public.
I think it is fair to say that transparency has been an
issue for safety research so far within the NNI. Recently the
National Nanotechnology Initiative announced that $68 million
was spent on nanotech risk-related research in Fiscal Year
2006. But as has happened many times now, no clear supporting
data were given for this figure.
Sifting through the research claiming to be relevant to
nanotechnology safety, I could only find $13 million that was
invested in research that is highly relevant to addressing the
health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology for 2006.
The same analysis, and this is somewhat interesting, for
research in Europe over the same period reveals an investment
of $24 million in nanotech safety research over the same
period.
Unlike the NNI, the information that this analysis is based
on is freely available on the web for anyone to see and anyone
to verify. The bottom line here is that without supporting
evidence, any assessment of what the government is doing to
address nanotechnology impacts is quite simply not worth the
paper it is written on.
Nanotechnology will not succeed through wishful thinking.
Instead, it will depend on clear and authoritative leadership
from the top. The proposed National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2008 addresses each of the areas I have just
highlighted and in my personal opinion supports the leadership
necessary for the successful development of safe
nanotechnologies.
I personally commend the Committee for promoting
transparency through a public database of research. This will
complement the International Public Database on Environmental,
Health and Safety Research to be launched by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development in June of this year.
I also believe the proposed Act takes an important step in
assigning to a single coordinator the responsibility for
ensuring that an adequately funded and leveraged top-down
strategic plan for nanotechnology EHS research is developed and
implemented.
When I look back on the origins of the NNI, I am impressed
by the foresight and quality of leadership exerted by the
Congressional visionaries on both sides of the aisle, together
with the President and the Executive Branch, scientists and
engineers, business people, and educators. But perhaps because
the tremendous success achieved in the laboratory since its
creation, we do risk losing sight of the challenges involved in
taking the NNI to the next level of research, education,
governance, and commercialization. It is my belief that with
the proposed Act and with a continued vigilance of this
committee, this will not happen. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Maynard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew D. Maynard
Executive Summary
Nanotechnology has vast potential to address some of the greatest
challenges facing society, including global climate change, poverty and
disease. And with this potential comes the possibility of stimulating
sustainable economic growth and job creation. The success of
nanotechnology however is not a foregone conclusion. Alongside the
challenges of developing the underlying science are broader issues that
will influence its success or failure:
- How can we learn to use such a powerful technology wisely?
- Who will decide how it is used, and who will pay the cost?
How can innovative science be translated into
successful products?
- And in an increasingly crowded and connected world, how will
the supposed- beneficiaries of nanotechnology be engaged in its
development and use?
These questions will not be answered without a clear strategy. And
without vision and strong leadership, the future of safe and successful
nanotechnologies will be put in jeopardy.
This committee should be applauded for having the foresight to
author the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act--an
Act that has enabled the United States to lead the world in developing
research programs to unlock the potential of the nanoscale. Yet as
nanotechnology has increasingly moved from the laboratory to the
marketplace, the challenges have shifted from stimulating innovative
research to using this research in the service of society. This is why
it is so important that the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendment Act of 2008 builds on the strengths of the 2003 Act, and
establishes a framework that will support nanotechnologies that can
deliver on their promise. In particular, it is vital that the
reauthorization addresses the potential for nanotechnologies to cause
harm--and how this might be avoided.
Real and perceived risks that are poorly identified, assessed and
managed will undermine even the most promising new technologies, and
nanotechnology is no exception. In this context, the 2008 Act needs to
explicitly address five areas if it is to establish a sound framework
for enabling safe, sustainable and successful nanotechnologies:
1. Risk Research Strategy. A top-level strategic framework
should be developed that identifies the goals of nanotechnology
risk research across the Federal Government, and provides a
roadmap for achieving these goals. The strategy should identify
information needed to regulate and otherwise oversee the safe
development and use of nanotechnologies; which agencies will
take a lead in addressing specific research challenges; when
critical information is needed; and how the research will be
funded. This top-level, top-down strategy should reflect
evolving oversight challenges. It should be informed by
stakeholders from industry, academia and citizen communities.
It should include measurable goals, and be reviewed every two
years.
2. Funding for environmental safety and health research. A
minimum of 10 percent of the Federal Government's
nanotechnology research and development budget should be
dedicated to goal-oriented environment, health and safety (EHS)
research. At least $50 million per year should be directed
towards targeted research directly addressing clearly-defined
strategic challenges. The balance of funding should support
exploratory research that is conducted within the scope of a
strategic research program. Funding should be assessed
according to a top-level, top-down risk research strategy, and
be overseen by cross-agency leadership.
3. Leadership for risk research. A cross-agency group should
be established that is responsible for implementing a
nanotechnology EHS research strategy, and is accountable for
actions taken and progress made. A coordinator should be
appointed to oversee this group, as well as given resources and
authority to enable funding allocations and interagency
partnerships that will support the implementation of a
strategic research plan.
4. Transparency. Government-funded nanotechnology environment
safety and health research investment should be fully
transparent, providing stakeholders with information on project
activities, relevance, funding and outcomes.
5. Public-Private Partnerships. Partnerships that leverage
public and private funds to address critical nanotechnology
oversight issues in an independent, transparent and timely
manner should be established, where such partnerships have the
capacity to overcome the limitations of separate government and
industry initiatives.
Nanotechnology is a truly revolutionary and transformative
technology, and we cannot rely on past ways of doing things to succeed
in the future. Without strong leadership from the top, we run the risk
of compromising the whole enterprise--not only losing America's
technological lead, but also jeopardizing the good that could come out
of nanotechnology for other countries and the world.
Already, the hubris surrounding nanotechnology research and
development (R&D) funding is giving way to a sobering reality: Based on
the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)-identified risk-
relevant projects, in 2006, the Federal Government spent an estimated
$13 million on highly relevant nanotechnology risk research
(approximately one percent of the nano R&D budget), compared to $24
million in Europe,\1\ despite assurances from the NNI that five times
this amount was spent on risk related research in Fiscal Year 2006.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These figures are based on an assessment of published U.S. and
European risk-related research projects, and their relevance to
addressing potential risks. See Annex A and Annex B for further
information. Full access to the information used in the assessment is
available at www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/ (accessed 4/15/
08).
\2\ NNI (2008). Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental,
health and safety research, National Nanotechnology Initiative,
Washington DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanotechnology will not succeed through wishful thinking alone.
Instead, it will depend on clear and authoritative leadership from the
top. If we are to fully realize the benefits of this innovative new
technology, we must bridge the gap between our dreams and reality.
When I look back on the origins of the NNI, I am impressed by the
foresight and quality of leadership exerted by Congressional
visionaries from both sides of the aisle, the President and Executive
Branch, scientists and engineers, business people, and educators.\3\
Perhaps because of the tremendous successes achieved in the laboratory
since its creation, we risk losing sight of the importance of meeting
the challenges involved in taking the NNI to the next level of
research, education, governance and commercialization. It is my belief
that with the proposed Act--and with the continued vigilance of this
committee--this will not happen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Lane, Neal and Kalil, Thomas, ``The National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Present at the Creation,'' Issues in Science and
Technology, Summer 2005.
Introduction
I would like to thank Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Republican
Ralph Hall, and the Members of the House Committee on Science and
Technology for holding this hearing on the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.
My name is Dr. Andrew Maynard. I am Chief Science Advisor to the
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars. Through my research and other
activities over the past 15 years, I have taken a lead in addressing
how nanotechnologies might impact human health and the environment, and
how we might realize the benefits of these exciting new technologies
without leaving a legacy of harm. I was responsible for stimulating
government research programs into the occupational health impact of
nanomaterials in Britain towards the end of the 1990's. I spent five
years developing and coordinating research programs at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that address the safety of
nanotechnologies in the workplace. While at NIOSH, I represented the
agency on the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET)
Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), and
was Co-Chair of the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health
Implications (NEHI) Working Group from its inception.
In my current role as Chief Science Advisor to PEN, I work closely
with government, industry and other groups to find science-based
solutions to the challenges of developing nanotechnologies safely and
effectively. PEN is an initiative launched by the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts in
2005.\4\ It is dedicated to helping business, government and the public
anticipate and manage the possible health and environmental
implications of nanotechnology. As part of the Wilson Center, PEN is a
non-partisan, non-advocacy policy organization that works with
researchers, government, industry, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and others to find the best possible solutions to developing
responsible, beneficial and acceptable nanotechnologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For further information see www.nanotechproject.org. Accessed
April 4, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this testimony, I will lay out essential components of an
overarching framework to cultivate the growth and innovation of the
emerging field of nanotechnology while providing safeguards for
environmental, health and safety (EHS) and comment on the extent to
which the current draft of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2008 addresses these components.
The two aims of stimulating innovation and avoiding harm need not
be, nor should be, mutually exclusive. A successful strategy of
scientific and technological innovation, integrated with EHS research,
will ensure that the promised benefits of such a technology are not
thwarted by potential EHS disasters. With nanotechnology, we have the
opportunity to do things differently. It is my belief that the proposed
reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) will
redefine how emerging technologies are developed successfully and
safely.
Underpinning Sustainable Nanotechnologies
The promise of nanotechnology
Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize the world as we
know it. The increasing dexterity at the nanoscale provides
opportunities to greatly enhance existing technologies and to develop
innovative new technologies. When you couple this capability with the
unusual and sometimes unique behavior of materials that are engineered
at near-atomic scales, you have the basis for a transformative
technology that has the potential to impact virtually every aspect of
daily life. Some of these emerging technologies will benefit
individuals, while others will help solve pressing societal challenges
like climate change, access to clean water and cancer treatment. And
many will provide companies with the competitive edge they need to
succeed. In all cases, nanotechnology holds within it the potential to
improve the quality of life and economic success of America and the
world beyond.
Unconventional behavior
The benefits of nanotechnology, however, will not be realized by
default. Nanotechnology is taking our understanding of what makes
something harmful and how we deal with that, and turning it upside
down. New engineered nanomaterials are prized for their unconventional
properties. But these same properties may also lead to new ways of
causing harm to people and the environment.\5\ Research has already
demonstrated that some engineered nanomaterials can reach places in the
body and the environment that are usually inaccessible to conventional
materials, raising the possibility of unanticipated harm arising from
unexpected exposures. And studies have shown that the toxicity of
engineered nanomaterials is not always predictable from conventional
knowledge.\6\ For instance, we now know that nanometer sized particles
can move along nerve cells; that the high fraction of atoms on the
surface of nanomaterials can influence their toxicity; and that
nanometer-diameter particles can initiate protein mis-folding, possibly
leading to diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Maynard, A.D., Aitken, R.J., Butz, T., Colvin, V., Donaldson,
K., Oberdorster, G., Philbert, M.A., Ryan, J., Seaton, A., Stone, V.,
Tinkle, S.S., Tran, L., Walker, N.J. and Warheit, D.B. (2006). Safe
handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267-269.
\6\ Oberdbrster, G., Stone, V. and Donaldson, K. (2007). Toxicology
of nanoparticles: A historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 1:2-25.
The need for foresight
Moving towards the nanotechnology future without a clear
understanding of the possible risks, and how to manage them, is like
driving blindfolded. The more we are able to see where the bends in the
road occur, the better we will be able to navigate around them to
realize safe, sustainable and successful nanotechnology applications.
But to see and navigate the bends requires the foresight provided by
strategic science.
With over 600 products currently listed on the PEN's Consumer
Products Inventory\7\ and with hundreds more commercial nanotechnology
applications on the market or under development, the question is no
longer whether nanotechnologies will impact society but how significant
the impact will be. The question for policy-makers is how these impacts
will be manifest, and how we will manage the consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products
currently on the market. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/
consumer/. Accessed 3/30/08.
Avoiding harm
Central to developing sustainable nanotechnologies is an
understanding of how new materials and products may harm people and the
environment, and how possible risks may be avoided or otherwise
managed.
Everything has the potential to cause harm. If we are smart, we
learn how to avoid harm. And if we are very smart, we work out the
rules of safe use ahead of the game. In a world of more than six
billion people, everything that occurs has an impact on some place and
someone. And as a result, each emerging technology forces us to think
harder about what the consequences might be, and how to avoid them.
Ignoring the signs of adverse consequences will only result in poor
decision-making by governments, business and individuals. While
nanotechnology undoubtedly has the potential to do great good, the
consequences of getting it wrong could be devastating. Already,
research is indicating that many nanomaterials behave in unusual and
unconventional ways that may lead to human and environmental harm if
not addressed early on.
A new mindset for a new technology
Twenty-first century technologies like nanotechnology present new
challenges to identifying and managing risks, and it would be naive to
assume that twentieth century assumptions and approaches are up to the
task of protecting health and the environment in all cases. In the case
of engineered nanomaterials, the importance of physical structure in
addition to chemical composition in determining behavior is making a
mockery of our chemicals-based view of risks and regulation.
As a simple example, imagine picking up two common kitchen
implements--a skillet and a knife. Each can be used for very different
purposes--for instance, the knife for slicing an onion and the skillet
for frying it. Likewise, each implement can cause harm in different
ways. Yet the chemical makeup of each implement is very similar--it is
predominantly iron. The very different rules for safe use are
intuitive, because one can see how the different shapes of the
implements influence behavior.
Nanomaterials are the same, in that how they behave--for good or
bad--depends on their shape as well as their chemistry. But this is
where nanotechnology becomes counter-intuitive. Because we cannot see
these intricate nano-shapes unaided, we forget that they are important.
If one were to hold up ajar of nanometer-sized titanium dioxide
particles all that would be seen is a white powder, indistinguishable
from many other powdered materials. Yet the potential for this material
to be used in new applications, and possibly to cause harm in new ways,
lies within the nanoscale structure of the material that can only be
seen using advanced microscopy techniques.
Leadership
In thinking through how the potential risks of nanotechnologies can
be proactively addressed and the technologies can be developed safely,
some things are clear. Safe nanotechnologies will not happen without
help--nanotechnologies are simply too unconventional and counter-
intuitive. Neither will safe nanotechnologies emerge if the promoters
of the technology are calling all the shots. And in a similar vein,
safe nanotechnologies will not come about through wishful thinking and
``spin.''
Instead, there needs to be strong independent leadership, and a
framework within which safe and sustainable nanotechnology can be
developed. These must ensure adequately funded research is targeted
towards understanding and addressing counter-intuitive behavior, that
the process of developing safe and sustainable nanotechnologies is
transparent and inclusive, and that activities are coordinated and
directed towards developing solutions to developing and using
nanotechnologies as safely as possible.
Only then will it be possible to develop the foresight necessary to
ensure emerging nanotechnologies are as safe and as useful as possible.
Having set the pace of nanotechnology development in the U.S. through
the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, the House
Committee on Science and Technology now has the task of ensuring these
emerging nanotechnologies deliver on their promise; benefiting society
without causing harm.
Taking Action
Risk Research Strategy
We are unlikely to arrive at a future where nanotechnology has been
developed responsibly without a strategic plan for how to get there.
Like all good strategies, this should include a clear idea of where we
want to be, and what needs to be done to get there. A top-level, top-
down strategic framework should be developed that identifies the goals
of nanotechnology risk research across the Federal Government, and that
provides a roadmap for achieving these goals. The strategy should
identify information needed to regulate and otherwise oversee the safe
development and use of nanotechnologies; which agencies will take a
lead in addressing specific research challenges; when critical
information is needed; and how the research will be funded. It should
reflect evolving oversight challenges; be informed by stakeholders from
industry; academia and citizen communities; include measurable goals;
and be reviewed every two years.
Developing an effective roadmap to addressing these challenges is
not as simple as prioritizing research needs. As I discovered while
developing recommendations on research strategies in 2006,\8\ it is
necessary to work back from what you want to achieve, and map out the
research steps needed to get there. This inevitably leads to complex
and intertwined research threads. Yet if this complexity is not
acknowledged, the result is simplistic research priorities that look
good on paper, but are ineffective at addressing specific aims. And
without a clear sense of context, it is all too easy to highlight
research efforts that appear to be strategically important, but are in
reality only marginal to achieving the desired goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Maynard, A.D. (2006). Nanotechnology: A research strategy for
addressing risk, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is that for such a strategy to be effective, it
will require top-down leadership. Establishing provisions for an
effective nanotechnology risk research strategy to be developed, funded
and implemented in the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act
of 2008 will be essential to underpinning the success and safety of
current and future nanotechnologies, as well as ensuring America's
continued leadership in this area.
Funding for Environment, Safety and Health Research
To be effective, a nanotechnology risk-research strategic framework
needs adequate funding to support proposed research, as well as
sufficient expert personnel to oversee its development and
implementation. In 2006, the U.S. spent an estimated $13 million on
highly relevant research addressing the impacts of nanotechnology on
human health and the environment.\9\ By comparison, European countries
invested approximately $24 million, including $13 million from the
European Union as a central funding organization. But these figures
fall far short of what is needed to address even the most urgent
nanotechnology EHS questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Annex A, and supporting information in Annex B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my testimony to this committee on September 21, 2006,\10\ and
more recently on October 31, 2007,\11\ I made the case for a minimum of
$50 million annually to be spent on targeted nanotechnology risk
research within the U.S. This was based on an assessment of critical
short-term research needs, and only covered highly-focused research to
address these needs.\12\ This estimate still stands. However, I must be
clear that such an investment would need to be directed towards
addressing a very specific suite of problems that regulators and
industry need answers to as soon as possible. This is not envisaged as
a general pot of money to be assigned to research that does not address
specific and urgent nanotechnology risk goals. In other words, this is
an investment that needs to be directed towards the right research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ United States House of Representatives Committee on Science.
Hearing on Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of
Nanotechnology: What are Federal Agencies Doing? Testimony of Andrew D.
Maynard. September 21, 2006.
\11\ United States House of Representatives Committee on Science.
Hearing on Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of
Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation Under the
National Nanotechnology Initiative. Testimony of Andrew D. Maynard.
October 31, 2007.
\12\ See also: Maynard, A.D. (2006). Nanotechnology: A research
strategy for addressing risk, Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is more, such an investment would not necessarily generate
more general knowledge to effectively address emerging nanotechnology
EHS issues. For this, an additional investment is needed in goal-
oriented exploratory research--both specifically focusing on aspects of
nanotechnology that might lead to harm, and bridging the worlds of
applications and implications research.
To address both targeted and exploratory research needs, a minimum
10 percent of the Federal Government's nanotechnology research and
development budget should be dedicated to goal-oriented EHS research. A
minimum of $50 annually should go to targeted research directly
addressing clearly-defined strategic challenges. The balance of funding
should support exploratory research that is conducted within the scope
of a strategic research program. Funding should be assessed according
to an interagency risk research strategy, be overseen by cross-agency
leadership and tied into the strategic research plan.
Targeted research primarily should address specific questions where
answers are urgently needed to make, use and dispose of nanotechnology
products as safely as possible. I would envisage that much of the
necessary research would be funded by or conducted within mission-
driven agencies, such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In
addition, we must ensure that regulatory agencies, including the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), either have access to resources to fund regulation-
relevant research, or input to research that will inform their
decision-making.
There will also be a role for science-oriented agencies such as the
National Institutes for Health (NIH) and the National Science
Foundation (NSF) in funding targeted research, where the missions of
these agencies coincide with research that informs specific oversight
questions. For example, these two agencies are ideally positioned to
investigate the science behind nanomaterial properties, behavior and
biological interactions in a targeted way, with the aim of predicting
health and environmental impact. But ensuring that targeted research
conducted within these agencies is relevant to addressing risk
identification, assessment and reduction goals will be critical, and
underscores the need for a robust cross-agency, risk-research strategy
and pool of designated funds.
Exploratory research, on the other hand, primarily would be
investigator-driven (within determined bounds), and so would
preferentially lie within the remit of NSF and NIH. However, in
ensuring effective use of funds, it will be necessary to develop ways
of supporting interdisciplinary research that crosses the boundary
separating these agencies, and combines investigations of basic science
with research into disease and environmental endpoints, with the goal
of informing oversight decisions.
