SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
21–195PS
2005
THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY
INITIATIVE: REVIEW AND OUTLOOK
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 18, 2005
Serial No. 109–15
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
KEN CALVERT, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana
JOHN J.H. ''JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
VACANCY
VACANCY
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah
JIM COSTA, California
AL GREEN, Texas
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
VACANCY
Subcommittee on Research
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
VACANCY
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
VACANCY
VACANCY
VACANCY
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BART GORDON, Tennessee
DAN BYERS Subcommittee Staff Director
JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members
JAMES HAGUE Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
May 18, 2005
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Statement by Representative Darlene Hooley, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Prepared Statement by Representative Michael M. Honda, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Witnesses:
Mr. Scott C. Donnelly, Senior Vice President for Global Research; Chief Technology Officer, General Electric
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Dr. John M. Kennedy, Director, Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films, Clemson University
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Financial Disclosure
Dr. John M. Cassady, Vice President for Research, Oregon State University
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Mr. Michael Fancher, Director of Economic Outreach, Associate Professor of Nanoeconomics, Albany Nanotech
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Discussion
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. John M. Cassady, Vice President for Research, Oregon State University
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Bob Gregg, Executive Vice President, FEI Company
The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, May 2005
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE: REVIEW AND OUTLOOK
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Inglis [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
21195a.eps
HEARING CHARTER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Review and Outlook
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005
10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, May 18, 2005, the Research Subcommittee of the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives will hold a hearing to review the activities of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).
2. Witnesses
Mr. Scott Donnelly is the Senior Vice President for Global Research for the General Electric Company.
Dr. John Kennedy is Director of the Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films (CAEFF) at Clemson University. CAEFF is a National Science Foundation-supported Engineering Research Center.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. John Cassady is Vice President for Research at Oregon State University (OSU). OSU plays a leading role in the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute.
Mr. Michael Fancher is Director of Economic Outreach at Albany NanoTech. He is also Associate Professor of Nanoeconomics at the State University of New York at Albany, College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering.
3. Overarching Questions
Which fields of science and engineering present the greatest opportunities for breakthroughs in nanotechnology, and which industries are most likely to be altered by those breakthroughs in both the near-term and the longer-term?
What are the primary barriers to commercialization of nanotechnology, and how can these barriers be overcome or removed? What is the Federal Government's role in facilitating the commercialization of nanotechnology innovations, and how can the current federal nanotechnology program be strengthened in this area?
What is the workforce outlook for nanotechnology, and how can the Federal Government and universities help ensure there will be enough people with the relevant skills to meet the Nation's needs for nanotechnology research and development and for the manufacture of nanotechnology-enabled products?
4. Brief Overview
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In December 2003, the President signed the 21st Century National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108–153), which originated in the Science Committee. This Act provided a statutory framework for the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), authorized appropriations for nanotechnology research and development (R&D) activities through fiscal year 2008 (FY08), and enhanced the coordination and oversight of the program. Funding for the NNI has grown from $464 million in fiscal year 2001 (FY01) to $1.1 billion in FY05, and 11 agencies currently have nanotechnology R&D programs.
In addition to federal investments, State governments and the private sector have become increasingly involved in supporting nanotechnology. In 2004, the private sector in the U.S. invested roughly $2 billion in nanotechnology research, while states invested roughly $400 million. The state investment is primarily spent on infrastructure and research at public universities, while the private funding focuses on applied research and development activities at small and large companies, and funding for start-up nanotechnology ventures.
The 21st Century National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act required that a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) biennially report to Congress on trends and developments in nanotechnology science and engineering and on recommendations for improving the NNI. The first such report will be released on May 18. Its recommendations include strengthening Federal-industry and Federal-State cooperation on nanotechnology research, infrastructure, and technology transfer, and broadening federal efforts in nanotechnology education and workforce preparation.