Exploratory research should not be confined to these two agencies
alone, as there will be instances where goal-oriented but exploratory
research will fit best within the scope of mission-driven agencies, and
will benefit from research expertise within these agencies. For
example, researchers at NIOSH are currently engaged in exploratory
research that is directly relevant to identifying and reducing
potential nanotechnology risks in the workplace.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ NIOSH (2008). Strategic plan for NIOSH nanotechnology
research. Filling the knowledge gaps. Draft, February 26, 2008
(Update). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At present, there is no pot of ``nanotechnology'' money within the
Federal Government that can be directed to areas of need. Rather, the
NNI simply reports what individual agencies are spending. Yet if
strategic nanotechnology risk research is to be funded appropriately,
mechanisms are required that enable dollars to flow from where they are
plentiful to where they are needed. Extremely overstretched agencies
like NIOSH and EPA cannot be expected to shoulder their burden of
nanotechnology risk-research unaided, and agencies such as FDA and CPSC
currently have no listed budget whatsoever for nanotechnology EHS
research. If the Federal Government is to fully utilize expertise
across agencies and enable effective nanotechnology oversight,
resource-sharing across the NNI will be necessary.
Leadership for Risk Research
Without clear leadership, the emergence of safe nanotechnologies
will be a happy accident rather than a foregone conclusion.
This is a collection of technologies that is counter-intuitive and
as a result, safe and sustainable nanotechnologies will not emerge
without help. Accepted mechanisms of technology development and
transfer--including investigator-driven research, generation of
intellectual property, knowledge diffusion and market-driven
commercialization--will not ensure the information and approaches
needed to proactively ensure the safety of emerging nanotechnologies on
their own. Instead, clear and authoritative top-down leadership is
needed to enable the generation and application of information that
will support safe nanotechnology development.
As a result, it is recommended that a cross-agency group be
established that is responsible for implementing a nanotechnology EHS
research strategy, and is accountable for actions taken and progress
made. A coordinator should be appointed to oversee this group, and
given resources and authority to enable funding allocations and
interagency partnerships that will support the implementation of a
strategic research plan. A key role for this coordinator would be to
ensure agencies are motivated and able to work within their missions
and competencies toward a common set of established goals. They would
also provide leadership to the broader stakeholder community involved--
both nationally and internationally--in developing safe
nanotechnologies.
Transparency
Without transparency, effective development, implementation and
review of a strategic research framework will be hampered, stakeholder
engagement will be impossible, and trust in the government to underpin
safe nanotechnologies will be severely compromised. As a result, it is
recommended that government-funded nanotechnology EHS research should
be fully transparent, providing stakeholders with information on
project activities, relevance, funding and outcomes.
Activities to date within the federal nanotechnology initiative
have been less than transparent, to the detriment of an effective
strategy for nanotechnology development and use. For example, a PEN
analysis of current research projects listed in the National
Nanotechnology Initiative's ``Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related
Environmental, Health, and Safety Research'' found that only 62 of the
246 projects listed were highly relevant to addressing EHS issues (the
remaining projects had some relevance, but in general were focused on
exploiting nanotechnology applications).\14\ These 62 projects
accounted for an estimated $13 million in research and development
funding for 2006--a far cry from the $68 million cited by the NNI
document as being focused on EHS research.\15\ Each of these 246
projects has some relevance to addressing nanotechnology safety, and
the NNI was right to list them. But by not categorizing the relevance
of the research or including funding figures for each project, the
stated $68 million being invested has little credibility--and as has
just been shown, is indeed highly misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Annex A, with supporting information in Annex B. Project
specific data underpinning this analysis can be found in the Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies Environment, Health and Safety Research
inventory (http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/, accessed 4/
15/08). This inventory is in the process of being adopted and updated
by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Working
Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials.
\15\ Further independent assessment of research funded in 2006
reveals funding for highly relevant risk research was closer to $20
million (http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs, accessed 4/8/
08). The discrepancy appears to be due to relevant research that the
NNI missed in their analysis--another indicator that the government is
not on top of what research is being funded, and lacks sufficient
transparency for effective accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of transparency such as this can only hinder the development
of new knowledge that is essential to ensuring safe and successful
nanotechnologies. This is such a critical issue to underpinning
progress towards safe and successful nanotechnologies that I would
suggest any assessment of research investment, relevance or direction
that is not backed up by publicly accessible project-specific data is
worthless. It is for this very reason that the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Party on
Manufactured Nanomaterials is developing a soon-to-be-launched
comprehensive database on risk-relevant nanotechnology research around
the world.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The OECD nanotechnology risk research database is based on the
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies inventory of nanotechnology
Environment, Health and Safety Research (http://
www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/, accessed 4/8/08). Due to be
launched in June 2008, it will include information on project relevance
to addressing nanotechnology risks, and funding levels. For further
details, see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/6/37852382.ppt (accessed
4/8/08).
Public-Private Partnerships
Often, partnerships between public and private organizations have
the capacity to address critical challenges in a manner that is beyond
the scope of either partner in isolation. To expedite progress towards
ensuring the safety of emerging nanotechnologies, it is recommended
that partnerships are established that leverage public and private
funds to address critical nanotechnology oversight issues in an
independent, transparent and timely manner and to overcome the
limitations of separate government and industry research.
Where research needs fall between the gap of government and
industry (because of their different goals), public-private research
partnerships provide an important mechanism for bridging the gaps.
Industries investing in nanotechnology have a financial stake in
preventing harm, manufacturing safe products and avoiding long-term
liabilities. Yet many of the questions that need answering are too
general to be dealt with easily by industry alone. Perhaps more
significantly, the credibility of industry-driven risk research is
often brought into question by the public and NGOs as not being
sufficiently independent and transparent. For many nanomaterials and
nanotechnologies, the current state of knowledge is sufficient to cast
doubt on their safety but lacks the certainty and credibility for
industry to plan a clear course of action on how to mitigate potential
risks. Getting out of this ``information trap'' is a dilemma facing
large and small nanotechnology industries alike.
Cooperative science organizations like public-private partnerships
provide one way out of the ``trap'' where they are established to
generate independent, credible data that will support nanotechnology
oversight and product stewardship. Such organizations would leverage
federal and industry funding to support targeted research into
assessing and managing potential nanotechnology risks. Their success
would depend on five key attributes:
Independence. The selection, direction and evaluation of
funded research would have to be science-based and fully
independent of the business and views of partners in the
organization.
Transparency. The research, reviews and the operations of the
organization should be fully open to public scrutiny.
Review. Research supported by the organization should be
independently and transparently reviewed.
Communication. Research results should be made publicly
accessible and fully and effectively communicated to all
relevant parties.
Relevance. Funded research should have broad relevance to
managing the potential risks of nanotechnologies through
regulation, product stewardship and other mechanisms.
As I discussed in my comments to the House Committee on Science and
Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education last
October,\17\ a number of research organizations have been established
over the years that comply with many of these criteria. One of these is
the Health Effects Institute (HEI),\18\ which has been highly
successful in providing high-quality, impartial, and relevant science
around the issue of air pollution and its health impacts. The
Foundation for the National Institutes for Health\19\ also has been
successful in developing effective public-private partnerships, and the
International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON)\20\ is a third model for
bringing government, industry and other stakeholders to the table to
address common goals. The PEN is currently exploring these and other
models as possible templates for public-private partnerships addressing
nanotechnology risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ United States House of Representatives Committee on Science,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education. Research on
Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of
Planning and Implementation Under the National Nanotechnology
Initiative. Testimony of Andrew D. Maynard. October 31 2007.
\18\ For further information see The Health Effects Institute,
www.healtheffects.org. Accessed Oct. 13, 2007.
\19\ For further information see The Foundation for the National
Institutes of Health, www.fnih.org. Accessed Oct. 13, 2007.
\20\ For further information, see the International Council on
Nanotechnology, icon.rice.edu. Accessed Oct. 13, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of which model is the best suited for nanotechnology,
the need is urgent to develop such partnerships as part of the
government's strategy to address nanotechnology risks. Nanotechnologies
are being commercialized rapidly--going from $60 billion in
manufactured goods in 2007 to a projected $2.6 trillion in
nanotechnology-enabled manufactured goods by 2014--or 15 percent of
total manufactured goods globally.\21\ And knowledge about possible
risks is simply not keeping pace with consumer and industrial
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Lux Research (2007). The Nanotech Report. 5th edition, Lux
Research Inc., New York, N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
The nanotechnology future is calling us forward, and the U.S. is at
the forefront of the race to get there as fast as possible. But we are
skating on thin ice, and are in danger of missing the warning signs.
Nanotechnology is counter-intuitive, and we cannot rely on past ways of
doing things to succeed in the future. Without strong leadership from
the top, we run the risk of compromising the whole enterprise--not only
loosing America's lead, but also jeopardizing the good that could come
out of nanotechnology for other countries.
Already, the hubris surrounding nanotechnology R&D funding is
giving way to a sobering reality: Based on NNI-identified risk-relevant
projects, in 2006, the Federal Government spent an estimated $13
million on highly relevant nanotechnology risk research (approximately
one percent of the nano R&D budget), compared to $24 million in Europe,
despite assurances from the NNI that five times this amount was spent
on risk related research in Fiscal Year 2006.
But nanotechnology will not succeed through wishful thinking alone.
Instead, it will depend on clear and authoritative leadership from the
top. If we are to fully realize the benefits of this innovative new
technology, we must bridge the gap between our dreams and reality.
In my personal view, the proposed National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendment Act of 2008 goes a long way to bridging this gap.
I particularly commend the Committee for promoting transparency through
a public database for projects funding under EHS; education and
societal dimensions; and nanomanufacturing program component areas,
with sub-breakouts for education and ethical, legal and social
implications (ELSI) projects. This database will complement the public
international EHS database expected to be launched by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in June 2008, and will
provide an essential resource for evaluating the Federal Government's
progress towards addressing critical research questions, as well as
developing future research strategies.
In addition, I believe the proposed act takes an important step in
assigning to a single coordinator the responsibility for ensuring that
a top-down strategic plan for nanotechnology environmental, safety and
health research is developed and implemented; that EHS research is
appropriately funded with at least 10 percent of the total NNI budget;
and that public-private partnerships are established that leverage
government and industry research initiatives.
Finally, as the Committee knows, my in-depth experience lies in the
area of the EHS implications of nanotechnology. But as one of the many
scientists and engineers deeply involved in nanotechnology development
for over 20 years, I am genuinely concerned about the education and
``nano-readiness'' of America's students, teachers, and workforce. For
this reason, I personally endorse the establishment of partnerships to
help recruit and prepare secondary school students to pursue post-
secondary education in nanotechnology. I also support enhancements to
nanotechnology undergraduate education, faculty development, and
acquisition of equipment and instrumentation at the undergraduate
level. When today China has as many scientists and engineers working on
nanotechnology as the U.S., it is critical to support initiatives in
nanotechnology education aimed at our young people.
Similarly, the U.S. public and consumers are woefully unprepared
for the nano-age. Polling, focus groups and social science research
commissioned by PEN since its inception show that Americans' awareness
of nanotechnology remains abysmally low, with seven in 10 adults having
heard just a little of nothing at all about it.\22\ This, in my
opinion, is a significant failing of the NNI. Too few resources and too
little expertise has been devoted to educating and engaging the public
about the implications of what I believe is one of this century's most
exciting areas of science and engineering. I particularly urge the
Committee to address this problem as it works on the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Awareness Of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal
Regulatory Agencies'' conducted on behalf of the Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars by
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., September 25, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I look back on the origins of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, I am impressed by the foresight and quality of leadership
exerted by Congressional visionaries from both sides of the aisle, the
President and Executive Branch, scientists and engineers, business
people, and educators.\23\ Perhaps because of the tremendous successes
achieved in the laboratory since its creation, we risk losing sight of
the importance of meeting the challenges involved in taking the NNI to
the next level of research, education, governance and
commercialization. It is my belief that with the proposed Act--and with
the continued vigilance of this committee--this will not happen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Lane, Neal and Kalil, Thomas, ``The National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Present at the Creation,'' Issues in Science and
Technology, Summer 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annex A.
Assessment of U.S. Government Nanotechnology Environmental Safety and
Health Research for 2006
1. Assessment of research listed in the 2008 NNI nanotechnology risk
research strategy.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NNI (2008). Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental,
health and safety research, Washington, DC, National Nanotechnology
Initiative.
a. Research projects highly relevant to nanotechnology
environment health and safety accounted for an estimated $12.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
million in federal research funding in 2006.
b. Research that was either highly or substantially relevant
to nanotechnology EHS accounted for an estimated $28.9 million.
c. The majority of the research projects listed by the NNI as
being relevant to nanotechnology EHS have only limited
relevance.
Listed research was categorized according to its relevance to
addressing potential nanotechnology risks (highly relevant,
substantially relevant, having some relevance, or having marginal
relevance--as defined below). Projects specifically addressing
engineered nanomaterials, as well as projects generally applicable to
any source of nanoparticles, were included in the analysis.
The methodology for categorizing research relevance was the same as
that used in the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies on-line inventory
of nanotechnology EHS research,\25\ and in the forthcoming OECD
database of nanotechnology EHS research.\26\ This approach allows a
sophisticated and transparent assessment of research investment. The
categorization is based on published project abstracts, and how these
relate to addressing risk-specific issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Environment, safety and health research.
www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/ (accessed 4/15/08).
\26\ For further details on the OECD risk research database, see
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/6/37852382.ppt (accessed 4/8/08).
2. A broader assessment of U.S. federally-funded risk-relevant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
research for 2006
The previously-released PEN inventory of EHS research contains
substantially more projects than are listed in the 2008 NNI risk
research strategy. Assessment of the full inventory of projects reveals
that more risk-relevant research was being funded in 2006 than is
identified by the NNI, but that funding levels are still low:
a. Research projects highly relevant to nanotechnology
environment health and safety accounted for an estimated $20.4
million in federal research funding in 2006.
b. Research that was either highly or substantially relevant
to nanotechnology EHS accounted for an estimated $37.8 million.
The disparity between the figures above and NNI figures on research
spending underline an urgent need for transparency in what is being
funded, and it's relevance to addressing nanotechnology risk.
3. Comparison with European Risk Research Investments
a. In 2006, European countries invested an estimated U.S.
$23.6 million in research that was highly relevant to
understanding and addressing the impacts of nanotechnology on
human health and the environment. The EU as a central funding
organization invested an estimated U.S. $12.6 million in highly
relevant research in 2006.
These estimates are based on figures published in the document ``EU
nanotechnology R&D in the field of health and environmental impact of
nanoparticles,'' published in 2008.\27\ Research funding within
European countries for calendar year 2006 has been estimated. The
analysis includes research funded by the European Union, Belgium, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Sweden, Switzerland and
the United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EU nanotechnology R&D in the field of health and environmental
impact of nanoparticles. DG Research, January 28, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Definitions of research relevance:
a. High: Research that is specifically and explicitly focused
on the health, environmental and/or safety implications of
nanotechnology. Also included in this category are projects and
programs where the majority of the research undertaken is
specifically and explicitly focused on the health,
environmental and/or safety implications of nanotechnology.
Examples of research in this category would include research to
understand the toxicity of specific nanomaterials, research
into exposure monitoring and characterization to further
understand potential impact, research into biological
interactions and mechanisms that is focused on answering
specific questions associated with potential risk. Examples of
research that would not be included in this category would
include exploratory research into biological mechanisms outside
the context of understanding impact, general instrument
development, and research into therapeutics applications which
also incorporate an element of evaluating impact.
b. Substantial: Research that is focused towards
nanotechnology-based applications or developing fundamental new
knowledge on nanoscienee, but that has substantial and explicit
relevance to EHS implications. Examples of research in this
category would include non-targeted research into biological
mechanisms which is informative to understanding risk,
instrument development for assessing nanomaterials for
applications and characterizing nanomaterials in hazard
evaluations, and major programs with a significant component
focused on risk research.
c. Some: Research that is focused on the application of
nanotechnology and developing fundamental new knowledge on
nanoscience but that has some relevance to EHS implications.
Examples might include research into therapeutics applications
which also lead to the generation of useful data on hazard.
d. Marginal: Fundamental nanoscience and/or nanotechnology
applications-based research, which informs understanding on
potential EHS implications in a marginal way. Examples might
include the development of new analytical techniques such as
analytical electron microscopy, where some attempt is made to
apply the techniques to understanding potential risks unique to
nanomaterials.
Biography for Andrew D. Maynard
Dr. Andrew Maynard is the Chief Science Advisor to the Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies-an initiative dedicated to helping business,
government and the public anticipate and manage possible health and
environmental implications of nanotechnology. Dr. Maynard is considered
one of the foremost international experts on addressing possible
nanotechnology risks and developing safe nanotechnologies. As well as
publishing extensively in the scientific literature, Dr. Maynard is a
well-known international speaker on nanotechnology, and frequently
appears in print and on radio and television.
Dr. Maynard trained as a physicist at Birmingham University in the
UK. After completing a Ph.D. in ultrafine aerosol analysis at the
Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge University (UK), he joined the aerosols
research group of the UK Health and Safety Executive, where he led
research into aerosol behavior and characterization.
In 2000, Dr. Maynard joined the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC). Dr. Maynard was instrumental in establishing the
NIOSH nanotechnology research initiative, which continues to lead
efforts to identify, assess and address the potential impacts of
nanotechnology in the workplace. Dr. Maynard also represented NIOSH on
the Nanomaterial Science, Engineering and Technology subcommittee of
the National Science and Technology Council (NSET), and he co-chaired
the Nanotechnology Health and Environment Implications (NEHI) working
group of NSET. Both are a part of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI), the federal research and development program
established to coordinate the U.S. Government's annual $1 billion
investment in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology.
Dr. Maynard continues to work closely with many organizations and
initiatives on the responsible and sustainable development of
nanotechnology. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the
International Council On Nanotechnology (ICON), he has chaired the
International Standards Organization Working Group on size selective
sampling in the workplace, and he has been involved in the organization
of many international meetings on nanotechnology. Dr. Maynard has
testified before the U.S. House Committee on Science & Technology on
nanotechnology policy, and is a member of the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology, Nanotechnology Technical Advisory
Group. Dr. Maynard is an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the University of
Aberdeen, U.K., and has authored or co-authored over 100 scholarly
publications.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Maynard. Dr. David is
recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND DAVID, MANAGER OF TOXICOLOGY FOR
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, BASF CORPORATION
Dr. David. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am Dr. Raymond David. I am a toxicologist with
BASF Corporation, but I am here on behalf of the American
Chemistry Council and Nanotechnology Panel to speak in favor of
the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.
The infrastructure that the amendment would provide will
greatly improve the ability of the United States to plan,
coordinate, and implement research programs, especially ones
focused on the safe use of nanotechnology. The infrastructure
and focus will be welcome in an area that has seen an explosion
of research and experimental data in the scientific literature
but not necessarily always focused on addressing any one
particular issue. Under the NNI amendment, a central, federal
research oversight function will be created to address specific
research questions and provide the capability to utilize all
the federal research resources available to answer any one
particular question, much like other governments around the
globe.
This central oversight will bring the strengths of
organizations such as the EPA, NIH, NCTR, and the National
Characterization Laboratory together to resolve a particular
question, and they can do that in a fashion that will be much
faster than academia or industry alone could resolve.
The amendments mandate that NNI provide information to the
academic and industrial research communities on current
research programs, so that we can reduce the redundancy on some
of the experiments we see, available techniques and
methodologies, and facilities that can support robust
scientific research. This information will be welcome in an
area that we have seen a lot of redundancy in terms of the
scientific literature and hopefully gain acceptance of minimal
characterization evaluation parameters so that people will know
exactly what the characteristics of the nanomaterials are that
they are testing. This is something that is presently lacking
and would otherwise make their research uninterpretable.
The ACC strongly supports the intention to educate all
stakeholders, especially the public, on nanotechnology. I think
we are at a crossroads in terms of the public perception with
respect to the uses of nanomaterials. Some of the information
that the public receives from the media tends to overemphasize
the uncertainties of nanotechnology. We believe that it is
important that the public understand the true risks and
benefits of this technology and the nanomaterials that are
being used, and they need to receive that in a very clear,
straightforward manner.