5. Background
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Overview of Nanotechnology
The National Academy of Sciences describes nanotechnology as the ''ability to manipulate and characterize matter at the level of single atoms and small groups of atoms.'' An Academy report describes how ''small numbers of atoms or molecules. . .often have properties (such as strength, electrical resistivity, electrical conductivity, and optical absorption) that are significantly different from the properties of the same matter at either the single-molecule scale or the bulk scale.'' Scientists and engineers anticipate that nanotechnology will lead to ''materials and systems with dramatic new properties relevant to virtually every sector of the economy, such as medicine, telecommunications, and computers, and to areas of national interest such as homeland security.''(see footnote 1)
Nanotechnology is an enabling technology and, as such, its commercialization does not depend specifically on the creation of new products and new markets. Gains can come from incorporating nanotechnology into existing products, resulting in new and improved versions of these products. Examples could include faster computers, lighter materials for aircraft, less invasive ways to treat cancer, and more efficient ways to store and transport electricity. Some less-revolutionary nanotechnology-enabled products are already on the market, including stain-resistant wrinkle-free pants, ultraviolet-light blocking sun screens, and scratch-free coatings for eyeglasses and windows.
In October 2004, a private research firm released its most recent evaluation of the potential impact of nanotechnology. The analysis found that, in 2004, $13 billion worth of products in the global marketplace incorporated nanotechnology. The report projected that, by 2014, this figure will rise to $2.6 trillion—15 percent of manufacturing output in that year. The report also predicts that in 2014, ten million manufacturing jobs worldwide—11 percent of total manufacturing jobs—will involve manufacturing these nanotechnology-enabled products.(see footnote 2)
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
National Nanotechnology Initiative
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is a multi-agency research and development (R&D) program. The goals of the NNI, which was initiated in 2000, are to maintain a world-class research and development program; to facilitate technology transfer; to develop educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the infrastructure and tools to support the advancement of nanotechnology; and to support responsible development of nanotechnology. Currently, 11 federal agencies have ongoing programs in nanotechnology R&D; funding for those activities is shown in Table 1. Additionally, 11 other agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the Department of Transportation, participate in the coordination and planning work associated with the NNI.
21195b.eps
In 2003, the Science Committee wrote and held hearings on the 21st Century National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which was signed into law on December 3, 2003. The Act authorizes $3.7 billion over four years (FY05 to FY08) for five agencies (the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency). The Act also: adds oversight mechanisms—an interagency committee, annual reports to congress, an advisory committee, and external reviews—to provide for planning, management, and coordination of the program; encourages partnerships between academia and industry; encourages expanded nanotechnology research and education and training programs; and emphasizes the importance of research into societal concerns related to nanotechnology to understand the impact of new products on health and the environment.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel Report
The 21st Century National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act required the establishment or designation of a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) to assess and provide advice on the NNI. In July 2004, the President designated the existing President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to serve as the NNAP. The NNAP's responsibilities include providing input to the administration on trends and developments in nanotechnology and on the conduct and management of the NNI.
The NNAP is required to report to Congress on its activities every two years, and its first report will be formally released on May 18, 2005. (Its content is described below.) The report assesses the U.S. position in nanotechnology relative to the rest of the world, evaluates the quality of current NNI programs and program management, and recommends ways the NNI could be improved.
Benchmarking
The NNAP report finds that U.S. leads the rest of the world in nanotechnology as measured by metrics such as level of spending (both public and private), publications in high-impact journals, and patents. The report also finds, however, that other countries are increasing their efforts and investments in nanotechnology and are closing the gap with the U.S. Some countries cannot afford to invest as broadly as the U.S., which has supported nanotechnology efforts relevant to a wide range of industries, but these other countries—particularly in Asia—have instead chosen to concentrate their investments in particular areas to make strides in a specific sector. For example, Korea and Taiwan are investing heavily in nanoelectronics while Singapore and China are focusing on nanobiotechnology and nanomaterials, respectively.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NNI Management
The NNAP report finds that the NNI is a well managed program. The report notes that the balance of funding among different areas of nanotechnology is appropriate and emphasizes the importance of investment in a diverse array of fields rather than a narrow focus on a just a few ''Grand Challenges.'' In particular, the NNAP lauds the NNI for advancing the foundational knowledge about control of matter at the nanoscale; creating an interdisciplinary nanotechnology research community and an infrastructure of over 35 nanotechnology research centers, networks, and user facilities; investing in research related to the environment, health, safety, and other societal concerns; establishing nanotechnology education programs; and supporting public outreach.
Recommendations
The NNAP recommends continued strong investment in basic research and notes the importance of recent federal investment in research centers, equipment, and facilities at universities and national laboratories throughout the country (see Appendix A). Such facilities allow both university researchers and small companies to have access to equipment too expensive or unwieldy to be contained in an individual laboratory.
The NNAP also emphasizes the importance of State and industry contributions to the U.S. nanotechnology efforts and recommends that the NNI expand federal-state and federal-industry interactions through workshops and other methods.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NNAP also recommends that the Federal Government actively use existing government programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs to enhance technology transfer in nanotechnology. All grant-giving agencies are required by law to have SBIR and STTR programs, and some of them specifically target solicitations toward nanotechnology. However, it is hard to get a clear, up-to-date picture of how much funding is actually provided for nanotechnology-related projects in these programs and on what the demand for SBIR/STTR funding in this area is. The NNAP also recommends that federal agencies be early adopters and purchasers of new nanotechnology-related products in cases where these technologies can help fulfill an agency's mission.
The NNAP also finds that the NNI is making good investments in environmental, health, and safety research, and recommends that the Federal Government continue efforts to coordinate this work with related efforts in industry and at non-profits and with activities conducted in other countries. The NNAP emphasizes the importance of communication with stakeholders and the public regarding research and findings in this area.
Finally, the NNAP emphasizes the importance of education and workforce preparation and recommends that the NNI coordinate with Departments of Education and Labor to improve access to materials and methods being developed for purposes of nanotechnology education and training.
Challenges Ahead
The NNAP notes that successful adoption of nanotechnology-enabled products will require coordination between federal, State, academic, and industrials efforts (including for efficient commercialization of products), training of a suitable high-technology workforce, and development of techniques for the responsible manufacture and use of these products.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Developing a federal strategy to facilitate technology transfer of nanotechnology innovations is a particularly complex challenge because of the wide range of industry sectors that stand to benefit from nanotechnology and the range of time scales at which each sector will realize these benefits. The NNAP report provides examples of various possible nanotechnology applications and when they are expected to reach the product stage (Table 2). The applications cover sectors from information technology and health care to security and energy, and some applications are on the market now, while others are more than 20 years in the future.
21195c.eps
As the NNAP report notes, the states are playing an increasing role in nanotechnology. In 2004, state funding for nanotechnology-related projects was $400 million, or approximately 40 percent of the total federal investment. To date, State funding for nanotechnology has been focused on infrastructure—particularly the construction of new facilities—with some research support being provided in the form of matching funds to public universities that receive federal research dollars. In addition to receiving state support, universities and national laboratories also leverage federal investments through industry contributions of funds or in-kind donations of equipment and expertise. The report on a 2003 NNI workshop on regional, State, and local nanotechnology initiatives lists 18 specific examples of these non-federal initiatives.(see footnote 3) (Witnesses at the hearing will describe the specific approaches being taken in New York, South Carolina, and Oregon.)
In recent years, the focus has been on the construction of nanotechnology facilities, but as these building projects financed by federal, State, and private funding are completed, the nanotechnology community must consider how best to capitalize on these new resources. Specifically, funding will have to be found for operating expenses, and policies that will attract public and private sector users to these facilities will be needed on topics such as collaboration, intellectual property, and usage fees.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The diversity of industry sectors will be a challenge for developing appropriate education and workforce training programs in nanotechnology. The predicted scale and breadth of research and manufacturing jobs related to nanotechnology will require not only specialized programs but also integration of nanotechnology-related information into general science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.
Finally, successful integration of nanotechnology into products will require an understanding of the standards and regulations needed to govern responsible manufacturing and use of nanotechnology-enabled products. Currently, $82 million of the NNI R&D funding is spent on research related to the societal implications of nanotechnology. Of this amount, $38.5 million is specifically directed at environmental, health, and safety research, while the remainder is for the study of economic, workforce, educational, ethical, and legal implications. In addition to this funding, relevant work is also ongoing in other NNI focus areas. One example is the development of measurement techniques at the nanoscale which are necessary to set standards that can be used for quality control of nanotechnology products and to manage compliance with safety regulations. Another example is the study of the basic mechanisms of interaction between nanoscale materials and biological systems, which can provide critical information for health care applications as well as safe use practices.