Of course, these amendments and the infrastructure that
they creates does not guarantee success. The proof is really in
the pudding. The implementation is what is important. The ACC
would also like to re-emphasize that a comprehensive and
prioritized federal research strategy focusing on EHS concerns
is still missing. What we need to do is we need to focus on
assessments of risks to health and the environment. We need to
promote new interdisciplinary relationships. We need to support
better understanding of the fundamental properties of
nanomaterials and how that impacts the risk assessment. We need
to develop processes for establishing standard protocols so
that individual and maybe categories of nanomaterials can be
evaluated. We need to clearly delineate the responsibilities,
programs, timelines, and anticipated results of funded
projects. And I think we need to leverage planned research that
is ongoing throughout the world, particularly in the OECD. We
have previously urged an independent review by the National
Research Council's Board of Environmental Studies and
Toxicology to establish research priorities for manufactured
nanomaterials. We continue to believe that that is an important
effort that should be pursued so that we can develop a
comprehensive roadmap with appropriate projects and priorities
and evaluation metrics.
The nanotechnologies panel member companies want to foster
responsible application of nanotechnology. We want to share and
coordinate EHS initiatives, and we want to facilitate the
exchange of information.
We look forward to working with the Congress and NNI to
make the implementation of these amendments a success. We hope
the bill will be passed, and we look forward to that happening.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. David follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond David
Good Morning Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee. I am Dr.
Raymond David, a toxicologist with BASF Corporation, and appearing
before you today on behalf of the American Chemistry Council and ACC's
Nanotechnology Panel to speak in favor of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.
I appreciate Chairman Gordon's invitation to address the House
Committee on Science and Technology on the role of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in planning and implementing the
environmental, safety, and health research necessary for the
responsible development of nanotechnology.
ACC represents the leading companies engaged in the business of
chemistry. ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make
innovative products and services that make people's lives better,
healthier and safer. In 2005, ACC formed its Nanotechnology Panel
consisting of domestic producers that are engaged in the manufacture,
distribution, and/or use of chemicals that have a business interest in
the products of nanotechnology. Panel member companies wish to foster
the responsible application of nanotechnology; to coordinate
nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety research initiatives
undertaken by member companies and other organizations; and to
facilitate the exchange of information among member companies and other
domestic and international organizations on issues related to
applications and products of nanotechnology.
The infrastructure that the NNI amendments would create will
greatly improve the ability of the U.S. to plan, coordinate, and
implement research programs--especially ones focused on the safe use of
nanomaterials, an issue that has been raised many times in the past few
years. This infrastructure and focus will be welcome in an area that
has seen an explosion of research and generation of experimental data--
not always focused. The U.S. has had many intellectual and financial
resources applied to studying nanomaterials, but not necessarily
directed at solving any one issue. Under the NNI amendment, a central,
federal, research oversight function would be created to address
specific research questions and provide the capability to utilize all
federal resources to answer those questions--much like other
governments throughout the globe.
This centralized oversight will bring the strengths of each federal
research organization together to address a single issue. For example,
scientists in the National Characterization Laboratory in Frederick,
MD, have extensive experience detecting a variety of nanomaterials in
biological fluids; scientists in NIOSH have verified the protective
effect of personal protective equipment and have investigated the
cellular effects of dermal exposure; and scientists in NIEHS and NCTR
have developed techniques and conducted experiments to better
understand the potential for dermal penetration of nanomaterials. Being
able to bring all these entities and expertise together to answer
specific questions on the applied nanomaterials could bring swift
answers to questions that would take industry or academia alone much
longer to evaluate.
The amendments would also mandate that NNI provide information to
the academic and industrial research community on current research
programs, available techniques and methodologies, and facilities to
support robust scientific research. This information should reduce the
redundancy that we currently find in the explosion of scientific
literature, and help gain acceptance of minimal characterization
criteria needed for understanding the nature of what particle was
tested--nano sized or otherwise. Too often we find published studies
that refer only to obtaining a nanomaterial from a vendor and adding
that to a biological test system. Investigators need to know how and
where they get characterized nanomaterials for study. Otherwise, their
research may be difficult to interpret in the context of human or
environmental safety assessment.
ACC strongly supports the amendment's purposes to have NNI provide
support for programs designed to educate all stakeholders, including
the public, on nanotechnology. The public may very well have a skewed
perception of nanotechnology and specifically the use of nanomaterials.
Sensational articles on nanotechnology in the mainstream media can
distort information, and we all must be mindful of the urgent need to
present information on nanotechnology in a factually accurate, balanced
way. The public will be far less likely to be receptive to this
emerging technology if information about its potential risks and
benefits is not faithfully reported in clear, straightforward terms.
Of course, the infrastructure that these amendments would provide
does not guarantee success. Implementation is what is important. ACC
would also like to re-emphasize that a high quality, comprehensive and
prioritized federal research strategy focusing on nanotechnology
environment, health, and safety is still missing and should:
Focus on risk assessments, and the generation and
application of information on the continuum of exposure, dose
and response;
Promote new interdisciplinary partnerships that bring
visionary thinking to research on nanotechnology;
Support better understanding of the fundamental
properties of nanomaterials that have an impact in the
exposure-dose-response paradigm;
Develop processes for establishing validated standard
measurement protocols so that individual or categories of
materials can be studied;
Clearly delineate the responsibilities, programs,
timelines, and anticipated results of funded projects for each
federal agency; and
Leverage planned and ongoing work by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Working Party
on Manufactured Nanomaterials, particularly in identifying on-
going or planned research projects by other countries and
interpreting the results of this research, and the testing of
representative nanomaterials using standard test methods to
assess potential health or environmental hazards.
When ACC testified before you last October, we urged as an
appropriate next step, the funding of an independent review by the
National Research Council Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology
(BEST) to establish EHS research priorities for manufactured
nanomaterials and a substantial increase in federal funding of EHS
programs for manufactured nanomaterials. ACC continues to believe that
BEST should develop and monitor implementation of a comprehensive
roadmap for federal EHS research projects and set priorities with
evaluation metrics suitable for federal funding. This funding would
enable BEST to develop a roadmap and strategy for the Federal
Government for environmental, health, and safety research.
We look forward to working with the Congress and NNI to make the
implementation of the NNI amendments a success. We are hopeful that
this bill will be passed to allow that to happen.
Biography for Raymond David
Dr. Raymond David is Manager of Toxicology for Industrial Chemicals
in BASF Corporation. He received his Ph.D. in Pharmacology from the
University of Louisville, after which he was a Postdoctoral Fellow at
the Chemical Institute of Toxicology in Research Triangle Park. Dr.
David worked for eight years at Microbiological Associates in Bethesda,
Maryland where he managed the Inhalation and Mammalian Toxicology
Departments. He also spent 14 years at Eastman Kodak in Rochester New
York as Senior Toxicologist before joining BASF in 2006. Dr. David has
experience conducting inhalation, pulmonary, reproductive, and systemic
toxicity studies. He was responsible for EH&S issues for nanotechnology
at Eastman Kodak Company, and is currently responsible for
nanotechnology issues in BASF Corporation.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. David. Finally, Dr.
Doering, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT R. DOERING, SENIOR FELLOW AND RESEARCH
STRATEGY MANAGER, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS
Dr. Doering. Chairman Gordon, Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. Texas
Instruments and the Semiconductor Industry Association view two
topics as key to the legislation, first, identification of
areas of national importance and second, translation of basic
research into commercialization. These are essential to
ensuring that the NNI program maintains U.S. leadership in
nanotechnology and contributes to economic competitiveness.
Appropriately, the bill identifies four areas of national
importance: electronics, health care, energy, and water
purification. This will prioritize interagency activities and
resources around nanotechnology research to address critical
challenges facing our country. The INSI are encouraged that
electronics is the first area listed and strongly advocates
that it be renamed as nanoelectronics. Nanoelectronics will
actually play a key role in essentially every area of national
importance. It will enable improved information processing,
communications, imaging and sensor technologies that will
assist in addressing energy challenges, improving health care,
and detecting national security threats. Advanced
nanoelectronics research is needed because the CMOS technology
that the semiconductor industry has used for over 30 years is
projected to reach its performance, energy efficiency, and cost
limits by the year 2020. In 2005, six U.S. semiconductor
companies formed a consortium, the Nanoelectronics Research
Initiative, to provide industry funds to universities to
accelerate this research. Today, the NRI leverages funding and
expertise from industry, NSF, and NIST, as well as
contributions from state and local governments and supports
research at 35 universities and four regional centers.
This collaboration model can be replicated to address other
national challenges with nanotechnology research. The draft
legislation recognizes and encourages such models. To
effectively pursue research in the areas of national
importance, universities and federal labs will need adequate
resources for research funding and essential equipment. NNI
investments in the areas of national importance should be
reported in the same manner that they currently are for the
program component areas.
The bill recognizes the basic nanotechnology research
should lead to commercial applications. Industry can play an
important role in establishing a balance between directed basic
research and its potential commercialization by providing
insights on an appropriate goals and needs for both. For
example, there are a number of candidates for new
nanoelectronics devices, but to be viable these must be capable
of being manufactured in commercial volumes at low cost. This
may require an entirely new nanomanufacturing paradigm.
Also, as we move nanoelectronics to even smaller
dimensions, the metrology challenges will only increase, an
important role for NIST. Thus, the bill's call for
instrumentation and tools for nanoscale manufacturing is a
significant element for the semiconductor industry. In
addition, the draft legislation rightly identifies the
important role of state leverage through research, development,
and technology transfer initiatives. The State of Texas, the
University of Texas System, and Texas Industry collaborated to
establish a $30 million complimentary package of leveraged
funding to attract and support top academic researchers at the
Southwest Academy of Nanoelectronics which is one of the
regional centers in NRI. Currently, the NRI state and local
leverage for all regional centers totals about $15 million
annually.
In conclusion, while the legislation establishes an
important framework, corresponding appropriations will need to
follow. We look forward to continuing our work with this
committee to successfully achieve the funding goals of America
COMPETES and the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative as the National Nanotechnology Amendments Act of
2008 moves towards final passage. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Doering follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert R. Doering
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation is a
natural follow-on to the America COMPETES Act signed into law last
summer, and we thank this committee for playing such a critical
leadership role in that effort.
Texas Instruments (TI) has a 78-year history of innovation. While
our products have changed many times over the years, we have always
fundamentally been a company of engineers and scientists. We have
always looked to the future by investing in R&D. Based in Dallas, TI
has become the world's third largest semiconductor company. TI is
focused on developing new electronics that make the world smarter,
healthier, safer, greener and more fun.
I am also appearing on behalf of the Semiconductor Industry
Association (SIA). SIA has represented America's semiconductor industry
since 1977. The U.S. semiconductor industry has 46 percent of the $257
billion world semiconductor market. The semiconductor industry employs
216,000 people across the U.S., and is America's second largest export
sector.
While my testimony today focuses directly on the draft National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act, please note that TI strongly
supports the testimony presented last month to the Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education by Dr. Jeff Welser, Director of the
Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) at the Semiconductor Research
Corporation on assignment from IBM. TI is an active member of the NRI,
as well as the Semiconductor Research Corporation and the Semiconductor
Industry Association.
Nanotechnology holds the promise of solving a number of major
challenges facing our country, in areas such as energy, health care,
and security. Nanotechnology research is extremely interdisciplinary,
bringing together any combination of biologists, chemists, electrical
engineers, physicists, medical doctors and materials scientists. This
interdisciplinary nature is one of the reasons that it is essential
federal research agencies be encouraged to work collaboratively in the
field of nanotechnology.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act signed
into law in 2003 created the mechanism to coordinate federal research
agencies on a major scale around this subject. The creation of the
National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office (NNCO) provided a focal
point of these federal activities, leading to the development of
strategic plans that identified program component areas, and brought
together key stakeholders for workshops on major nanotechnology topics.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008
expands upon the foundation of the original legislation to improve
interagency activities on critical nanotechnology research. Section 2
contains a number of elements that would enhance the way National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is planned and implemented. Using the
NNI strategic plan to establish clear metrics and time frames for both
near- and long-term objectives, including plans for technology
transition with industry and the states, allows better measurement of
progress towards NNI goals. The explicit funding mechanism for the NNCO
and authorization of travel expenditures are also positive proposals
for improving the way the NNI is planned and implemented. The
modifications to the Advisory Panel will allow a more direct role for
industry input and specific focus on nanotechnology. While PCAST has
addressed nanotechnology on a detailed level, it also has a vast scope
of work in a range of other areas.
My testimony today will focus on two core aspects that TI and the
U.S. semiconductor industry see as key components to the legislation:
identification of areas of national importance and the translation of
basic research into innovations that can be commercialized. These are
essential to ensuring that the NNI program maintains U.S. leadership in
nanotechnology.
Areas of National Importance (Section 5)
The draft legislation's inclusion of ``Areas of National
Importance'' is an essential element to the bill. The identification of
the areas specifically named in the bill as well as subsequently by the
Advisory Panel, will facilitate prioritization of interagency activity
and resources around nanotechnology research that addresses the most
critical challenges facing our country. It is indeed appropriate with
this legislation for Congress to set some initial areas of national
importance, with flexibility embodied in the Advisory Panel to identify
additional areas. The legislation importantly recognizes that the
projects in these areas will be selected on a merit and competitive
basis.
The draft bill identifies electronics, health care, energy, and
water purification as initial areas of national importance. TI and the
U.S. semiconductor industry are encouraged that electronics is the
first area listed, and strongly advocate that it be renamed
nanoelectronics and that the reference be retained in the final bill.
The semiconductor industry makes major contributions to the U.S.
economy. Semiconductor price reductions and performance improvements
have driven productivity. Semiconductors drive the information
technology sector, which has contributed to 25 percent of gross
domestic product (GDP) growth since 1995 while only making up three
percent of GDP. U.S. semiconductor companies are technology leaders,
capturing nearly half of the over $250 billion worldwide market.
As Dr. Welser testified, nanoelectronics research is needed to
advance the current semiconductor technology to its ultimate limits,
and to examine nanoelectronics alternatives to go beyond those limits,
which will probably be reached by around 2020.
Progress in nanoelectronics is essential to continued advances in
information and communications, enabling breakthroughs in applications
that depend on rapidly accessing huge volumes of data and increasing
the speed of computations with that data, such as improved mapping of
the human genome and protein folding, predicting the path of
hurricanes, and modeling the behavior of nanomaterials and
nanoparticles. There is no doubt that nanoelectronics will play a key
role in essentially every area of national importance, such as energy,
health care, and national security.
In addressing energy challenges, nanoelectronics and nanostructured
materials will be essential to developing new sources as well as to
greatly improved means of energy harvesting, storage, distribution,
conservation, scavenging, and exploration. Nanostructured materials are
already showing promise for low-cost, high-efficiency solar cells, fuel
cells, super capacitors, batteries, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs).
As our country faces rising health care costs for a growing and
aging population, the application of nanotechnology to medical
diagnoses and treatments will be critical. Advances in nanoelectronics,
and nanotechnology more broadly, can lead to less invasive procedures,
better imaging and monitoring, and targeted treatment at the cellular
level (e.g., cancer).
Security is another major area of national importance. Even if the
Committee decides not to address this area in the legislation, this
topic should certainly be prominent in the interagency context. Further
progress in nanoelectronics will continue to benefit national security
in very many ways, including even smarter weapons, better and quicker
situational awareness, and a broad range of small sensors such as
single-chip chemical and biological analysis platforms.
Models and Resources Required to Address National Areas
Collaboration among Federal and State government, industry, and
academia will be essential in addressing the application of
nanotechnology to national challenges, through partnerships such as the
NRI. The NRI currently supports university basic research in
nanoelectronics at 35 universities and four regional centers. NRI
efforts are primarily focused on finding a new switch with improved
speed, energy efficiency, and/or cost compared to the field-effect
transistor, which is today's workhorse for processing information. The
National Science Foundation also recognized this nanoelectronics
challenge in its 2009 budget request by including a $20M initiative for
research addressing ``Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law.''
The NRI started as a result of the semiconductor industry
recognizing that university research in nanoelectronics must be
accelerated. In 2005, Advanced Micro Devices, Freescale, IBM, Intel,
Micron Technology, and Texas Instruments all agreed to provide industry
funds to form a consortium that would fund university research in
nanoelectronics. From the beginning, it was clear that the scope of the
challenge and basic science questions involved would require engagement
and resources from the Federal Government, and conversations began with
NSF and NIST.
NRI is a model collaboration that leverages funding and expertise
from industry, NSF, and NIST, and contributions from State and local
governments. To quote the most recent NNI strategic plan profile of the
NRI, ``these government-industry-academic partnerships blend the
discovery mission of NSF, the technology innovation mission of NIST,
the practical perspective of industry, and the technical expertise of
U.S. universities to address a nanotechnology research and development
priority. It is one example of the creative methods the NNI uses to
accelerate research that contributes to the Nation's economic
competitiveness.'' We are pleased that the draft legislation recognizes
and encourages such models in Section 5.
An extremely valuable addition to the reporting requirement in
Section 5 would be to track investments in the areas of national
interest, at the same level of detail as is currently done for the
Program Component Areas. This information is currently disaggregated
across agencies and extremely difficult to obtain and compile. For
example, there is no central location to determine overall federal
investments in nanoelectronics research, and certainly not on a fiscal
year-to-year basis to determine trends.
To pursue critical research in the areas of national importance,
universities and federal labs such as NIST will need adequate resources
in terms of research funding and necessary equipment/relating operating
costs--this should be recognized in the bill. While the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 establishes an
important framework, corresponding appropriations will need to follow.
TI and many of our colleagues in the U.S. semiconductor industry have
been among the leaders in the business community advocating for
appropriations to meet the research levels established by the America
COMPETES Act, House Democratic Innovation Agenda, and the President's
American Competitiveness Agenda.
Research to Commercialization (Sections 4 and 6)
The Federal Government is uniquely positioned to fund basic
research. Historically, it has been the primary source of basic
research funds for universities. The Federal Government plays an
especially important role in supporting higher-risk, exploratory
research for which the economic benefits may not be realized for
decades.
We applaud the Committee for recognizing that appropriate critical
areas of basic research must have a mechanism for translating research
into commercial applications. This must be balanced with sustained
emphasis on continuing the exploratory research itself, which is
required to answer remaining fundamental questions in the science and
engineering of nanotechnology. We believe that industry can play an
important role in establishing this balance by providing insights on
appropriate goals and needs for both ``directed'' basic research and
its potential commercialization. This input can be provided through the
revised Advisory Panel, consortia, and various industry advisory
liaisons' input into federal agency merit review processes. Direct
agency partnership through pre-competitive industry consortia is one of
the best mechanisms to achieve close industry-government collaboration
and facilitate commercialization of promising research.
Nanomanufacturing
The language in Section 6 calling for instrumentation and tools for
nanoscale manufacturing is an important one for the semiconductor
industry. As we move to nanoelectronics, measurement, or metrology,
challenges will only increase. NIST is best suited to address these
challenges given its mission of metrology and its laboratory resources.
Using the NRI research as an example, the new nanoelectronics
switch must be extremely reliable, fast, low power, functionally dense,
and capable of being manufactured in commercial volumes at low cost.
There are a number of candidates for the new nanoelectronics switch,
including devices based on spin or other quantum state variables rather
than classical bulk electric charge. Commercialization of such devices
into a new class of integrated circuits may very well require an
entirely new nanomanufacturing paradigm.
Role of the States
Section 4 of the draft legislation highlights technology transfer
and explicitly identifies the important role of State leverage through
research, development, and technology transfer initiatives.
We agree that State governments should play an important role in
leveraging federal funds and facilitating commercialization from
universities to industry. For example, Texas created a $200 million
Emerging Technology Fund. The fund has three goals: invest in public-
private endeavors around emerging scientific or technology fields tied
to competitiveness; match federal and other sponsored investment in
science; and attract and enhance research talent superiority in Texas.