6. Witness Questions
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in their testimony:
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Questions for Mr. Scott Donnelly:
What fields of science and engineering present the greatest opportunities for breakthroughs in nanotechnology, and what industries are most likely to be impacted by those breakthroughs in both the near-term and the longer-term?
What are the primary barriers to commercialization of nanotechnology, and how can these barriers be overcome or removed?
To what extent has GE made use of university research and of facilities at universities and national laboratories? How important are these resources to GE's research program and how could they be more helpful?
Questions for Dr. John Kennedy:
How does the Clemson Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films (CAEFF) interact with the private sector? What are the greatest barriers to increased academic/industrial cooperation in nanotechnology?
How does the State of South Carolina provide support to CAEFF for nanotechnology and other high-technology activities? How does this complement funding from the Federal Government and the private sector? What, if any, gaps remain?
What is the workforce outlook for nanotechnology, and how can the Federal Government and universities help ensure there will be enough people with the relevant skills to meet the Nation's needs for nanotechnology research and development and for the manufacture of nanotechnology-enabled products?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How can Federal and State governments, industry, and academia best cooperate to facilitate advances in nanotechnology?
Questions for Dr. John Cassady:
How do Oregon State University (OSU) and the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) interface with the private sector? What are the greatest barriers to increased academic/industrial cooperation in nanotechnology?
How does the State of Oregon provide support to OSU and ONAMI for nanotechnology and other high-technology activities? How does this complement funding from the Federal Government and the private sector? What, if any, gaps remain?
What is the workforce outlook for nanotechnology, and how can the Federal Government and universities help ensure there will be enough people with the relevant skills to meet the Nation's needs for nanotechnology research and development and for the manufacture of nanotechnology-enabled products?
How can Federal and State governments, industry, and academia best cooperate to facilitate advances in nanotechnology?
Questions for Mr. Michael Fancher:
How does Albany NanoTech interface with the private sector? What are the greatest barriers to increased academic/industrial cooperation in nanotechnology?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How does the State of New York provide support to Albany NanoTech and the University of Albany College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering? How does this complement funding from the Federal Government and the private sector? What, if any, gaps remain?
What is the workforce outlook for nanotechnology, and how can the Federal Government and universities help ensure there will be enough people with the relevant skills to meet the Nation's needs for nanotechnology research and development and for the manufacture of nanotechnology-enabled products?
How can Federal and State governments, industry, and academia best cooperate to facilitate advances in nanotechnology?
21195d.eps
Chairman INGLIS. Good morning, everyone.
Thank you for joining us for this hearing on nanotechnology. It is good of you to come this morning to the Research Subcommittee on a topic of such small significance. I say that, of course, because what we are talking about here, science at the nanometer scale, starts at 1/75,000 of the width of a human hair. We are here to learn about nanotechnology, and I am excited to hear what our witnesses will have to say. So I will keep this opening statement small as well.
I also want to welcome Ranking Member Hooley. I was encouraged by her insightful questions at the last Research Subcommittee hearing, and I am looking forward to what she will contribute this morning. I am also seeing that she and I are dressed in the right colors for Oregon, is that right? And Clemson University, I would point out, Dr. Kennedy.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am not a scientist by background, and I have got to confess that I didn't know enough about this subject until I had prepared for this hearing. I am not alone. A recent survey by MIT's technology review showed that more than half of all Americans have no familiarity with nanotechnology. That is a shame, because these technologies are changing the products we use and have the potential to revitalize our manufacturing base. We must be about educating our children in math and science if they will need to do these jobs. I know Ms. Hooley, being a former teacher, will have something to say about that as well.
This morning, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology released a report on the state of and outlook for nanotechnology in the United States. On the whole, the report is very encouraging, noting that we lead the world by most metrics, including funding, patents, and scientific publications. But one of the things I found troubling is that other countries are catching up, and not just in funding. I hope we can talk today about the ways the United States can maintain its status as a world leader in these emerging technologies.
For those of us who are technologically challenged, like me, nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter at the molecular level to get results that just don't occur in larger lumps of atoms. It promises to impact virtually every field, with applications in fields from energy, to defense, to health care, to transportation. You can end up with things like gold-covered nanoshells to target and burn cancer away or light-weight, super strong materials structured at the smallest levels that could increase the efficiency of our airplanes and automobiles.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our experts can talk more about nanotechnology's implications, but what we really want to know is how to get it into products that we will use in the future. Nanotechnology is one of the few technologies where basic research meets the marketplace in venture capital startups and R&D at large firms. The witnesses here today will bring the process to life and let us in government know how we are helping and how we may be hurting advances in this very promising area.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Inglis follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BOB INGLIS
Welcome. It's good of you to come to this hearing at the Research Subcommittee on a topic of such small significance. I say that, of course, because what we're talking about here—science at the nanometer scale—starts at a size 1/75,000th of the width of a human hair. We're here to learn about nanotechnology, and I'm excited to hear what our witnesses will have to say, so I'll keep this opening statement small as well.
I also want to welcome our Ranking Member, Ms. Hooley. I was encouraged by her insightful questions in our last Research Subcommittee hearing, and I'm looking forward to what she will contribute to this hearing.
I'm not a scientist by background, and I've got to confess that I didn't know enough about this subject until I had to prepare for this hearing. I'm not alone. A recent survey by MIT's Technology review showed that more than half of all Americans have no familiarity with nanotechnology. That's a shame, because these technologies are changing the products we use, and have the potential to revitalize our manufacturing base. We must be about educating our children in the math and science they will need to do these jobs. I know Ms. Hooley, being a former teacher, has a lot to say about this.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This morning, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology released a report on the state of, and outlook for, nanotechnology in the U.S. On the whole, the report is very encouraging, noting that we lead the world by most metrics, including funding, patents, and scientific publications. But one of the things I find troubling is that other countries are catching up, and not just in funding. I hope we can talk today about ways the U.S. can maintain its status as a world leader in these emerging technologies.
For those of us who are technologically challenged—like me—nanotechnology is the manipulating of matter at the molecular level to get results that just don't occur in larger lumps of atoms. It promises to impact virtually every field—with applications in fields from energy to defense to health care to transportation. You can end up with things like gold-covered nanoshells to target and burn cancer away, or light-weight, super-strong materials structured at the smallest levels that could increase the efficiency of our airplanes and automobiles.
Our experts can talk more about nanotechnology's implications, but what we really want to know is how to get it into the products we will use in the future. Nanotechnology is one of the few technologies where basic research meets the marketplace in venture-capital startups and R&D at large firms. The witnesses here today will bring the process to life and let us in government know how we're helping and how we may be hurting advances in this very promising area.
Chairman INGLIS. With that, I would recognize Ms. Hooley for an opening statement.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to the oversight hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, or the NNI. One of the signal accomplishments of the Science Committee in the last Congress was the development of the NNI authorization legislation, which was signed into law in December of 2003. Calling the technology revolutionary has become a cliché, but nanotechnology truly is revolutionary. A recent National Research Council report explains why this is so: ''The ability to control and manipulate atoms to observe and stimulate collective phenomena to treat complex material systems and to span length scales from atoms to our everyday experience provides opportunities that were not even imagined a decade ago.''
Nanotechnology will have an enormous consequence for the information industry, for manufacturing, and for medicine and health. Indeed, the scope of this technology is so broad as to leave virtually no product untouched. The NNI is a coordinated federal R&D effort that seeks to ensure the United States is at the forefront of research to develop nanotechnology and is positioned to benefit from its many potential applications.