Several other states have similar mechanisms. Of course, State
governments are also critical in supporting public research
universities from an overall budget perspective.
As part of the establishment of the third regional NRI center, the
Southwest Academy of Nanoelectronics (SWAN), the State of Texas, the
University of Texas System, and Texas industry collaborated to
establish a complementary package of leveraged support. The resulting
$30 million of matching funds is focused on attracting and supporting
top academic researchers in nanoelectronics. Specifically, this is a
three-way match, with the State of Texas contributing $10 million from
the Emerging Technology Fund, the University of Texas System matching
with $10 million, and the remaining $10 million being contributed by
Texas industry for endowed chairs, including $5 million from TI.
The other regional NRI centers provide similar State and local
leverage to industry, NSF, and NIST funds. Overall, states are
contributing approximately $15 million annually to the NRI in funding,
equipment, and endowments, in addition to the major investments in new
buildings. New York has provided significant research funding for the
Institute for Nanoelectronics Discovery and Engineering (INDEX), as
well as a major expansion of the College of Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Complex in Albany. The State of Georgia, a partner in INDEX
through Georgia Tech, has provided new facilities. The Western
Institute of Nanoelectronics (WIN) Center has leveraged funds through
the University of California's Discovery program. The recently-
established Midwest Academy for Nanoelectronics and Architectures
(MANA) at Notre Dame has attracted Indiana State funds and even city
resources from South Bend, as well as a commitment to a nanoelectronics
building and adjacent innovation park for commercialization activities.
While the states have provided these resources to the four regional
NRI centers, it is important to note that the regional centers are
``virtual'' and involve researchers from several universities outside
these states, thus the local investments benefit research on a national
level.
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
issued a five-year assessment report on the NNI in 2005. One of the
recommendations was to increase federal cooperation with the states,
especially by leveraging State research investments. Further, the
report recognized the important role of states in commercializing
nanotechnology research results. We agree with these conclusions and
endorse the draft legislation's emphasis on the role of the states in
nanotechnology.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. The draft bill makes a number of
improvements to the planning and implementation of the NNI. We strongly
support the focus on areas of national interest, and specifically the
language on nanoelectronics. The translation of basic research to
commercialization must occur to ensure that the NNI maximizes the
contributions to U.S. economic competitiveness and maintains our
country's leadership in nanotechnology. TI and the semiconductor
industry look forward to continuing to work closely with the Committee
as this bill proceeds towards final passage.
Biography for Robert R. Doering
Dr. Doering is a Senior Fellow and Technology Strategy Manager at
Texas Instruments. He is also a member of TI's Technical Advisory
Board. His previous positions at TI include: Manager of Future-Factory
Strategy, Director of Scaled-Technology Integration, and Director of
the Microelectronics Manufacturing Science and Technology (MMST)
Program. The MMST Program was a five-year R&D effort, funded by DARPA,
the U.S. Air Force, and Texas Instruments, which developed a wide range
of new technologies for advanced semiconductor manufacturing. The major
highlight of the program was the demonstration, in 1993, of sub-three-
day cycle time for manufacturing 350-nm CMOS integrated circuits. This
was principally enabled by the development of 100 percent single-wafer
processing.
He received a B.S. degree in physics from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1968 and a Ph.D. in physics from Michigan
State University in 1974. He joined TI in 1980, after several years on
the faculty of the Physics Department at the University of Virginia.
His physics research was on nuclear reactions and was highlighted by
the discovery of the Giant Spin-Isospin Resonance in heavy nuclei in
1973 and by pioneering experiments in medium-energy heavy-ion reactions
in the late 70's. His early work at Texas Instruments was on SRAM,
DRAM, and NMOS/CMOS device physics and process-flow design. Management
responsibilities during his first 10 years at TI included advanced
lithography and plasma etch as well as CMOS and DRAM technology
development.
Dr. Doering is an IEEE Fellow and Chair of the Semiconductor
Manufacturing Technical Committee of the IEEE Electron Devices Society.
He represents Texas Instruments on many industry committees, including:
the Technology Strategy Committee of the Semiconductor Industry
Association, the Board of Directors of the Semiconductor Research
Corporation, the Governing Council of the Focus Center Research
Program, the Governing Council of the Focus Center Research Program,
the Governing Council of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, and
the Corporate Associates Advisory Committee of the American Institute
of Physics. Dr. Doering is also a founder of the International
Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors and one of the two U.S.
representatives to the International Roadmap Committee, which governs
the ITRS. He has authored/presented over 150 publications and invited
papers/talks and has 20 U.S. patents.
Discussion
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Doering. You are absolutely
right. We have got to do more than authorize. We have also got
to follow up with those appropriations. Thank you.
At this point, we will open ourselves for the first round
of questions, and the Chair recognizes himself. There has been
a lot of discussion this morning about health and safety,
environmental concerns about nanotechnology. Let me tell you
the reasons that I am particularly concerned about that. One is
my seven-year-old daughter, and I know all of us have reasons
of some nature, that same interest. The other is I want to make
sure that America gets as much bang for the buck of our
investment as we can. I want us to be first to market. I want
us to be able to create jobs in this country built around
nanotechnology. And as a son of a farmer, I am haunted to some
extent about what I have seen with genetically altered grain. I
have seen how it has been rejected, even though in my opinion
we have had good research to the contrary around the world. I
don't want that to happen here. I think that means we have got
to get out in front. There are already 600 products on the
market, and it concerns me that we are going to have a horror
story with one out of 600, and it could put a taint on the
entire industry.
For that reason, the draft bill requires that 10 percent of
the NNI's total funding be designated for the environmental,
health, and safety research component area there at NNI. This
would be about $150 million under the current 2009 request.
Now, this is a provision that has been really recommended by a
number of companies within industry, academia, NGO. It is
consistent with the National Academy of Science 2006 review of
NNI. But it is not unanimous, and Mr. Kvamme, you have stated,
and I will quote, that it is misguided and may have the
unintended consequence of reducing research on beneficial
applications and on risk. So let me ask you, do you feel like
your panel is satisfied with the current level of funding on
health, environment, and safety?
Mr. Kvamme. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, we in our
report, we call for increased spending in that area and
particularly since the industry is picking up more and more
research funding in the nano area, we think the Government's
role will in fact change. As you know very well, the 2009----
Chairman Gordon. Change in what direction?
Mr. Kvamme. In an increasing direction. In the 2009
request----
Chairman Gordon. In an increasing direction? You said it
was going to change. From what to what?
Mr. Kvamme. More spending in the EHS area is requested and
is happening. It is roughly double of 2006 numbers from $37 to
$76 million in the 2009 area. So I think that will happen.
Chairman Gordon. Did your panel discuss an appropriate
level?
Mr. Kvamme. We talked about what is happening and what is
the strategy behind what is happening. We have not yet
completed review of the NEHI report because it just came out in
February, we looked more at what activities are in that we
believe that the activities called for in that report and the
subsequent EPA research strategy are appropriate things to
fund, and we believe that these funding levels can support that
level of research.
Chairman Gordon. So would it be fair to say that you're not
satisfied with the current level, think there should be
additional spending but do not want to put a specific 10
percent----
Mr. Kvamme. I think that is a fair statement. Namely, we
have encouraged the increased spending in this area. Now, the
particular area that we do call out that we haven't mentioned
yet is in NIOSH. We believe that the workplace is the most
critical area, and we do call for an acceleration of the
funding in the NIOSH area.
Chairman Gordon. I know some the witnesses have a contrary
view, and so what I would like to do is for each of the
witnesses to respond to Mr. Kvamme's statement and see what
recommendation you would have. And so we will start and just go
straight down.
Mr. Murdock. As I said earlier, we don't know the exact
appropriate level for this funding. We think 10 percent is
ultimately reasonable estimate but that should be determined by
strategic planning process. I think Ray David, Dr. David
mentioned the National Academy's BEST study which we have also
supported to figure out what that number is. I think it is also
important that we continue to make the investments in some of
the characterization in metrology equipment, the measurement
techniques in particular for the workplace exposure.
Absolutely.
Chairman Gordon. If there was a strategic review that
determined that there should be a base-level funding, you would
go along with that?
Mr. Murdock. Correct.
Chairman Gordon. Go ahead, sir.
Dr. Krajcik. You know, this really isn't my area of
expertise, so I will pass on comments with respect to this
question.
Chairman Gordon. As my mother said, if you don't have
something good to say, just don't say anything at all. That is
a good policy to follow. Yes, Doctor?
Dr. Maynard. Let me just start by saying I very much agree
with Mr. Kvamme that NIOSH is one of those agencies that is
doing tremendous work with virtually no dollars to do it, and
that is a critical area where more investment is needed if we
are going to make real progress toward developing safe
nanotechnologies.
If you look at funding in general, one thing I think is
indisputable. We need more money to do targeted H&S research.
If we don't have more money, we will not get the answers that
people need in order to make good decisions. And that means you
have got to set some sort of guidelines, and you can do it one
of two ways. You can either set a baseline level, say $100
million, $150 million a year which are the figures that are
being recommended, or you can set it as a percentage of the
overall funding for nanotechnology research. I actually think
it makes it simpler to set that 10 percent level, and it is a
reasonable level. Any less than that, it is really hard to see
how we are going to get the information we need in order to
ensure the safety and success of these technologies.
But that funding has got to be allayed with a strategy. You
cannot just look at the dollars. You have got to understand
where those dollars are going, what you are going to achieve
with them, and if you don't have that strategy, if you don't
have that accountability, you could put $100 million, $200
million per year in this area and achieve absolutely nothing.
Chairman Gordon. Dr. David.
Dr. David. I think Andrew has made some very good points,
and I agree with him. I think it is very difficult to come up
with an exact figure and certainly a percentage probably is the
most appropriate way to approach it. Whether 10 percent is the
correct number or some other percentage, I think that that is a
difficult question to answer without having some external
recommendation. I can tell you that within industry, companies
can spend anywhere from two to five percent of their budget on
R&D efforts. Pharmaceutical companies, it is 15 percent. And
that simply is a reflection of the kinds of products that they
are generating or what is required to determine that those
products are safe for consumer uses. And so 10 percent lies
somewhere in between that number and is probably as reasonable
a starting point as any. But I think it is probably an
excellent idea to have the National Academies come back with an
actual recommendation. That seems to make the most sense to me.
Chairman Gordon. Just for your information, a part of the
bill does set forth a strategic plan that we will develop for
each agency. And so we hope to get that good advice, and the
Academy is reviewing that plan now.
And finally, Dr. Doering.
Dr. Doering. The semiconductor industry is certainly very
interested in ESH and feels it is an important topic. The SI in
fact has a committee on environmental safety and health. The
industry has two R&D consortia in the United States, the
Semiconductor Research Corporation as well as Semitech which
co-fund a center on environmentally benign manufacturing for
semiconductors at the University of Arizona. It has partner
universities around the country that are part of that center as
well. In addition, the International Technology Roadmap for
Semiconductors, which is a very detailed document,
approximately 1,000 pages of the research needs that we have
for our industry, the pre-competitive needs, has a whole
chapter on environmental safety and health which goes into a
lot of detail on very specific things, including some in the
area of nanoelectronics.
However, we haven't really done the kind of analysis that
would put any particular number on what this need is. I
definitely agree with most everyone else that some kind of
analysis is appropriate to figure out what the plan would call
for in terms of a figure, but the semiconductor industry can't
suggest any number at this point.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, and Dr. Ehlers, excuse me for
running over time, and that certainly will extend to you or
others that might have a threshold question like that.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I timed it at 30 minutes. Seriously,
a lot of good questions, good answers. But I would just like to
thin this down a bit. First of all, how does the 10 percent,
singling that out, how is it going to affect the other research
that is done? Mr. Kvamme, I would like to have you give me some
overview of how you see this working. Let me add another
question to the mix. So many different agencies and
organizations involved. We are using different bookkeeping
methods. How are we going to specify the 10 percent and make
sure that it is fairly administered? The two questions, how do
you do it and how do you administer it fairly? Secondly, what
impact is that likely to have on the other research programs
out there?
Mr. Kvamme. Well, let me try the second one first. That is
part of the reason I inserted the graph that I did in my
written statement which lists the 13 agencies that do EHS
research against the five different question areas that the
NEHI Report outlined as the questions. It seems to me what
would have to happen, and I am no authority on governmental
processes or appropriations or those kinds of things. That is
not where I come from. But it seems like what you would then
have to do is go down the 13 agencies and essentially say,
okay, NIH, you have got to spend 6.7 percent, and NIST, you
have got to spend X percent and EPA, you have got to spend 18.7
percent, et cetera. You would have to do something because they
set the goals. Somebody would have to then sum the total and
say, we are at 9.6 percent, we need 0.4 percent and twist NSF's
arm to increase their thing a bit or something like that. I
don't understand that process. That is not what I am saying. So
I think that is the practical issue that I see from our
analysis because you have to understand, these organizations
voluntarily joined the NNI. And in the early days of our first
report, we were twisting arms to get people to become part of
the program to start with. And by the way, are still twisting a
couple of arms which we think are important to join, so the
Department of Education will come along.
So I think that is an issue relative to how you would do
it, but that is in your hands. I just point that out as the
practical thing.
Now, obviously the other issue that you have is the $1.5
billion supports a lot of buildings, a lot of instrumentation,
a lot of other kinds of things. If you actually talk about
dollars and cents going to researchers, the numbers, the $76
million that is talked about now is probably pretty close to a
high single-digit number. I can't say a specific number because
I don't have that breakout at my hands, but it would obviously
mean that the other research would be .9 of what it has been.
But the other point that I would make that I think is very,
very important to realize is that the applications research
embodies EHS research in a number of areas. For example, at
NIH, with our discussions with them, they have to worry about
the health implications. The example I like to use is in
isolation, nobody would agree to chemotherapy. It is not good
for you. The plus is that it does good stuff. It eliminates
cancer cells. And so you have to have that balance. Now, if you
are working on a chemotherapy drug, are you working on EHS
issues or are you working on cancer cures? That is a tough
question to answer. And how many dollars are you allocating to
the EHS piece of what you are doing versus the application
piece. The way the numbers are done now, and I am sure the way
Andrew came up with $13 million he says zero, I would suspect,
for the EHS piece in that research. I don't happen to agree
with that assessment, and I think the $68 million in 2006 is
accurate.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. A good example, your cancer case. I
don't know if you saw the 60 Minutes program Sunday evening
where they were injecting gold nanoparticles into patients,
which are selectively absorbed by the cancer cells, then using
radio waves to heat them up and destroying the cells.
Mr. Kvamme. Amazing stuff.
Mr. Ehlers. It is a classic example of exactly what you
were talking about. No one knew what the impact would be, and
it will take considerable time to find out.
I appreciate your comments on that. Dr. Maynard, in a
similar vein, you said you are not sure how these decisions are
made, who decides? Dr. Maynard, you said you need leadership
from the top. What do you mean by the top?
Dr. Maynard. Somewhere above the federal agencies
themselves, probably within OSTP. And I say that in going back
to your question of how could you make this 10 percent work?
You can see ways you could make it work if you actually had
somebody at the top level who was working with the agencies to
ensure that that 10 percent funding was actually being
correctly allocated across the agencies. So you have got a
partnership there. But that partnership would only occur and
only succeed if you had coordination and leadership from the
highest possible level within government. So that is what I was
thinking about in terms of leadership. It is actually making
sure that somebody is pulling the process forward rather than
it being pushed forward from the bottom up, in which case you
have got--it is pretty much lost whether you are going to do
the right thing or the wrong thing there. At least with
leadership you are sure you are heading in something
approximating to the right dimension.
I would also, if you will allow me, like to address the
issue of what research is being done in the area of EHS issues
and also whether that will impact on looking at the development
of applications research and basic research.
This is a critical issue because there is no point in
funding basic research and applications research if we get the
risk side of things wrong. We just will not see any of that
translate into viable products. So we have got to put a
realistic amount of our investment, our research investment,
into understanding the risks. Now, the way we do that has got
to be fairly sophisticated, and Mr. Kvamme was right. My $13
million is specifically looking at questions that ask things
like if you have this titanium dioxide, how am I going to use
it safely. That is a question you won't find answered by
looking at cancer research. It is a question you would only
answer by asking very specific questions. But you have got to
be more sophisticated than that. You have also got to look at
how other areas of research can be applied to understanding
environmental, safety, and health. And if you look at our
written testimony, we actually delve into that level of
sophistication. But the first and foremost thing we need to do
is ask the obvious questions. How can you ensure the
nanotechnologies being developed now are as safe as possible?
We will not do that by trying to tag along to applications-
based research. We have got to ask those specific questions,
and that is what is not being done at the moment.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Krajcik, I just wanted to make a brief
comment. Since I have spent so much of my life trying to
improve math and science education, I agree with your comments.
This is another example of an area where we desperately need
education. I can see all kinds of horror stories getting
propagated through the media about nanotechnology based on some
incidents that might happen in the future, and the public just
doesn't have the capability to decide. So education certainly
has to be an important part of this.
One last question. Dr. David, in your testimony, you
commented, we need to, you had a whole list of things we need
to do. My question is, who is going to pay for it? Would you
expect industry to carry this out? Do you think that we should
appropriate money to do all those different things?
Dr. David. I think it has to be a coalition. I think that
it has to be a coalition of industry, of government-sponsored
programs that support academia, or support programs within the
various federal agencies. The task can be so enormous and some
of the development of technology can be so daunting that I
think it will require that kind of coalition in order to get
the answers that we need to do, at least in a timely fashion.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you all for your responses, your
testimony. I was fascinated with this topic because it has such
enormous potential, and it can change our lives in ways we
can't imagine. And yet, I don't think we quite have a handle on
how we are going to use it, what we are likely to find, and
above all, what the dangers are. I am not one of these people
who cries wolf at every corner, but I am afraid, given the
history of what has happened with pesticides and other things,
that the public and especially the public service agencies or
entities will be waiting to jump on the first incident and try
to create a Three Mile Island out of it. So we face a very
ticklish job here together, and I appreciate your willingness
to come here and help us understand it better.
Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. Ms. Hooley is recognized.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, am very concerned
about the educational piece. There are a lot of things that I
am concerned about in nanotechnology. I think it also has
enormous potential for the future, and I appreciate all of you
being here to testify today.
When we had a hearing on this last fall, several witnesses
spoke of the importance of early nanotechnology education for
generating awareness and excitement about nanotechnology,
particularly for young students and in fact the general public.
Do you feel like this legislation accomplishes those two goals,
how the general public views nanotechnology? Do you think
people understand what nanotechnology is? What kind of a job do
you thin we are doing with nanotechnology in our schools?
Anyone on the panel that would like to answer? Don't be
bashful.
Dr. Krajcik. I think we have a long ways to go. I think
some of the fundamental ideas that underlie nanotechnology our
society is pretty naive about. Most people don't even
understand where the nano-range lies. They have a hard time
distinguishing--once something gets smaller than a cell or a
hair, it is undistinguishable. It is not there. So most of our
children, most of our adult population, does not understand
even the scale that we are talking about, let alone some of the
important underlying concepts. The wonderful thing about
nanotechnology is it actually brought new ideas to us. Dr.
Maynard raised some of these. We now know that when you get
down to the nano level, materials now get new properties.
Ms. Hooley. Right.
Dr. Krajcik. Those ideas aren't even in our science
textbooks. We have science textbooks out there that don't have
those ideas in them. Kids are learning that, you know,
properties are always the same. They don't learn the idea that
as you change scale, properties change. We have a long way to
go. Our country is in serious, serious trouble when it comes to
educating our children and the population with respect to
nanotechnology. We have some efforts, you know. I know that the
NISE network, informal science education group, is trying to do
something through the museums, the Nanoscale Center for
Engineering and Science is doing things, but we have a lot more
that we have to be able to do because it is not pervasive in
our schools, it certainly does not appear in any of our
standards, and unless it gets into our standards, unless we
start testing for it, we are not going to see it in schools. So
we have a long ways to go if we are really going to make a
difference.