The focus of this hearing is to review the initial assessment of the NNI by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. This assessment is mandated by statute and is required to cover both the content and the management of NNI.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Co-chair of PCAST was scheduled to appear today to present a report. However, the Administration suddenly and inexplicably found a constitutional objection to this appearance. This extraordinary constitutional interpretation would prevent a member of a statutorily mandated Advisory Committee from presenting a mandated report to Congress. I would hope the Science Committee will formally object to this action and will strenuously assert Congressional prerogatives for access to information about the implementation of this federal program, and we will talk about that when we get through.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One aspect of the NNI that the Advisory Committee report touches on and is of great interest to me is how the NNI helps facilitate commercialization of the technology. I believe that PCAST will have some recommendations for making the NNI more effective in this area. As the PCAST report points out, many states are investing in nanotechnology. And of course, the states play a leading role in economic development. Oregon is one of those states that has taken steps and made investments to help create new commercial enterprises founded on results flowing from nanoscience research.
I am delighted that one of our witnesses this morning is Dr. John Cassady, who is Vice President for Research at Oregon State University, and I did wear these colors in his honor today. Mr. Cassady is closely involved with the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, of what we call ONAMI, a collaboration between Oregon's three major research universities, federal research agencies, and the state's thriving high-tech sector. Dr. Cassady will be able to describe how Oregon is supporting nanotechnology development and how ONAMI, which emphasizes rapidly commercializing new technology, works in partnership with the private sector.
I hope to learn today how NNI could be more effective in helping transfer technology to the private sector and helping support the commercialization process. I will be interested in the experiences of our witnesses and in their recommendations.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for calling this hearing, and I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today, and I look forward to our discussion.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DARLENE HOOLEY
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to this oversight hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, or the NNI. One of the signal accomplishments of the Science Committee in the last Congress was the development of the NNI authorization legislation, which was signed into law in December 2003.
Calling a technology ''revolutionary'' has become a cliché. But nanotechnology truly is revolutionary. A recent National Research Council report explains why this is so:
''The ability to control and manipulate atoms, to observe and simulate collective phenomena, to treat complex materials systems, and to span length scales from atoms to our everyday experience, provides opportunities that were not even imagined a decade ago.''
Nanotechnology will have enormous consequences for the information industry, for manufacturing, and for medicine and health. Indeed, the scope of this technology is so broad as to leave virtually no product untouched. The NNI is the coordinated federal R&D effort that seeks to ensure the U.S. is at the forefront of research to develop nanotechnology and is positioned to benefit from its many potential applications.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The focus of this hearing is to review the initial biennial assessment of the NNI by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. This assessment is mandated by statute and is required to cover both the content and the management of the NNI.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the co-chair of PCAST was scheduled to appear today to present this report. However, the Administration suddenly and inexplicably found a constitutional objection to his appearance. This extraordinary constitutional interpretation would prevent a member of a statutorily mandated advisory committee from presenting a statutorily mandated report to Congress. I trust the Science Committee will formally object to this action and will strenuously assert congressional prerogatives for access to information about the implementation of federal programs.
One aspect of the NNI that the advisory committee report touches on and that is of great interest to me is how the NNI helps facilitate commercialization of the technology. I believe PCAST will have some recommendations for making the NNI more effective in this area. As the PCAST report points out, many States are investing in nanotechnology and, of course, the States play a leading role in economic development. Oregon is one of those States that has taken steps and made investments to help create new commercial enterprises founded on results flowing from nanoscience research.
I am delighted that one of our witnesses this morning is Dr. John M. Cassady, who is Vice President for Research at Oregon State University. Dr. Cassady is closely involved with the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI), a collaboration between Oregon's three major research universities, federal research agencies, and the state's thriving high-tech sector.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Cassady will be able to describe how Oregon is supporting nanotechnology developments and how ONAMI, which emphasizes rapidly commercializing new technology, works in partnership with the private sector.
I hope to learn today how the NNI could be more effective in helping transfer technology to the private sector and in helping support the commercialization process. I will be interested in the experiences of our witnesses and in their recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look forward to our discussion.
Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Ms. Hooley.
I might take the prerogative of the Chair just to mention that we do agree with you that it is disappointing that we are not going to be able to hear from the President's advisor on this. We had hoped that he would be here to testify. The good news, however, is that the report is available at the back of the room and on the web. It would have been nice to have had the opportunity to ask questions and to see the full presentation of that, and yes, Ms. Hooley, the Science Committee is expressing our desires in that area and expressing the prerogatives of the House to have access to that process.
It was, however, a public process that developed the report and the report itself is public, so no secret deals here. It is just a matter that it would be better if he were here to make the presentation.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So other Members are invited to make opening statements available for publication in the record this morning.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this very important hearing today. I welcome our distinguished witnesses.
The purpose of this hearing is to examine federal nanotechnology research and development and to explore the outlook for the future.
Nanotechnology is the act of manipulating matter at the atomic scale. Regardless of the diverse opinions on the rate at which nanotechnology will be implemented, people who make it a habit to keep up with technology agree on this: it is a technology in its infancy, and it holds the potential to change everything.
Research in nanoscience is literally exploding, both because of the intellectual allure of constructing matter and molecules one atom at a time, and because the new technical capabilities permit creation of materials and devices with significant societal impact. The rapid evolution of this new science and the opportunities for its application promise that nanotechnology will become one of the dominant technologies of the 21st century. Nanotechnology represents a central direction for the future of chemistry that is increasingly interdisciplinary and ecumenical in application.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Currently, manufacturing methods at the molecular level are very unsophisticated. Methods such as casting, grinding, milling and even lithography move atoms in cumbersome and unyielding manners. It has been compared to trying to make things out of LEGO blocks with boxing gloves on your hands. Yes, you can push the LEGO blocks into great heaps and pile them up, but you can't really snap them together the way they should be attached.
In the future, nanotechnology will let us take off the boxing gloves. We'll be able to snap together the fundamental building blocks of nature easily, inexpensively and in most of the ways permitted by the laws of physics. This will be essential if we are to continue the revolution in computer hardware beyond about the next decade, and will also let us fabricate an entire new generation of products that are cleaner, stronger, lighter, and more precise.
I agree with the assessment that nanotechnology is one of the most promising and exciting fields of science today. I look forward to working with this committee on its advancement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL M. HONDA
Chairman Inglis and Ranking Member Hooley, thank you for holding this important hearing today. As we all have heard at prior hearings, the emerging field of nanotechnology may lead to unprecedented scientific and technological advances that will benefit society by fundamentally changing the way many items are designed and manufactured. It will take many years of sustained investment for this field to achieve maturity. There is an important role for the federal government to play in the development of nanotechnology, since this science is still in its infancy. This committee, the Congress, and the President all acknowledged that when we enacted the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in 2003.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology presents a challenge for the scientific community and the research and development bodies of governments and industry, since it transcends traditional areas of expertise. In addition, nanotechnology will likely give rise to a host of novel social, ethical, philosophical, and legal issues. For these and other reasons, in the legislation this committee required the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel to report back to the Congress on trends and developments in nanotechnology science and engineering; progress made in implementing the Program; the need to revise the Program; the balance among the components of the Program, including funding levels for the program component areas; whether the program component areas, priorities, and technical goals developed by the Council are helping to maintain United States leadership in nanotechnology; the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program; and whether societal, ethical, legal, environmental, and workforce concerns are adequately addressed by the Program. I am pleased that this report is being released today and that it has found the program is working successfully, although I am troubled by the fact that we are not able to have Floyd Kvamme, Co-chair of PCAST, which is serving as the NNAP, here with us today and urge the Administration to revisit its position on this policy.
It is critical that the United States invests in nanotechnology and does so wisely. Other industrialized countries are already spending more per capita on nanotechnology than the US. Leading nanotechnology researcher Dr. R. Stanley Williams of Hewlett-Packard Laboratories believes that ''we are in a global struggle to dominate the technological high ground, and thus a large portion of the economy, of the 21st Century. The U.S. cannot outspend the rest of the world this time, so we must be by far the most productive at creating new technologies and the most efficient at bringing them to the marketplace. This will require coordination and cooperation across a wide variety of institutions and disciplines such as we have never seen before in the U.S. To fail places the wealth and security of this nation at serious risk.'' I look forward to hearing the thoughts of these distinguished witnesses about the role the Federal Government should play in helping to commercialize the fruits of its research investments, and the impact this will have on the future of nanotechnology.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN
Mr. Chairman and Ms. Ranking Member, thank you for holding this important and very interesting hearing.