If you want to speak about safety, our kids can't decide--
you know, no one knows--you mentioned sunscreen. We don't know
when you put this--you know, we don't see the white stuff on
our face anymore. That is good, we look nice when we are at the
beach and it keeps away the ultraviolet light, but we don't
know if it is harmful to us, and we don't have the resources.
People generally don't have the resources to make that
decision. They don't even know, should I be worried about it?
That's a problem. You know, we can make the decision that,
okay, I am going to put this on, and it might penetrate my
skin, and it might do something bad to me 30 years down the
line. But people should be able to make that decision, and
right now they don't have the intellectual resources to even
make those kind of decisions. So I think we have a lot of work
that we have to do to educate our country so we are more
informed citizens.
Ms. Hooley. What is the one thing that we should do to in
fact make the public more aware, make sure that our students
are more aware of nanotechnology, of what is possible in
nanotechnology, as well as what are some of the problems with
nanotechnologies?
Dr. Krajcik. I wish I could say it was one thing. It isn't.
It is a big complex system, right?
Ms. Hooley. You can give me two or three things, yeah.
Dr. Krajcik. So that is what I tried to outline very
clearly. I think we really have to do sustained professional
development. I think we have to change our national science
education standards. They did our country good, but they are
old, and they need to get revamped with new, emerging ideas in
science. We have to have new instructional materials. We have
to provide resources for our classrooms and we have to change
our undergraduate programs, both science courses but also our
teacher preparation programs. Unless we do all these things, we
are always going to be in this mess that we are in this
country. We will never see ourselves back in the forefront with
respect to science.
Ms. Hooley. For any of the panelists, how involved do you
think businesses need to be in helping us reach the public in
general and our educational institutions. Dr. Maynard?
Dr. Maynard. Very involved, but I think this is something
that both business and government have got to be involved with
simply because you have got the two sides of education. You
have got to side of education where you are enthusing people so
that they really understand and invest time and effort into
nanotechnology to become the next generation of
nanotechnologists. But also, you have got the side of
empowering people to make informed decisions and actually
engage in the process of nanotechnology and science in a
broader sense. That cannot all be done by industry. Some of it
has got to be done in partnership with other organizations
including the government.
Ms. Hooley. I am just curious again----
Chairman Gordon. Ms. Hooley, if you don't mind, I am sorry.
We are going to have to be a little stricter on our five
minutes. We are going to have votes in 10 or 15 minutes----
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can take----
Chairman Gordon. And we will get back to you if we----
Ms. Hooley. I would love to just--want to have a dialogue.
Chairman Gordon. Oh, this is very important. Hopefully,
this will be the start of an ongoing dialogue, both formal and
informal.
Ms. Biggert, you are recognized for a crisp five minutes.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murdock, I have
been amazed at the rapid growth of nanotech startups in my
district, many of which I think you are familiar with. Many of
these startups are commercializing nanotechnologies developed
from basic nano research at places like Northwestern or the
Center for Nano Materials at Argon. Do these start-ups face the
same challenges that other small start-ups do, or are the
challenges different because they are trying to build business
around nanotechnology?
Mr. Murdock. Thank you very much. I believe that some of
the challenges are the same, and some are, I'll call it more
acute. These start-ups are different than software information
technology based start-ups. They require more capital, and they
require a much longer involvement cycles. You know, this isn't
a business model that, you know when I was at Kellogg, friends
could leave and start a company and scale something out in a
couple years on a couple million dollars. It takes a lot
longer, and it takes a lot more investment to make it go. And
so we often talk about the Valley of Death, the period between,
you know, the formation of the company when you start to
generate revenues and cash flows, and many of these
technologies that come off, whether they be argon federal
laboratories where the start-ups are platform-oriented
technologies. And there is a fair amount of research and
development to make it robust, repeatable, scalable, and all
those wonderful things before you can actually manufacture a
product on it and create revenues. And that is where, you know,
programs like DSBR, STTR, and the TIPR are very----
Ms. Biggert. So do you think that the tech transfer
provisions in the draft bill will address these unique
challenges?
Mr. Murdock. I think that they will be helpful. I think
there are other--you know, I understand the SBIR
reauthorization is coming up and there are some changes in that
program that will also be helpful. So they certainly moved the
needle in the right directly and will help the efforts to
commercialize these technologies.
Ms. Biggert. Dr. Doering, do you think that the bill will
help these challenges?
Dr. Doering. One of the aspects that hasn't been mentioned
yet with regard to that is the role of the states which is
encouraged by the bill. The states obviously have a lot of
interest in creating jobs locally and new business locally. And
as I mentioned in my testimony, we have had some success
through our consortia in working with the states, and I believe
that role we need to continue to encourage.
Ms. Biggert. Again, Mr. Murdock, Dr. Doering, there has
been a lot of talk today about what the government can and
should be doing and to what degree, 10 percent more or less, to
address EHS issue. What role can business play, and what role
should business play to address EHS issue and help American
consumers better understand the health and safety implications
of nanotech technology and nano products themselves?
Mr. Murdock. If I could respond to that briefly, obviously
businesses are responsible and accountable to make sure their
products are safe. That is true for nanotechnology, that is
true with everything. And you know, the member companies--it is
important to understand that most of these companies are
ultimately in the research phase. They are helping a prototype.
Most of these technologies are not yet to the market, but they
need to do the safety testing and they do based upon what is
known and to ensure that those are safe.
The government, you know, we have talked about needs to
develop the standards and the characterization protocols if you
will to characterize these materials and the test methods to
continue to evolve those based on the stated science to having
our best understanding of what is in fact safe. And then
industry needs to apply that.
As just a little segue, members of the NanoBusiness
Alliance have invited NIOSH to their facilities, to monitor, to
take measurements on the site of the air quality, to test for
nanoparticulate matter in the air. Members are participating in
the EPA's voluntary nanomaterials stewardship program. And so
there are businesses engaging in those ways and trying to help
provide the information to improve our state of knowledge.
Ms. Biggert. Dr. Doering, do you have anything to add?
Dr. Doering. Yes. Speaking for the semiconductor industry,
as I had mentioned earlier, we take ES&H very seriously. Most
of us have very large ES&H departments within our companies
that work closely with the parts of the Federal Government that
help control new materials generally, whether or not they are
classified as nanotechnology. As new nanomaterial come along,
we take a very hard look at each one before incorporating them.
We are also interested in the educational aspects on this. We
primarily do that in collaboration with each other through our
trade association, the Semiconductor Industry Association which
has sponsored some studies in this area. And we would be glad
to work through them, and the Federal Government, in any
further education a program.
Ms. Biggert. I guess we have gotten over the Michael
Creighton book, Prey. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Biggert. Thank you. Ms.
Woolsey is recognized.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually sit here
today as an example of the benefits of nanotechnology. On March
5th I had huge back surgery. Here I am, back at work, have been
for the last three weeks, and I have some of the brilliance of
your industry implanted in my back. So thank you very much.
I agree with what you are saying. Luckily we have three
Members on this committee, myself, Congressman Ehlers, and
Congresswoman Biggert who are also on the Education and Labor
Committees, and we will be reauthorizing, fixing, making
better, No Child Left Behind. Therefore, I was looking out
here, you are a beautiful man, you are great, but you are all
white, you are all within 10- or 15-year span there. We have
got to get every kid and every young person involved in the
future of this country which is the new technologies, the
nanotechnologies, the green technologies, that we are going to
be able to keep in this country hopefully, not come up with all
the good ideas in science and then give it away to the rest of
the world. We have to do that.
So, I am going to tie this right back now to education and
labor and No Child Left Behind. I would like to know from you
what has your association, or what have you done yourselves in
order to give us feedback on what is missing in this picture?
We have got to hear it from you. Have you been participants?
Mr. Kvamme. If I could make a couple of comments, the first
thing is open up. We live in a society--my parents were
carpenters. Yours were farmers, the Chairman indicated. You
could know what your parent did for a living. That is no longer
true for many people today. I had a unique experience some
years ago which I will never forget. We had our company picnic
where 1,000 usually came of our 9,000 employees. We decided,
hold it in the plant, have an open house, and 23,000 people
showed up. People want to know what Mom and Dad do for a
living, and we don't do that very well in our industries, and
we don't do it because of legal concerns, insurance concerns,
et cetera. We have got to change that. We have got to open up,
and if there is any way legislation can do that, I highly
encourage it. I am no expert in legislation, but open up our
companies so people don't drive down some rows of buildings and
haven't a clue what is going on in those buildings.
The second thing I would say is that when you are talking
about education, you have got to be careful. This is the point
I tried to make in my testimony relative to nanotechnology and
technology. What we have found is people don't go into
technology, they go into curing cancer, they go into doing
better energy research. They go into----
Ms. Woolsey. Fixing my back.
Mr. Kvamme.--going to the Moon. They go into application
kinds of things, and nanotechnology is a tool to that end. What
we have learned at the University of California-Berkeley where
I serve on the engineering advisory board is that this center
for information technology in the interest of society, CITRIS,
is drawing students right and left because they see end
applications for getting that double-E degree, that ME degree,
whatever degree it is. They want to see societal things. I
think as you introduce that to youngsters at an early age, kids
are fascinated by this stuff, but they want to see, so what.
Ms. Woolsey. Right, they want the end result.
Mr. Kvamme. What do we got to do? So what?
Mr. Murdock. If I could build on that for a second, the
question was asked earlier about business's role in educating
the general public, and I think we are just starting to move
into the second wave of nanotechnology commercialization where
you're really seeing some of these, you know, very exciting,
transformational applications like solar energy. There is a
portfolio of companies that are really changing the cost
structure of solar energy so that we are going to see, you
know, meaningful new penetration of that technology. Obviously,
the 60 Minutes episode was just referenced in terms of
addressing cancer. And so as more and more of these compelling
applications come to market, I think it will inspire. There is
an old saying, success is one percent inspiration, 99 percent
perspiration. Having said that, if you don't have the
inspiration first, you don't undertake the perspiration to
follow. And so I think we will see more of that.
The other thing that we have said in our previous testimony
on this issue is that we think it's important that people also
think about education from the student's view, and not just the
teacher. We absolutely agree with all of the investments that
need to be made, right, in terms of teacher capability
standards and all of that but to also adopt a student-centric
view of the world, engage in more self-directed learning and
inquiry-driven learning that is applied and helps people relate
as they are educated to adult benefits in the applications
associated with it.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Murdock, and thank you, Ms.
Woolsey and we are glad that you are our example.
Ms. Woolsey. You like my back. Yeah, I am a good example.
Chairman Gordon. And now the temporary but not ostracized
Ranking Member, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
a little cold today. By the way, in the future, do you think
nanotechnology is going to help me with my cold? Is that
possible? Eating up those little bacterias or whatever that I
caught from my children?
Let me say something, and you tell me if there is anybody
who disagrees with this. From what I am hearing today, that
everybody on the panel believes that nanotechnology has such a
great, significant promise for our society, that it should be a
priority for the government and society to work to develop it
and to prepare for it. Would you all agree with that, it should
be a priority for us? Let me tell you, the biggest impediment
that I have seen to progress is that people who believe things
that should be a priority for our society are unwilling to
prioritize, and I will tell you that we don't need people to
come here and tell us simply to spend more money on something.
Everybody will tell us to spend more money on something. What I
need from you gentleman is for you to tell me exactly how
important it is compared to something else that you would like
us to get the funding from, because I am open to that idea. For
example, fusion was a great dream. I mean, ever since I was a
kid, I saw little films on fusion was going to come along. We
spent billions of dollars on fusion research, and it continues
today. I have asked people, you know, what is the potential of
that, and they say, we will know if you just spend another
billion dollars we will know what the potential is. Well, you
guys seem to know what the potential of nanotechnology is. Do
you think we should--is it fusion or somewhere else you can
point to where we are spending a lot of money in research that
this should have a priority over? Anybody on the panel is fine.
Dr. Krajcik. You know what? I will say that for every penny
we spend on nanotechnology, we also have to spend money on
education and the reason why----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Let me get to that.
Dr. Krajcik.--is that we cannot raise a public----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me get to that. I want a priority
here. I want where you are going to tell me where not to. I
don't want you to go on another education speech.
Dr. Krajcik. I am not going to go on an education speech.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Where is something that you want to de-
fund? Nothing. Now, let me tell you something. You can come
before this panel----
Mr. Kvamme. I would be happy to give you a suggestion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So what is it? What have you got for me?
Dr. Krajcik. Fusion. You can de-fund fusion.
Mr. Kvamme. By one count that we did, I think there are 220
different federal programs of some $10 million apiece for tech
education K-12. There is no way that is an efficient spending
of money.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There is no way what, now?
Mr. Kvamme. There is no way that is efficient spending. You
can't have 210 or 220 programs and be efficient. I would look
at those and try to figure out a way how to spend half the
money but do it more efficiently.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So you don't want to de-fund, you
want us to make it more efficient. Isn't there anybody that
ever----
Mr. Kvamme. I will cut it in half.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, can someone come here and tell me
what area of research is now wasted as compared to the money
that you want to spend on this? No? Okay. Well, let me tell you
something. People in the scientific community should not come
to Congress and tell us that they are willing to say how
important something is unless they are willing to compare it to
what something is less important because that doesn't mean
anything. We have a limited budget. We want to do what is right
by that budget. I personally would think that nanotechnology
should receive a large portion of the money that we should
spend or that we will save by eliminating fusion energy
research because it hasn't panned out.
Back to education, to my friend who was about to talk about
education, one of the problems that we have found on this
committee is that sociology teachers and history teachers and
English literature teachers and physical education teachers and
basket weaving teachers in high school are demanding that they
receive the same pay level as mathematics teachers and science
teachers. Do you support a differential in pay that would
permit schools to pay more money in education to mathematics
and science teachers?
Dr. Krajcik. I think we have to have high quality math and
science teachers.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But you are not willing to say spend more?
There is the other thing. There are these heavy interest groups
in our society. We know the teachers unions are not going to
support somebody else getting more money because it happens to
be important for our society.
Dr. Krajcik. Well, if it takes getting good science
teachers, and we need good science teachers, if it takes paying
them more money, then we should pay them more money.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Pay them more money than the other
teachers?
Dr. Krajcik. The way we can attract our best graduates to
go onto science teaching?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
Dr. Krajcik. Then I would say let us give them more money.
Mr. Rohrabacher. It is the only way we are going to do it
and it is----
Dr. Krajcik. If that is the case, then I think we should do
it because we have a lot of really smart people, and we really
need them in education.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And we can sing their accolades all day
long, but the bottom line is we want more young people to get
involved, we want higher quality math and science teachers, we
have got to pay them more money, and we have got to pay more
money to our engineers and our scientists, rather than having
them tied to sociologists and political scientists, whatever
that word is.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, and we hope
you feel better. Now, Mr. Honda, we are glad that you joined us
today, and you are recognized.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think I share Mr.
Rohrabacher's frustration about the constant barrage of
criticism about we need to do more in education. I don't think
that comes when Woolsey's question was answered. She asked what
is it that you have done, rather than telling us what you think
are some of the factors. And I am sure that Dr. Krajcik is a
professor of education and he has spoken about the kinds of
things that need to be done in the area of teacher preparation
and curricula and those kinds of things. And if you are
suggesting there are over 200 programs that could be cut that
is in education, I would like to know how diverse those
programs are before they are consolidated or cut because the
last eight years, my friend, you know that education and
everything else has been cut, including ATP and other things
that require innovated people to be funded to--along.
So I think the idea of participating and following through
with some of the ideas you do have about how to improve
education would be of great help, but being a teacher myself, I
want to take this moment, Mr. Chairman, if I could and I will
just tell you that all those programs and all the subject
matters are important for the development of a good citizen and
for development of a society that can reach its highest point.
Music, performing arts, they are all embedded with science, and
like nano, you know, once we understand nano, we understand
that everything that functions in this world is at a nanoscale,
it is just that we are just getting there. You can't take nano
away from technology and expect that things are going to be the
same. We suspect that with nano, you know, messing around in
that whole area, would push Moore's Law another 150 years old
and probably more.
And so I don't disagree that we should be putting money
into basic research. I don't disagree that we should be putting
money from the feds to partner with industry and--research to
get beyond the gap or the value of this so they can get to
commercialization. But I think that terminology or rhetoric
that is so broad without detail rings hollow to me, and I
appreciate this dialogue. I think the dialogue is needed to be
said, and when we concern about ourselves with other countries
and say they are doing better than we are, I think we better be
prepared to have the details there because, you know, when
people say China has 300,000 engineers, you better be prepared
to say, of those how many are the kinds of engineers and
technologists that we have that think new things rather than--
be it civil engineers or other kinds of engineers that they
need for their own development of their infrastructure in their
own country.
So I think that if you can be precise, then our terminology
needs to be precise, so we can solve the kinds of problems we
face as a country together and then move forward without the
fear of fear and invest in our own children in the proper way.
And that challenge will have to go right down to how we plan
our cities, how we look at the issue of equity because the way
we do things with education is not equity, it is parity. Unless
we are willing to change our whole assessment of what a
neighborhood is, what a school is, and how we fund our
children, then we are not prepared to move forward in
education. And just like nanotechnology, it is an eye-opener.
Things change when we get to that point. And I appreciate your
work, all of your work, in the area of nano because I will have
a better fishing pole as a result.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me wax on.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Mr. Murdock. If I could make just one quick comment? In
terms of what we are doing, the nanotech companies are
relatively small in the grand scheme of things, but we are
starting the process of addressing this education. Several
member companies that are in the instrumentation business have
done R&D to create lower cost machinery so that we can get
something that is viable to get into the community colleges and
the classrooms so that people can have those hands-on learning
experiences, one. Two, the Alliance itself is working with
companies to try to set up an internship program in some of
these pioneering nanotech companies so that folks can
experience firsthand some of the transformational work that is
taking place to lead that inspiration. It is not going to solve
things, and it is not going to do it overnight by any stretch
of the imagination, but it is a start and you got to start
somewhere.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Honda, let me just--I shouldn't have
to remind everyone but I will once again that last year this
committee passed out on a bipartisan basis, the President
signed last August the America COMPETES Act. The America
COMPETES Act does a variety of things. It doubles our
investment over a seven-year period in the National Science
Foundation, in NIST, in the Office of Science within the
Department of Energy. It also goes to the issue of our students
in the math and science area, recognizing that it all starts
with the teacher and that we certainly are as bright as any
other country around, but you have to have teachers that not
only know how to teach but also have a core knowledge within
that subject area.
Just very quickly, one of the things we discovered was that
63 percent of the middle school math teachers had neither a
major nor a certification to teach math. Ninety-three percent
of the physical science teachers had neither a major nor
certification. So no matter how good you might be in terms of
your ability, you have to have a core knowledge; and that is
why within the National Science Foundation, there is a program
called the Noyce Scholarship Program that we scaled out that
will provide scholarships for those students that want to go
into math or science and education and agree to teach for five
years. It will also bring back those good teachers that need
more course work, a stipend for them to come in the summer.
They will then be able to get their AP course, their master's,
certification, whatever it might be. There will be scholarships
for those folks that want to go into pure research. We really
don't have to argue about this much longer. I mean, we have a
plan. When Norm Augustine brought in his group that reported
back on the Rising Above the Gathering Storm, I told him that
they didn't bring us anything we didn't know. They just put it
in a good package. We said we don't need to study it anymore,
we just need to do it and that means funding it. And I have a
letter here that I think it was 225 of the major industries
have signed recommending that, as I say, Mr. Ehlers in a
bipartisan effort and Ms. Biggert, who is not here now, are
trying to do.
So hopefully we are going to be able to see that funding
and from that we are going to see the realization of what we
have all been talking about. Mr. Lipinski, a beneficiary of
that math and science education is here and, before we hear the
bells ring, is recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have stated many
times before, I have drunk the Kool Aid on nanotechnology, but
I don't want anyone to think that because I walked in here with
a camera I was that excited in coming to take your pictures
here. I just came from the White House with seeing the Pope
there, so I just wanted to make sure I got back here as soon as
I could because I wanted to--I know how important this is. I
believe it is critical that we really do have an investment on
behalf of the Federal Government in nanotechnology. It is
really critical for our future.
In one area that I wanted to ask about, let me throw this
out to whomever wants to pick up on this, I want to ask about
nanoelectronics. It is certainly an important field, and I am
just curious to hear a little more about what is going on in
nanoelectronics, what research is being conducted, what are
really the key things that the research is focusing on right
now.
Dr. Doering. I guess I will take that one. Nanoelectronics
research right now is really focused on how do we replace this
incumbent technology that we call CMOS for short. It is just an
acronym. I won't go into the details. But it is a technology
that we have used for over 30 years now. It is the workhorse of
all electronics, big and small, that you see throughout the
world today, and we have been miniaturizing it, or scaling it
we like to say in the industry, for these 30 years and it is
reaching some pretty fundamental limits in terms of what it
costs per function, to try to make it smaller, what its energy
efficiency is, what its speed can be, how much density of
storage of information you can get with it. And so the really
big, grand challenge that the industry is looking at right now
in nanoelectronics is how can we find a new component,
basically a new transistor which is the guts of CMOS that can
take us to the next level in cost and energy efficiency and
just pure performance. And so this is basically the challenge
that nanoelectronics research initiative has taken up
partnering so far within NSF and NIST and the Federal
Government and with a number of states across the country, and
we are hoping that before we have a situation where CMOS
completely runs out of gas that we definitely have a new switch
that can replace today's transistor.
Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else?
Mr. Kvamme. May I could comment. You specifically said
electronics, but as you probably know, there are an awful lot
of things going on in photonics where photons are replacing
electrons to do certain functions, particularly in the
communications sector. And today, you know, we are able now to
put 80 simultaneous TV channels under a single fiber. That is
largely due to what is happening from the standpoint of the
constant miniaturization of what is going on in the photonics
world as well, so that is another example.
Sean mentioned, and I am familiar with a company that is
using nanomaterials from the standpoint of depositing solar
cells, so they lower the cost dramatically. Again, not
electronics, that is material science, but it is still nano and
it is going to affect electronics, because it creates electrons
in that particular case. So there are two other examples,
photonics and energy----
Mr. Lipinski. Well, I am going to jump in there. You
mentioned about solar. What else is going on in terms of nano
research and development in regard to energy? What kind of
projects are going on right now?
Mr. Murdock. I think there is tremendous activity and yet
opportunity for more with respect to nanotechnology and energy.
I think there is clear recognition now of the immense potential
impact of using nanomaterials for solar energy to absorb more
of the energy spectrum and to use different processes. The way
we make most conventional solar cells right now is a lot like
the way a Pentium chip is made, you know, polycrystalline
silicon and an expensive fab, et cetera. The new approaches are
using nanomaterials and doing them in more roll-to-roll
processes which is more analogous to the way a newspaper is
printed. So that is one big area. Another is in battery
technologies. There is a lot of work with improving lithium
batteries, charge rates, and that but not just that.
Fireflights, an Illinois company, has figured out how to
essentially get the lead out of lead acid batteries and give
new life to that technology which then becomes an important
part of an integrated solar energy system. Fuel cells, I think
if you look down almost every aspect of energy, the frontier of
what is being explored, nanoscience will improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of those technologies.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, for blessing this
hearing and now we will yield five minutes to Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually I am kind
of proud to be here because I am from the home state of
California, and in California, the California Nanosystems
Institute was founded back in 2002; and two UC campuses who
have been very engaged in that process was both UCLA and UC-
Santa Barbara which I attended both of them. So this subject
matter is of great interest to me as well.
I just wanted to ask one quick question, and I think it is
to Dr. Maynard's office and some of the work that you have
done. What can we learn from the European Union's approach to
nanotechnology risk research?
Dr. Maynard. I don't think anybody has really got this
fixed yet, but if you look at what Europe is doing, they are
taking a formal strategic and systematic approach to risk-based
research. So they are currently in their seventh framework
research program where they are investing a lot of research
across the board in nanotechnology. But they have specifically
focused a number of very targeted research programs asking very
specific questions, like what is the toxicity of certain
nanomaterials, how do you measure exposure to nanomaterials,
and half-a-dozen other projects. What they are doing is they
are starting out by asking what do we need to know if we are
going to make this technology succeed, and then they are asking
groups of researchers to address those very specific questions.
And they are putting a lot of money into it as well. But they
are also doing something else which really isn't occurring in
the States, and that is they are partnering between government
and industry. And so every European research project that comes
out also has its industrial partners, and that means not only
are you leveraging money from within government and industry
but you are also using the expertise that you have within those
industrial partners who are developing the applications and the
technologies which we hopefully are going to see being used. So
that is a big difference there. And of course, I show even back
as far as 2006, if you look at research which is primarily
focused on understanding risks of these very, very specific
questions, they are actually investing or were investing more
in Europe than we were in the United States.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. And before we
close, let me also give my thanks to Ranking Member Hall for
being a part of the bipartisan group that is signing the letter
to the appropriators and the President asking for additional
funding and supplemental for our math and science education and
for the COMPETES bill. Let me also say that I think this is a
good work, although this is a work in process, that we have a
good draft here. We welcome the good advice we have, we want to
get additional advice, we want to get the best bipartisan bill
that we can put together on this very important subject. And so
I thank our witnesses for being a part of that today. We will
leave the record open for additional Members that have
questions, and with that, the witnesses are excused and the
meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by E. Floyd Kvamme, Co-Chair, President's Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Is the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) satisfied that the NNI is adequately coordinating
environmental, health and safety research internationally so as to
avoid unnecessary overlap and to gain maximum benefit from the overall
international research investment?
A1. Yes. As noted in PCAST's second review of the NNI: ``The [National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel] NNAP has paid particular attention to
EHS funding and current research efforts in this review. The panel
finds that from a scientific point of view, while there is still plenty
to learn, the research being funded is leading to an ever-increasing
body of knowledge about EHS issues. Budgetary support for EHS has been
growing at a rate well above that of the entire NNI program and, as
such, the panel believes it is of the right order of magnitude to
continue building knowledge of EHS issues as knowledge of the science
increases. The panel does note that if expenditures of other countries
in the global economy were as significant in the EHS field as those in
the United States, and with ongoing, appropriately multinational
communication efforts, the entire field would benefit greatly.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/
PCAST-NNAP-NNI-Assessment-20
08.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NNI maintains a leading role in coordinating EHS activities
internationally, particularly within the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International
Standardization Organization (ISO). The U.S. (EPA) chairs the OECD
Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN), which is the body
that is leading efforts to share EHS information and coordinate the
collaborative development of information that is needed by governments
and industries worldwide. The WPMN also interfaces with the broader
strategic policy coordination under the Working Party on
Nanotechnology, which is also chaired by the U.S. (Department of
State). Also, Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology
Coordinating Office (NNCO), chairs the U.S. ANSI-accredited Technical
Advisory Group and heads the U.S. delegation to the ISO technical
committee on nanotechnologies, which is working to develop standards
for instrumentation, reference materials, test methods, and EHS
practices. ISO standards often are adopted widely. PCAST endorses the
NNI's continued participation and leadership in these activities, which
it called for in its first report as the National Nanotechnology
Advisory Panel (NNAP).
Q2. The NNTI Advisory Panel in its recent assessment of the program
encourages investment in infrastructure and instrumentation under the
NNI.
Does the Advisory Panel believe the current
allocation of resources is adequate to maintain the existing
facilities and provide for upgrades as needed to keep them at
the leading edge of technology?
Did the Advisory Panel assess whether the
capabilities of the current facilities are meeting the needs of
the research community in terms of accessibility and
capabilities of the available instrumentation and equipment?
A2. The NNAP assessment of the NNI is conducted at a high-level in
terms of the performance of the NNI program as a whole. The panel
believes that resource allocation for facility maintenance and
accessibility is generally adequate and appropriate and needs to be
sustained. As noted in the report, the infrastructure and
instrumentation developed through the NNI is a preeminent feature of
U.S. leadership in nanotechnology and constitutes a lasting legacy of
the initiative. As instrumentation and methodologies for nanotechnology
research continue to be developed, this structure of centers, networks,
and user facilities serves to incorporate the state of the science and
make it available to the maximum number of researchers in academia and
industry, primarily for pre-competitive, non-proprietary research but
also with an eye towards technology transfer and commercialization, as
appropriate. For example, in the DOE Nanoscale Science Research
Centers, user access is allocated via merit-based peer review of
proposals from qualified researchers. Use of the facilities and staff
assistance are provided to users free of charge, provided that the
results of the research are published in the open literature.
Proprietary research of merit can also be conducted at an NSRC on a
full cost recovery basis. Beyond the user facilities, most NNI-funded
research centers are open to collaboration with industry, and in some
cases industry participation is a requirement for successful proposals
(for example, NSF and NCI centers).
To date much of the investment of the NNI has been to build and
resource the research facilities that now make up the 81 centers,
networks, and user facilities that constitute the backbone of the NNI.
In the coming years, NNI funding will shift from building to
maintenance and increased support of the research these facilities were
designed to carry out. Current budget levels should be adequate to
support this next phase of the program.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does
the draft before us preserve the elements that led to these successes?
What parts of the NNI have failed? Are there elements the Committee
should consider terminating?
A1. The recent PCAST report on the NNI lists examples and case studies
in a variety of areas of the progress towards real-world applications
resulting from the NNI. But the overarching success of the NNI has been
the leadership and competitive edge that it has afforded the U.S. in
the development and expansion of this novel area of technology
development. Given the fact that spending in nanotechnology in Europe
and Asia are approximately the same as U.S. spending, it is a credit to
the NNI that America is still considered the leader across the many
areas nanotechnology impacts. Thus, given the significant implications
that nanotechnology development holds for nearly every industry, the
additional attention and support that the NNI has brought to bear has
been and remains critical for the U.S. to lead the world in
capitalizing on the economic and societal benefits.
I believe the draft reauthorization presents an opportunity to
support the NNI by maintaining the high-profile of nanotechnology and
stressing the importance of ongoing interagency, cross-sector and
international coordination. However, the current draft does appear to
add unnecessary administrative burdens tending towards micro-management
and that could have the unintended effect of inhibiting rather than
strengthening coordination among the agencies. While there have been no
systemic failures in the NNI to date, I am concerned that the onerous
reporting requirements for example with nanomanufacturing and
nanotechnology EHS research projects will be counterproductive and
could lead to less effective collaboration. No other area of federal
R&D receives such detailed scrutiny as is being proposed, and frankly
the benefit of such granularity versus the cost is not clear to me.
Funding that would be necessary to carry out these reporting functions
could better be spent increasing public communication and education
about nanotechnology as proposed in our report.
Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive
Congress as picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of
national importance in the legislation?
A2. I don't feel this is a necessary addition to the legislation. The
NNI previously organized its investments around ``grand challenges''
that included some of the proposed areas of ``national importance.''
Programmatically, however, the organization of the NNI around Program
Component Areas has been far more effective for managing and
coordinating the program. Calling out particular areas of focus as
``winners'' by definition lowers the priority of other areas of equal
(if perhaps less urgent) importance, such as fundamental basic
research, which is absolutely critical to the ongoing success of our
system of innovation. Furthermore adding such crosscuts over and above
the PCAs may compromise the purpose of that structure for managing and
coordinating the NNI.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the
benefits of nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their
products, for fear of public backlash. I understand their concerns, as
I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of
nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough to enhance public
awareness and education in the held of nanotechnology? Is additional
international cooperation needed to assist the United States in
educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what other
countries are doing to inform and educate their people?
A1. Yes. Strengthening our public outreach and communication efforts is
essential to avoid the drawbacks of hyping both anticipated benefits
and feared risks by grounding the public dialogue in actual science and
fact. As noted in our report, PCAST remains concerned that the economic
and societal benefits of nanotechnology are being overlooked or
minimized by the emphasis on uncertainties and speculation that is
unconstrained by actual, realistic exposure and hazard assessment.
I'm not positioned to speak in anything other than broad terms with
respect to the outreach and public engagement efforts of other
countries on nanotechnology, but it certainly will serve our efforts
for the NNI to continue engaging with other countries, as it has with
the Working Party on Nanotechnology of the OECD, in international
workshops and programs aimed at improving communication and broad
stakeholder engagement by exchanging best practices and evaluating
various policies in societal context.
Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that
is certainly important, and I am curious to hear a little more about
its current status. Could you give me a better sense of the work being
conducted in this specific area, and what has resulted thus far from
this research? Approximately how much funding is currently devoted to
nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for what is needed to
tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed to smooth
the transfer of the research into commercial products?
A2. The industrial sector has historically taken the lead in
collaborative, pre-competitive work on developing the fundamental
technologies that are fundamental to electronics, including circuit
component and chip design that looks beyond the current state-of-the-
art. NNI continues to facilitate this work through its industrial
liaison working group which is working with the semiconductor industry
and through funding of collaborative, cross-sector programs like the
model Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI; nri.src.org). NSF and
NIST have formed public-private partnerships with the NRI to support
ground-breaking nanoelectronics R&D. Both agencies and the industry
members of the NRI each provide funding to support research towards
that target, conducted through university-based centers.
The NNI tracks annual funding by Program Component Area rather than
application area, but a rough estimate by the National Nanotechnology
Coordinating Office of funding for nanoelectronics (including
nanomagnetics and nanophotonics for processing, storage, and/or
communications devices, which are difficult to separate out) across the
NNI is approximately $100 million. PCAST did not formally assess the
adequacy of funding for particular application areas within the NNI,
but its broader assessment of technology transfer and commercialization
through the NNI was positive, noting that the NNI plays a key role in
surmounting the barriers to nanotechnology innovation and commercial
application by supporting both basic and targeted research, developing
and maintaining critical infrastructure, and training researchers with
interdisciplinary capabilities to capture the revolutionary potential
of nanotechnology.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Is there a need to expand the availability of nanotechnology user
facilities that would be relevant to industry's needs? If so, would the
NSF Industry-University Research Centers model be a viable mechanism
for expanding the number and diversity of nanotechnology user
facilities? Under such a model, federal funding would support the
initial start-up costs, administration, and staffing needs of the user
facility, while industry would provide the bulk of funding through user
fees for use of the facilities.
A1. There is a need to expand the availability of nanotechnology user
facilities that are relevant to industry's needs, and the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 will help address that
need. The NSF Industry-University Research Centers model is a viable
mechanism, provided that nanotechnology companies are made aware of its
availability and that administrative requirements (and IP policies) are
not onerous for companies seeking to participate. Furthermore, it is
critical that the user fees are based upon the marginal cost of
provisioning services (plus a markup) so that general university (as
opposed to true facility) overheads are not built into the user fees.
Otherwise, overhead costs often become significant and create a
disincentive for industry use.
Q2. To what extent are nanotechnology businesses engaged in
educational outreach activities with high school students or post-
secondary students? Do your companies sponsor activities at informal
science institutions?
A2. Nanotechnology businesses are in many cases engaged in educational
outreach activities with high school and post-secondary students.
Although most nanotechnology businesses are small businesses that lack
the resources to support substantial programs, a number of companies
have established internships for high school or college students. The
NanoBusiness Alliance itself has an internship program that places
talented students with leading nanotechnology companies. In addition,
nanotechnology tools manufacturers are designing relatively
inexpensive, user-friendly tools for classroom use.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does
the draft before us preserve the elements that led to these successes?
What parts of the NNI have failed? Are there elements the Committee
should consider terminating?
A1. The NNI has been extraordinarily successful over the past five
years in accomplishing its central task of coordinating and
accelerating federal nanotechnology research and development. The
National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 preserves the
elements of the NNI's structure that led to those successes. The NNI
has been less successful at the admittedly difficult task of setting
and environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research agenda, and the
bill takes steps to address that issue. The Alliance does not recommend
terminating any portion of the NNI at this point.
Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive
Congress as picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of
national importance in the legislation?
A2. The Alliance believes it is important that the Federal Government
not pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Foreign countries are
focusing their investments and supporting companies directly to help
establish nanotechnology and to compete with the United States. The
Alliance argued for the inclusion of support for translational
nanotechnology research in areas on national importance to level the
playing field, but has recommended keeping these areas broad so as to
avoid picking winners and losers. Furthermore, funding in these areas
of national importance will take place on a competitive basis, so the
actual winners and losers will depend upon market competitiveness.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Sean, you mentioned in your testimony that we should focus our
efforts on goal-oriented research in areas of national importance. It
seems to me that the Nation's Centers on Nanotechnology are critical to
solving the grand challenges of our time, such as those we face on the
environment and energy. Can you give us some examples of the products
that have resulted from the research being conducted at these Centers?
And in what other areas do you suggest we focus our efforts?
A1. There are important products beginning to emerge from these
centers. A case study that may be of particular interest to Congressman
Lipinski because of its proximity to his district is Northwestern
University's Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC).
Nanosphere, which is based in Northbrook, Illinois has recently
received approval for a molecular diagnostic test for susceptibility to
warfarin, a blood thinner used for stroke victims in emergency room
situations. Because the test will provide information on genetic
susceptibility in real time, it will save lives. NanoInk is
commercializing NanoEncryptionTM Technology based upon dip pen
nanolithography developed by Chad Mirkin at Northwestern. The
technology makes it possible to secure the Nation's pharmaceutical drug
supply by encoding a nanoscale mark on each pill that is manufactured,
which technology will protect patient safety and reduce the opportunity
for criminals and terrorists to sell counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Many
more products are on the way from Northwestern's center and others
throughout the Nation. We are just beginning to see the return on our
nation's investment in nanoscience centers of excellence.
The Alliance supports the areas of national importance listed in
the bill. In general, we believe that the United States has comparative
advantages in most of the areas that make nanotechnology a benefit from
an EHS perspective: cleaner energy, better health care, improved water
and air quality, and so on--as well as nanoelectronics.
Q2. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the
benefits of nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their
products, for fear of public backlash. I understand their concerns, as
I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of
nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough to enhance public
awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is additional
international cooperation needed to assist the United States in
educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what other
countries are doing to inform and educate their people?
A2. The general public still does not have a solid understanding of
nanotechnology, despite the best efforts of the Alliance, its members,
and countless educational institutions throughout the country. The bill
takes some steps to help address this situation, which is important
because the public's lack of a clear understanding of nanotechnology is
one of the greatest risks that the nanobusiness community faces.
International cooperation is critically important, especially in the
area of standards development--but when it comes to educating the
public, I believe that we need to be educating Europe rather than
asking for their help to educate us. It seems that not a month goes by
without an over-hyped scare story from Europe, or another argument for
the precautionary principle in the EU. Coverage of and education about
nanotechnology in the United States is much more balanced and takes
into account the very real benefits of nanotechnology even as it
speculates about risks.
Q3. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that
is certainly important, and I am curious to hear a little more about
its current status. Could you give me a better sense of the work being
conducted in this specific area, and what has resulted thus far from
this research? Approximately how much funding is currently devoted to
nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for what is needed to
tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed to smooth
the transfer of the research into commercial products?
A3. Nanoelectronics research provides a great example of the leverage
we as a nation can get when we focus on goal oriented research. The
Semiconductor Industry Association has established a Nanoelectronics
Research Initiative which has teamed with National Science Foundation
and NIST to help shape and provide industry funding for critical beyond
CMOS nanoelectronics research.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Joseph S. Krajcik, Professor of Science Education;
Associate Dean of Research, University of Michigan
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does
the draft before us preserve the elements that led to these successes?
What parts of the NNI have failed? Are there elements the Committee
should consider terminating?
A1. I will limit my responses to my area of expertise: science
education. Two bright areas resulted from the NNI over the past five
years: The Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE) Network and the
National Center for Teaching and Learning Nanoscale Science and
Engineering (NCLT). (Note: I am a co-principal investigator of NCLT and
this relationship needs to be taken into consideration when reading my
remarks.)
NISE, funded through the National Science Foundation, 2005, is
designed to bring the education and research communities together in an
effort to inform the public about nanoscience. In particular the NISE
Network:
creates new methods and approaches to communicate the
work of nanoscale scientists and engineers to the public;
informs the public about the advances in the
scientific research; and
captures the imagination of youth who may choose
careers in nanoscale science and engineering.
NISE has done much to bring nanoscale science to the public and I
would encourage continual funding of the effort. Through a new web
site, the NISE Network Resource Center (http://www.nisenet.org),
teachers and the public can access a vast collection of educational
resources and join in this creative community effort. For teachers,
students, or anyone interested in nanoscience and the many potential
nanotechnology applications, the web site's content includes study
materials, academic approaches, collections of graphics, a newsletter,
links to other institutions working in the field, and much more. To
learn more about the NISE network see: http://www.nisenet.org/project/
what.html.
NCLT, funded by the National Science Foundation in 2004, was
established to build national capacity in nanoscale science and
engineering education as well as explore how to how to improve the
teaching and learning of nanoscience in grades seven through college.
Housed at Northwestern University, NCLT collaborates with scientists
and educators at the following research institutions: University of
Michigan, Purdue University, University of Illinois at Chicago,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Argonne National
Laboratory, Alabama A&M University, Fisk University, Hampton
University, Morehouse College, and University of Texas at El Paso.
Through the educational research produced by NCLT researchers,
important ideas related to the teaching and learning of nanoscience are
being uncovered.
Through its web portal NCLT, http://nclt.us/, offers a variety of
educational resources to help teachers and science educators with
nanotechnology-related concepts, simulations, and activities for the
classroom that include:
Educational materials for science teachers and
students in grades 7-12, college and university students and
faculty, researchers, and post-doc students, covering
information on Nano Courses & Units in engineering, physics,
materials science, chemistry, and education.
Seminars to advance education initiatives.
Learning Research and Methods, a collection of
papers, presentations and resources to promote the best
teaching practices and methodologies.
Nanoconcepts and Applications, instructional
materials focusing on the key ideas in nanoscale science and
engineering.
NSEE Resources and Calendar of Events for nanoscale
science and engineering education.
NSEE News and Network and a Glossary.
Both NISE and NCLT have done much to advance learning of
nanoscience in formal and informal settings. As such, I would encourage
that these aspects of The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments
Act of 2008 be preserved. As in science, progress in education will
only be made if continual support is provided for projects and centers
that focus on important national goals and that have proven track
records of collaborative partnerships that improve the teaching and
learning of nanoscience. As stated in my written testimony, advances in
nanoscience require a commensurate response from the educational
community to prepare our youth.
The NNI also supports various national nanotechnology centers such
as the Materials Research Science and Engineers Centers and the
National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network that have an educational
outreach component within them. Although I know more about the
activities NNIN education activities that go on at the University of
Michigan, I know little about other NNIM and MRSEC education
activities. I know that the NNIN education activities bring new
emerging activities to students such as ``nanocamps'' that allow 6th-
12th grade students opportunities to explore clean rooms. Such
activities have very high interest to many learners. As such, I would
encourage continual funding of these efforts. However, I would also
encourage that such centers partner with experts in science education
and learning science so that the engaging activities can be better
incorporated into the structure of the school curriculum. Building such
connections between motivating activities and classroom curriculum is
critical to promote learning.
Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive
Congress as picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of
national importance in the legislation?
A2. There is no argument that STEM education in this country is in a
crisis. U.S. schools are failing to prepare students to live in a
technological advanced society. This is particularly true in our large
urban districts. If we can turn this crisis around, and we must, then
we all win. Our economy will improve and perhaps more importantly our
children will have the standard of living and the quality of life that
we achieved. However, unless we can focus on improving education, our
children and their children will not have the quality of life that we
find valuable. Congress has to provide the direction of our national
priorities.
I would also argue that advances in science and technology are
blurring the lines between the individual scientific disciplines that
allow for advances in science and technology. As science becomes more
interdisciplinary, we can no longer rely on the traditional ways of
teaching science as a set of well-understood, clearly depicted, stand-
alone disciplines. If we do so, we are not preparing our students for
the scientific enterprise they will experience in the work force. Yet,
both at the K-12 level and 13-16 level, we continue to teach in non-
interdisciplinary fashion and without stressing how important ideas cut
across disciplinary boundaries.
Q3. You state in your testimony that ``Unfortunately, the current
education system is failing to produce a populace scientifically
literate enough to understand the scientific advances of nanoscience.''
Couldn't the same be said for biology, physics, chemistry, computer
science, or many other scientific disciplines? If current science
curricula concentrates on covering too much content, as you argue, and
yet you also recommend that all students need to know more about
nanoscience, then what content do you propose replacing?
A3. I agree that the U.S. educational system is failing to produce a
populace that is scientifically literate to understand the advances in
all fields of science and not just nanoscience. What we are failing to
do as a Nation is help students understand the ``core'' or ``big''
ideas of science that are essential in helping all learners understand
advances across fields.
The U.S. science curriculum concentrates on covering too much
content without focusing on developing deep, meaningful understanding
that learners will need to grasp the central ideas of science and new
areas or that they will need to make personal and professional
decisions in their lives. Research has shown that students lack
fundamental understanding of science in such areas as the structure of
matter, forces, and properties of matter. These fundamental ideas are
essential to understanding a number of areas of science.
As I tried to argue in my written testimony, a path to improve the
U.S. educational system requires the development of new standards. New
standards that focus on the big ideas of science and cut across
disciplines, and other knowledge essential for the 21st century need to
be developed and adapted by schools. Important ideas in nanoscience are
not currently incorporated or stressed in the national standards.
Nanoscience education introduces students to emerging ideas of science
and supports understanding of the interconnections between the
traditional scientific domains by providing compelling, real-world
interdisciplinary examples of science in action.
The national science education standards need renovation because
there are too many standards. We will need to make some tough choices
in that all content cannot be covered. We know from successes in other
countries and from research studies, that attempting to cover too many
ideas lead students to develop superficial knowledge that they cannot
use to solve problems, make decisions, and understand phenomena. Hence,
our national science education standards need reworking, updating and
consolidating.
Rather than focusing on covering too many ideas, our nation needs a
long-term developmental approach to learning science that focuses on
the big ideas of science we most care about and takes into
consideration learners' prior knowledge and how ideas build upon each
other. Big ideas provide a framework for thinking about the long-term
development of student understanding and they facilitate learners to
understand a variety of different phenomena within and across science
disciplines. If we have a developmental approach starting in
kindergarten through 12th grade, learners will come away with a level
of understanding that will allow them to pursue STEM careers, see the
importance of science in their lives, and use science to make
decisions. If our nation takes a developmental approach to the
standards that emphasize how ideas build upon each other, it will allow
curriculum designers to develop coherent curriculum materials.
Let me provide just one short example. The atomic and kinetic
theories are the foundation for understanding the structure, properties
and behavior of matter. Together, they can explain an enormous number
of phenomena across a variety of disciplines. At the same time,
understanding of these ideas is essential for building an understanding
about the structure, properties and behavior of matter at the
nanoscale. A development approach focusing on how these ideas build
over time will allow students to build the rich understanding that is
needed to understand the science of today and tomorrow and will
facilitate the interdisciplinary connections that students need to
understand nanoscience and other emerging science (Stevens, Sutherland,
Shank & Krajcik, 2008). I encourage the Committee to read Steven,
Sutherland, Shank and Krajcik for more in-depth ideas in this area. I
also encourage the Committee to read Taking Science to School, by
Duschl, Schweinger, and Shouse (2007).
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the
benefits of nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their
products, for fear of public backlash. I understand their concerns, as
I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of
nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough to enhance public
awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is additional
international cooperation needed to assist the United States in
educating our citizens? Can you give some examples of what other
countries are doing to inform and educate their people?
A1. An informed citizenship is critical in a democratic society. I am
appalled by the notion that information is being kept from the public
because of fear of public backlash. To be a free, democratic and
competitive country, our goal, as a nation, must be to provide a solid
education for ALL so that information is freely available to the public
and that they requisite skills to interpret and apply the information
to their lives. Given that nanoscience impacts virtually every sector
of our economy and our daily lives by enabling promising new materials
and applications across many fields, I would argue that the legislation
does not go far enough to enhance public awareness and education in the
field nanotechnology.
There are some bright spots in nanoeducation in this country. Two
of them I have discussed above--the NISE Network and the NCLT. NISE
focuses primarily on informal education and NCLT on formal education.
Information regarding NISE is available at http://www.nisenet.org and
for NCLT at http://www.nclt.us/. That said, I believe the U.S. formal
and informal education systems could learn through international
cooperation with other countries that are working to inform the public
regarding nanoscience. The NCLT web site has information on what other
countries are doing.
Below I will summarize some of the information about what other
countries are doing. See http://www.nclt.us/nclthome/
major-nano-initiatives.html for further
information.
a. Taiwan is an international leader in nanotechnology
education, with formal and informal education initiatives for
all levels and an especially strong K-12 program. The National
Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C., established a nanotechnology
program for K-12 teachers in order to provide educational
opportunities on the cutting edge of advanced technology.
b. NanoForum, established with funding from the European
Commission, serves as the ``European Nanotechnology Gateway,''
providing articles, events, funding information, research
databases, and other services to support nanotechnology
research, development, and education.
c. Nanotechnology Researchers Network Center of Japan
(NanoNet), launched in 2007, introduces various information on
top nanotechnology through its web site and an e-mail
newsletter. The web site has a major section that is tailored
to children and includes games that can help children learn
about nanoscience.
Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that
is certainly important and I am curious to hear a little more about its
current status. Could you give me a better sense of the work being
conducted in this specific area, and what has resulted this far from
this research? Approximately how much funding is currently devoted to
nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for what is needed to
tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed to smooth
the transfer of the research into commercial products?
A2. This is not my area of research, so I do not feel qualified to
respond.
References:
Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to
school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Stevens, S. Sutherland, L., Shank, P., Krajcik, J. (2008). Big Ideas in
NanoScience. http://www.hice.org/projects/nano/index.html.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Andrew D. Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does
the draft before us preserve the elements that led to these successes?
What parts of the NNI have failed? Are there elements the Committee
should consider terminating?
A1. Over the past five years, the NNI has stimulated innovative
research enabling the United States to lead the world in nanotech
research and development. It is a testament to this success that other
countries are emulating the U.S. model. The NNI has also effectively
fostered a high degree of coordination across a large number of
agencies and departments, resulting in multi-disciplinary research that
is essential for supporting and sustaining successful nanotechnologies.
In my opinion, it is clear that the NNI has led to greater cross-
government coordination for science and technology than with any
previous initiative, and for this, its instigators, supporters and
implementers should be congratulated. But this does not mean that there
is cause for complacency. While the achievements of the NNI are
apparent, there are areas that are in desperate need of improvement:
The lack of a robust environmental, health and safety
(EHS) research strategy has led to insufficient funding and
leadership to effectively study and combat-possible EHS issues
associated with nanotechnologies. From my assessment of what is
needed to underpin the long-term success of emerging
nanotechnologies and provide industry with the confidence to
invest in this area, a minimum 10 percent of the NNI budget
should be directed towards EHS research. But this funding must
be directed within a top-down strategy with clearly defined
goals, and a plan for achieving them. At an absolute minimum,
steps are needed to ensure sufficient funds are available to
regulatory and research agencies in support of strategic
activities constituting the Environmental, Health, and Safety
program component area, or any successor program component
area.
Full and transparent stakeholder involvement in the
NNI is lacking. This is most apparent in the development of the
EHS R&D strategy. While there are some interactions between the
NNI and stakeholders representing industry, labor, academia,
citizens and the international community, more is needed to
ensure that government-funded research and development remains
relevant. For instance, the recent NNI EHS R&D strategy
involved limited stakeholder input at the review stage, but not
as it was being developed. Had a wider community been engaged
at an earlier stage, it is likely that the strategy would be
more focused on addressing real priority needs, rather than
justifying past actions.
The NNI has struggled to support the translation of
research into viable commercial products. In many ways, this is
understandable, as the initial phase of the NNI was focused on
expanding the nanotechnology knowledge base through research.
But as nanotechnology commercialization becomes an increasingly
pressing challenge, a change of emphasis and mode of action is
needed.
The NNI has failed to educate and engage citizens
effectively. This is critical on three counts: First, as new
nanotechnology-based products enter the market in increasing
numbers, consumers need the ability and information to make
informed decisions on these products. Second, the future of
nanotechnology will depend on people in all walks of life being
enthused and inspired by the technology and what it can do--
leading to the next generation of nano-scientists and nano-
engineers. And thirdly, I believe successful science and
technology in the twenty first century--including
nanotechnology--will depend on all citizens having an
opportunity to contribute to the direction and use of future
research. This will require education (both formal and
informal) to help people assess the value and challenges of new
science and technology, and mechanisms for giving people a
voice as new science directions are explored and new
technologies are developed. According to public research polls
conducted by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN),\1\
the public still knows very little about nanotechnology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal
Regulatory Agencies (2007), Peter D. Hart Research Associates for The
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. www.nanotechproject.org/process/
assets/files/5888/
hart-presentation-2007analysis.pdf
Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive
Congress as picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
national importance in the legislation?
A2. Addressing major challenges facing society needs leadership from
the top. Nanotechnology is an enabling technology and will provide the
tools to solve many of society's pressing problems--including global
climate change, pollution and disease. When resources are limited,
strategic direction from the top is essential to ensure progress is
made towards safe and successful technological solutions. This is not
choosing winners and losers; but rather foreseeing innovations and
technologies that the United States can lead the world in. Without
Congress leading the way, we risk jeopardizing nanotechnology
innovation in the U.S. and lessening the chance of nanotechnology R&D
stimulating the economy, creating jobs, solving major environmental
challenges and improving quality of life. Other economies around the
world are unlikely to hold back on strategic R&D leadership where there
are clear social and economic advantages, and for the U.S. to do so
would place the country at a disadvantage.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the
benefits of nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their
products, for fear of public backlash. I understand their concerns, as
I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of
nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough to enhance public
awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is additional
international cooperation needed to assist the United States in
educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what countries
are doing to inform and educate their people?
A1. There is currently not enough being done to inform and educate
members of the public on how nanotechnology will impact their lives, or
to engage them in how future technologies are developed and used. And
while the draft National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of
2008 addresses K though 12 and college education, it is lacking when it
comes to supporting broader educational issues. Formal education in
terms of training future scientists is getting better and will improve
further through various Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics Education initiatives. But empowering everyday people to
make informed decisions about the technologies that affect their lives
is critically lacking.
Transparency is vital to the success of nanotechnology; not only
regarding government investment, actions and plans, but also in
providing people with information on how nanotechnology is being used
in products and processes that affect their daily lives. Opinion
polls--including those conducted by the Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies\2\--show that people want to be informed, and a
perception of being kept in the dark seriously undermines confidence in
new technologies and their promoters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Kahan, D., Slovic, P. Braman, D., Gastil, J., Cohen, G. 2007.
Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values.
Conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School for the
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Available at: http://
www.nanotechproject.org/mint/pepper/tillkruess/downloads/
tracker.php?uri=http%3A//www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/
2710/164-nanotechriskperceptions-dankahan.pdf.
Also see: Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal
Regulatory Agencies (2007), Peter D. Hart Research Associates for The
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Available at:
www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/5888/
hart-presentation-2007analysis.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet to be useful, transparency must be linked to an ability to
understand and use information effectively. And this places a bright
spotlight on education--especially informal education, which takes
place outside the classroom.
Effective nanotechnology education means meeting people where they
are at--whether through popular culture, the media or museums and
exhibits. Government and industry need to invest much more in informal
education if an awareness and understanding of nanotechnology is to
diffuse through society. And this needs to be an investment in
education, rather than academic studies of how to educate.
But beyond education comes engagement--you cannot give people the
tools to understand new technologies, but then deny them a voice in the
decision-making process. Effective engagement efforts are currently
lacking in the NNI, and in the draft bill.
In contrast to the U.S., the European Union has clear goals for
educating and engaging citizens. In its policy for Nanosciences and
Nanotechnologies,\3\ the European Union recognizes ``the need to devote
due attention to the societal aspects of nanotechnology'' and sets
forth the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EU Policy for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. 2004. European
Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/
eu-nano-policy-2004-07.pdf
a. calls upon the Member States to pursue an open and
proactive approach to governance in nanotechnology R&D to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ensure public awareness and confidence;
b. encourages a dialogue with EU citizens/consumers to promote
informed judgment on nanotechnology R&D based on impartial
information and the exchange of ideas;
c. reaffirms its commitment to ethical principals in order to
ensure that R&D in nanotechnology is carried out in a
responsible and transparent manner.
Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that
is certainly important, and I am curious to hear a little more about
its current status. Could you give me a better sense of the work being
conducted in this specific area, and what has resulted thus far from
this research? Approximately how much funding is currently devoted to
nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for what is needed to
tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed to smooth
the transfer of the research into commercial products?
A2. This is not my primary area of expertise, and I would defer to my
fellow panel member, Dr. Robert Doering, for a detailed answer to the
question. But I would like to make a couple of observations:
Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor technology--commonly
referred to as CMOS--is the foundation of modern electronics. Yet while
the processing power of semiconductor chips continues to double almost
every two years, it will soon hit a brick wall--the point where
physical laws prevent conventional CMOS-based electronics getting any
smaller or faster. Nanotechnology is a key technology for overcoming
this barrier; enabling existing technologies to be used in innovative
ways; generating new electronics technologies to replace CMOS, and even
discovering alternatives to using electrons--such as photons, in the
area of photonics.
The timescale between innovation and implementation is long in the
electronics business however, and it is the research of today that will
provide technological solutions of the next decade. As a result, there
is an urgent need for extensive research now into new nanotechnology-
based ``electronics'' or ``nanoelectronics'' if we want to continue the
current trend of faster, smaller, more efficient processors. Industry
is acutely aware of this challenge, and is investing considerable
resources in supporting innovative research. But support from
government is also needed, if America is to remain at the forefront of
the nanoelectronics revolution.
Question submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. At the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), researchers
are studying nanomedicine, which merges engineering science with
pharmaceutical and medical sciences, to translate advances in
nanotechnology research into clinical practice. UNMC researchers have
been recognized nationally and internationally for developing tiny
particles, called nanomaterials, which are put in the body to deliver
drugs precisely to diseased cells, to treat conditions such as cancer,
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, and others. This unique
nanotechnology delivers drugs directly to diseased areas or tumors,
which maximizes clinical benefits, while limiting negative side
effects. The use of nanoscale technologies to design drug delivery
systems is a rapidly developing area of biomedical research that
promises breakthrough advances in therapeutics and diagnostics. It is
clear from the medical research in Nebraska that the development of
medical nanotechnology is moving quickly toward human clinical trials.
At the October hearing on this subject, according to the briefing
document, ``there were concern that the interagency planning for and
implementation of the environment, health and safety research component
of NNI was not moving with the urgency it deserved.'' Development of
nanotechnology is breakthrough technology with the ability to
profoundly improve the treatment and cure of disease. This legislation
intends to strengthen the planning and implementation of the
environment, health and safety component and increase the emphasis on
commercialization of nanotechnology research results. To accomplish
that, guidelines will be necessary. What progress is being made to
establish safety guidelines for the use of nanotechnology to deliver
medication when it is ready for the marketplace and adopted as standard
of care by health care professionals?
A1. New nanotechnology-enabled drugs push the boundaries of our
understanding and abilities. They penetrate to places in the body and
interact with cells and tissues in new ways, because of their nanoscale
size and structure. They can be designed to carry out many functions;
detecting and diagnosing disease, as well as treating it. And they
often blur the boundaries between distinct regulatory classes of
products. These characteristics offer the promise of innovative new
medical treatments. But they also raise new concerns over possible
health implications.
Some progress is being made to address the challenge of developing
safe and beneficial nanotechnology-based drugs. For instance, the FDA,
in partnership with National Cancer Institute and the National
Institute for Standards and Technology, has set up the Nanoparticle
Characterization Laboratory to help evaluate the safety of
developmental nano-drugs. But the pace of development and the
increasingly sophisticated nature of these medications are stretching
the ability of researchers and regulators to apply conventional
understanding to these unconventional products.
The United States cannot afford to not develop drugs enhanced with
nanotechnology. They promise to be more effective treatments with fewer
side effects; and have the ability to treat previously untreatable
diseases. But if we lose focus and don't get the environment, health
and safety aspects of these products of nanotechnology right, those
benefits will be lost. This is why adequate funding, along with strong
leadership and a robust risk research strategy, are essential to
ensuring nanotech-enabled drugs don't lead to unanticipated harm. This
is a small price to pay in order to reap the enormous benefits
nanotechnology could provide.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology for Industrial
Chemicals, BASF Corporation
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Is there a need to expand the availability of nanotechnology user
facilities that would be relevant to industry's needs? If so, would the
NNI Industry-University Research Centers model be a viable mechanism
for expanding the number and diversity of nanotechnology user
facilities? Under such a model, federal funding would support the
initial start-up costs, administration, and staffing needs of the user
facility, while industry would provide the bulk of funding through user
fees for use of the facilities.
A1. The Panel believes that there may be a lack of awareness of user
facilities available to the nanotechnology community, which may lead to
their under-utilization by industry. Furthermore, some of the centers
have very focused missions, which do not allow for projects outside of
their scope. For example, the Nanomaterials Characterization Laboratory
focuses on medical applications of nanomaterials and the laboratory
will not accept a project outside of that scope. A partnership approach
similar to the NSF Industry-University Research Centers may be a more
viable model, and would certainly be more flexible. It would also allow
SME nanotechnology companies to obtain the services they need without
the extensive capital investment needed for instrumentation.
Q2. To what extent are nanotechnology businesses engaged in
educational outreach activities with high school students or post-
secondary students? Do your companies sponsor activities at informal
science institutions?
A2. Panel members experience indicates that outreach programs are most
successful through large associations or scientific societies. For
example, the Society of Toxicology has an outreach program to
elementary and secondary schools called ``Paracelsus goes to school.''
It is well organized and successful in educating students about
toxicology, dose-response, and specific hazards to avoid. The NNI could
establish a similarly structured program. The companies of the ACC
Nanotechnology Panel also sponsor informational events for targeted
audiences, maintain a web page that provides information to the public,
and engage in extensive outreach to various constituencies to provide
information pertinent to the safe and responsible development of
nanotechnology. Panel member companies would welcome the opportunity to
provide input and experts for informal scientific sessions with
students of all ages.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. It is our understanding that responsible manufacturers and users
of nanomaterials, including presumably some ACC members, are generating
information about their properties that could be relevant to
understanding their biological and environmental behavior. How can that
information be shared so that risk assessment and risk management in
general can be improved and so that developers can design more benign
materials and avoid pitfalls?
A1. Scientists from industry, academia, and government research
facilities are engaged in developing data on the hazards of
nanomaterials, and the physical/chemical properties that are associated
with those hazards. Once these data are published in scientific
journals, there are several public databases that capture and catalogue
the information for others to use in assessing the risks of exposure.
Unfortunately, the Nanotechnology Panel believes that some of the
published data fail to accurately characterize the properties of the
particles tested. International efforts within the OECD, ISO and
private efforts to heighten awareness for the need for accurate
characterization will help sort these issues out. In addition, EPA's
Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) is designed to collect
information for EPA's use to develop risk assessment and management
profiles. Additional information will facilitate EPA's ability to
characterize nanoscale materials accurately. The Panel members will be
participating in this program.
Q2. What are the successes of the NNl over the past five years? Does
the draft before us preserve the elements that led to these successes?
What parts of the NNI have failed? Are there elements the Committee
should consider terminating?
A2. A key NNI success has been providing a mechanism for information
exchange between government agencies regarding nanotechnology. It
appears that the enthusiasm for this is high as indicated by the broad
participation of agencies. Participating agencies include those
conducting research as well as regulatory bodies showing an awareness
of the linkage between these normally separate approaches. The main
function of the NNI is to promote the development of nanotechnology and
this appears to have been a great success. A perceived weakness,
however, has been an incommensurate level of commitment of NNI agency
resources to issues regarding society and safety. Many view government
agencies as an ``honest broker'' thus they have a unique role and
contribution to make to help ensure that nanotechnology undergoes
responsible development. A commitment of the NNI for a significant
increase in member agency funding over present levels to address EHS
issues will greatly contribute to its future success. A target of 8-15
percent of overall NNI spending should be considered to fund EHS
activities and is consistent with Goal 4 of the NNI Strategic Plan.
Q3. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive
Congress as picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of
national importance in the legislation?
A3. Neither Congress nor the NNl agencies should be viewed as picking
winners or losers. The breadth of activities and interests of the
member agencies are sufficient to encompass many of the activities for
which funding will be sought. However, it is appropriate for Congress
to identify and focus attention on areas that it believes will have
particularly beneficial impacts.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the
benefits of nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their
products, for fear of public backlash. I understand their concerns, as
I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of
nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough to enhance public
awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is additional
international cooperation needed to assist the United States in
educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what other
countries are doing to inform and educate their people?
A1. The NNI amendments do not specifically address education of the
general public. This could be addressed in any number of ways not the
least of which are targeted informational programs through the Public
Broadcasting Service, Public Service Announcements, or other media. The
NNI amendments do provide for the education of secondary teachers and
students, which in turn will lead to better educating the general
public. The concern expressed in the question may be a symptom of an
overall lack of public understanding about the many positive
contributions to society and safety made through the use of science and
engineering. The Act does provide for funding to be available for
projects in subcategories of education in formal (e.g., schools,
colleges, universities) and informal settings (e.g., museums and
exhibits) as well as for public outreach and societal issues. The
Department of Education is a new NNI agency and this could be an area
where DOEd can make strong contributions to the success of the NNI
since education is its primary mission. In addition, the NNI amendments
could include scholarship funding for graduate level courses to further
train scientists in the various disciplines associated with
nanotechnology.
Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that
is certainly important, and I am curious to hear a little more about
its current status. Could you give me a better sense of the work being
conducted in this specific area, and what has resulted thus far from
this research? Approximately how much funding is devoted to
nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for what is needed to
tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed to smooth
the transfer of the research into commercial products?
A2. The chemical industry is a key supplier of materials to the
electronics industry. While the specific question is best directed to
those who are in the nanoelectronics industry we are pleased to make
essential contributions to their success. SEMI represents the
semiconductor producers and may be able to provide additional
information.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Robert R. Doering, Senior Fellow and Research Strategy
Manager, Texas Instruments
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Is there a need to expand the availability of nanotechnology user
facilities that would be relevant to industry's needs? If so, would the
NSF Industry-University Research Centers model be a viable mechanism
for expanding the number and diversity of nanotechnology user
facilities? Under such a model, federal funding would support the
initial start-up costs, administration, and staffing needs of the user
facility, while industry would provide the bulk of funding through user
fees for use of the facilities.
A1. In terms of infrastructure, many U.S. universities and some federal
labs have excellent facilities for doing micro-electronics research,
but nanoelectronics may require more specialized tools for fabricating
and characterizing these structures to move beyond the initial single
device lab demonstrations. SIA estimates this will require an order of
magnitude above current National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
(NNIN) investments, which are roughly $15M. We are pleased to see the
revised bill includes an assessment of equipment/infrastructure needs
in the areas of national importance.
The Industry-University Research Centers model may be instructive,
but given the modest investment of NSF through this program, it would
not be adequate for addressing the needs in nanoelectronics,
particularly once the technology demonstration phase begins. With its
investment in equipment and facilities at a range of universities,
expanding the infrastructure created by NNIN may be a more appropriate
model for the semiconductor industry. The NSECs also provide an
excellent resource for industry to work collaboratively with
universities, such as through the co-funding of proposals that NSF has
undertaken with the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI).
In addition, the modeling capabilities NSF has funded through the
Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN, Purdue University) have
been extremely helpful for industry in experimental/test and
theoretical simulations of various options under NRI. NCN is an
excellent model of a university-based facility which is easily
accessible and frequently used by industry.
Q2. To what extent are nanotechnology businesses engaged in
educational outreach activities with high school students or post-
secondary students? Do your companies sponsor activities at informal
science institutions?
A2. At Texas Instruments, education is the highest priority for
corporate philanthropy. Each year, TI makes financial contributions
totaling millions of dollars in grants and other gifts to schools,
colleges and educational programs. TI supports a number of programs
focused on fostering student interest and achievement in science,
technology, engineering and math.
TI and Southern Methodist University co-developed the Infinity
Project, which uses MP3 players and cell phones to teach engineering
and science concepts to high school students in 275 schools in 37
states.
Since the early 1990s, TI engineers have been helping high school
students in the Texas BEST (Boosting Engineering, Science and
Technology) competition that challenges students to build remote-
controlled robots, attracting nearly 700 middle and high schools and
more than 8,000 students across several states each fall.
At the university level, TI was a leader in establishing and
funding the Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium (TETC). TETC
supports recruitment and retention of electrical engineering and
computer science majors at 34 universities in Texas. From 2001 to 2006,
electrical engineering graduates at TETC funded institutions increased
by 49 percent compared to a 10 percent increase by other state and
national institutions. Computer science graduates have declined across
the U.S. The number of graduates at TETC institutions have only
declined by six percent compared to the national decline of 24 percent.
For details on TI educational activities, visit: http://www.ti.com/
corp/docs/company/citizen/factsheets/cte.shtml
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does
the draft before us preserve the elements that led to these successes?
What parts of the NNI have failed? Are there elements the Committee
should consider terminating?
A1. Over the past five years, the National Nanotechnology Coordinating
Office (NNCO) has advanced U.S. nanotechnology research by providing a
focal point for federal activities in nanotechnology, leading to the
development of strategic plans that identified program component areas,
and brought together key stakeholders for workshops on major
nanotechnology topics.
The NRI is certainly a model partnership under the NNI, leveraging
nanotechnology-focused federal investments such as the NSF's activities
at NSECs and the NNIN, and NIST's expertise in metrology at the
nanoscale.
To quote the most recent NNI strategic plan profile of the NRI,
``these government-industry-academic partnerships blend the discovery
mission of NSF, the technology innovation mission of NIST, the
practical perspective of industry, and the technical expertise of U.S.
universities to address a nanotechnology research and development
priority. It is one example of the creative methods the NNI uses to
accelerate research that contributes to the Nation's economic
competitiveness.''
A major shortcoming of the NNI currently is that it does not have a
mechanism to prioritize interagency activity and resources around
nanotechnology research that addresses the most critical challenges
facing our country. The bill's identification of areas of national
importance is essential to ensuring that this occurs.
Further, the NNI would benefit from clearer metrics and time frames
for both near- and long-term objectives, including plans for technology
transition with industry and the states. The bill's call for this to be
addressed in the strategic plan allows better measurement of progress
towards NNI goals. The explicit funding mechanism for the NNCO and
authorization of travel expenditures are also positive proposals for
improving the way the NNI is planned and implemented.
Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive
Congress as picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of
national importance in the legislation?
A2. It is important that the bill recognizes that projects in these
areas will be selected on a competitive and merit basis. It is
appropriate for the legislation to identify some examples of areas of
national importance, and call for the Advisory Panel to identify
additional areas. This will allow NNI to prioritize resources around
national challenges that would benefit from breakthroughs in
nanotechnology and where the Federal Government has a unique role in
funding exploratory research.
Q3. In your testimony you advocate for the inclusion of security as a
major area of national importance. Currently, the Department of Defense
accounts for more spending under NNI than any other agency. However,
the Department of Homeland Security invests just one million dollars,
less than all agencies except the Department of Transportation. Are
there specific areas where nanotechnology can uniquely benefit homeland
security that are being ignored currently?
A3. Security is an important national challenge that will benefit from
nanotechnology research. Even if not addressed in the legislation, this
topic should certainly be prominent in the interagency context. For
example, nanoelectronics benefits national security in very many ways,
including even smarter weapons, better and quicker situational
awareness, lightweight and low-power communication devices, and a broad
range of small sensors such as single-chip chemical and biological
detection and analysis platforms. Nanomaterials will allow lighter and
stronger vehicles, equipment, and armor for military and first
responders.
As noted, the Department of Defense invests more in nanotechnology
research than any other agency in NNI, and much of this research will
have security applications. DHS should leverage promising
nanotechnology research through NNI by providing its expertise and
agency funding, where appropriate, for specific applications related to
its mission.
Q4. What difference can you identify between the Nanoelectronics
Research Initiative (NRI) and the partnerships described in Section 5
of the draft legislation? In your opinion, what effect will these
differences have on the success of further partnerships?
A4. The NRI in its current form is a model of the partnerships
envisioned in Section 5, involving an industry consortium,
universities, and two federal agencies. The NRI also leverages state
investment, which was not an element in the initial draft of Section 5,
and we are pleased to see this aspect recognized in the revised text.
The major difference between the NRI and the partnerships
envisioned in Section 5 is that currently under NNI, there is no
designation as an area of national importance and such partnerships are
not explicitly recognized. The legislation as drafted will encourage
such beneficial partnerships.
As NRI moves forward, its model may evolve to include technology
demonstration projects of promising concepts. This was not envisioned
for partnerships in the original Section 5, but we are pleased to see
the bill as introduced recognizes this need.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the
benefits of nanotechnology choose not to advertise this facet in their
products, for fear of public backlash. I understand their concerns as I
do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of
nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough to enhance public
awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is additional
international cooperation needed to assist the United States in
educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what other
countries are doing to inform and educate their people?
A1. Certainly improved public awareness of the benefits of
nanotechnology and research around EHS issues will assist consumers in
making informed decisions and reducing fears around nanotechnology.
ESH issues are important, but should not eclipse the vast potential
benefits of nanotechnology. The semiconductor industry is committed to
ensuring that its leadership in ESH continues as semiconductor
technology advances.
To help meet the ESH challenges of the industry, the Semiconductor
Research Corporation and SEMATECH, two industry consortia, sponsor the
SRC/SEMATECH Engineering Research Center for Environmentally Benign
Semiconductor Manufacturing, headquartered at the University of
Arizona, and including researchers at 10 other leading universities.
The industry has an International Technology Roadmap for
Semiconductors (ITRS) that is developed by over 1000 scientists and
engineers worldwide. The roadmap includes an extensive section of ESH
that provides direction to research centers, suppliers, and chip makers
to focus on the both short-term (2005-2013) and long-term (2014-2020)
challenges in chemical assessment and reduction, energy and water
conservation, and sustainability and product stewardship. Specifically
there is recognition of how the industry's ESH controls should be
studied and adjusted as needed for nanomaterials.
From an education standpoint, nanotechnology provides an excellent
opportunity to capture young imaginations to science--a nanometer is so
small it could fit 50,000 times on the width of a typical human hair.
The bill's education provisions, particularly the Nanotechnology
Education Partnerships at the NSF, provide appropriate mechanisms to
generate teacher and student enthusiasm and undergraduate interest in
this area.
SIA has been involved in the International Nanotechnology
Conference on Communications and Coordination, which brings together
industry, academia, and government officials working in nanotechnology.
In addition to research topics, programs have included discussions on
various approaches to societal and educational dimensions of
nanotechnology.
Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that
is certainly important, and I am curious to hear a little more about
its current status. Could you give me a better sense of the work being
conducted in this specific area, and what has resulted thus far from
this research? Approximately how much funding is currently devoted to
nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for what is needed to
tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed to smooth
the transfer of the research into commercial products?
A2. Nanoelectronics research is focused on finding the new ``switch''
to replace today's transistor. The new switch must be extremely
reliable, fast, low power, functionally dense, and capable of being
manufactured in commercial volumes at low cost. There are a number of
candidates for the new nanoelectronics switch, including devices based
on spin or other quantum state variables rather than classical bulk
electric charge. The NRI has identified several promising new phenomena
that have potential to become advanced switches, such as
pseudospintronics, ballistic anisotropic magneto-resistance, spin
waves, molecular conformational changes, electron wave interference,
nanomagnet interactions, and excitons in both molecules and carbon
nanotubes and graphene. In particular, there is a large amount of
research going into graphene, which is showing great promise as a new
material to support a number of new device technologies.
However, despite this long list of promising initial concepts, it
should be emphasized that we have a long way to go. Our understanding
of many of these new phenomena is in its infancy, and we will
undoubtedly find many challenges and showstoppers which will limit the
ultimate potential of most of the candidates--this is the nature of
such far-out research. It also underlines the urgency for investing
heavily now in many different areas.
Commercialization of devices based on these phenomena into a new
class of integrated circuits may very well require an entirely new
nanomanufacturing paradigm. Technology demonstration projects, as
identified in the revised bill, will be required to advance to the next
phase and determine the viability of the various technologies.
Current direct NRI funding from all sources (federal, industry, and
State) totals about $25M annually, of which NIST funds about $3M per
year, and NSF funds $2M.
However, an aggregate figure for all federal agency investments in
nanoelectronics is currently extremely difficult to obtain--programs
are disaggregated across agencies, and often not reported at such a
detailed level. There are a number of activities relevant to
nanoelectronics outside of the formal NRI partnerships with NSF and
NIST. For example, the Department of Defense, largely through DARPA, is
a major investor in nanoelectronics research. The Department of Energy
laboratories conduct activities and have capabilities relevant to
nanoelectronics as well.
The 2009 National Science Foundation budget request was the first
time the agency included a $20M initiative for research addressing
``Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law,'' thus establishing a
centralized figure for the agency's activity on this topic.
The revision to Section 5 to track investments in the areas of
national interest, at the same level of detail as is currently done for
the Program Component Areas will be extremely valuable to have federal
investment for these areas available in a central location and to
monitor trends.
Q3. States obviously play an important role in commercialization and
translation of promising research into innovation, which in turn
enhances regional economic growth. Does the legislation sufficiently
address the role of the states in nanotechnology?
A3. TI and SIA agree that State governments can play an important role.
Section 4 of the draft legislation highlights technology transfer and
explicitly identifies the importance of State leverage through
research, development, and technology transfer initiatives. We were
pleased that the bill as introduced revised Section 5 to recognize that
projects in areas of national importance should leverage State funding
where possible.
For example, Texas created a $200M Emerging Technology Fund to
invest in public-private endeavors around emerging scientific or
technology fields tied to competitiveness; match federal and other
sponsored investment in science; and attract and enhance research
talent superiority in Texas. Several other states have similar
mechanisms. Of course, State governments are also critical in
supporting public research universities from an overall budget
perspective.
States have provided leveraged funding to NRI worth at least $15M
annually in funding, equipment, and faculty endowments. In addition,
several states have invested in expansion or construction of new
buildings related to nanotechnology. The City of South Bend, with the
new Midwest Academy of Nanoelectronics and Architectures (MANA) NRI
center, will open an ``Innovation Park'' adjacent to the campus
designed to foster commercialization.
Questions submitted by Representative Michael T. McCaul
Q1. The NRI SWAN center based at the University of Texas Austin
includes significant resources from the State of Texas, the University
of Texas System, and Texas industry. Specifically, how does this
provide leverage to the federal investment in NRI research and benefit
universities outside of the University of Texas System?
A1. While Texas and other states have provided resources to the four
regional NRI centers, it is important to note that these regional
centers are ``virtual'' and involve researchers from several
universities outside these states. Collaborative research occurs on a
national level at all 35 participating universities. In addition to UT-
Austin, SWAN involves researchers at UT-Dallas, Texas A&M, Rice,
Arizona State, Notre Dame, Maryland, NC State, and Univ. of Illinois-C.
The SWAN $30M in matching funds is focused on attracting and
supporting top academic researchers in nanoelectronics. Specifically,
this is a three-way match, with the State of Texas contributing $10M
from the Emerging Technology Fund, the University of Texas System
matching with $10M, and the remaining $10M contributed by Texas
industry for endowed chairs, including $5M from TI. Like similar
investments in other states, these funds are restricted to support
faculty at public institutions in the state. However, such state
investments indirectly benefit other universities participating in the
various centers by enabling research capacity and infrastructure that
otherwise would not be funded. The NRI's State and local investments
leverage the federal and industry contributions to further advance
nanoelectronics research.