The creation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative is a program with tremendous vision and I am thrilled to be supportive of the effort.
Nanotechnology has the promise of allowing scientists to control matter on every length scale, including materials in the range of one to 100 nanometers. Science is allowing us to control material behavior by altering structures at the level of one billionth of a meter.
The field includes three main categories of promise, materials and manufacturing, information technology and medicine. I am most eager to see what this technology can do for our nation's health and am hopeful that the utilization of nanotechnology will someday positively affect our economy and job market.
I welcome the witnesses to our subcommittee today and look forward to hearing their testimony. Thank you.
Chairman INGLIS. It is now my pleasure to introduce to you our panel. Mr. Scott Donnelly is the Senior Vice President from General Electric Corporation, we are very pleased to have you, Mr. Donnelly. Dr. John Kennedy is the Director of the Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films at Clemson University in South Carolina. And Ms. Hooley, we are in the right orange category here. I have got on Clemson orange here. Dr. John Cassady, who Ms. Hooley introduced earlier, is the Vice President for Research for Oregon State University. And Mr. Michael Fancher is Director of Economic Outreach at Albany NanoTech. He was very nice to invite me to come see what they are doing, and I suggested that August would be a good time to come to Albany, especially if you are coming from South Carolina in August. Dr. Kennedy will understand that.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we would be happy to start with your testimony, Mr. Donnelly.
STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT C. DONNELLY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR GLOBAL RESEARCH, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here to testify with respect to this important technology.
GE's research laboratories have been conducting basic and applied research for over 100 years. It is the primary mission of our research laboratories to investigate, develop new technologies, and most importantly transition those technologies in a consequential way into our General Electric businesses. As a result of the family of product lines in GE, data encompasses a very broad range of technologies in support of energy, aircraft engines, health care, security, water, and a number of other important commercial fields of interest.
The cornerstone, frankly, of our research laboratories for over 100 years has been materials research. Our materials systems end up impacting in a significant way various different products in GE. As a result, nanotechnology is a very important area of focus for research for us and has been for a number of years.
I think it is very important, the way we look at nanotechnology is not so much in the heart that sometimes is heard or some of the wonderful non-fiction work that has been published, but to recognize the incredible importance of this technology, it truly is a revolutionary way to look at material science and has an amazing number of properties that we think have revolutionized a lot of our GE products.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So when we look at nanotechnology and the importance of this area of research, we really think about how that translates ultimately into our product lines. When we look at businesses like our aircraft engine business of today, for our customers it is very important to drive increasing fuel efficiency and lower emissions, and extending the time between maintenance intervals for our customers is incredibly important, and we look at nanotechnology as a very important way in developing new material systems that have the robust performance features to allow higher firing temperatures, more robust in terms of that their time on wing is very important to the economic model of that whole industry, frankly, and as a result is an important area for us to focus on.
Our energy business is likewise and our conventional gas turbine technologies is very much like aircraft engines. There is a never-ending push for higher efficiencies and lower emissions, lower maintenance cycles, and this technology is very promising in a number of areas.
It is also, we think, a very important technology as we think about renewable energies, things like solar cells and photovoltaics, as a new technology that gives us an additional number of materials to take a lot of very promising new technologies and actually make those technologies economically affordable and therefore increase the penetration of the amount of renewable technology that we deploy across the world.
In addition to energy generation, we look very much at our consumer product lines and how we consume electricity, lighting, and appliances and technologies like that, in which we invest considerably, in our look at how you make those more efficient, how do you introduce new technologies that would replace conventional compression technology, let us say, with thermoelectrics, replace lighting with more highly efficient lighting, reduce things like mercury. All of these kinds of material systems, which for many years, have been dominant in this industry, we actually believe now can be replaced or looked at very differently with the suite of nanotechnology-based materials.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other increasingly—when we look at our security business, the ability to do things that are very challenging in the security environment, like doing bio-detection of bio-agents in either the air or the water are enabled by a number of new technologies that we are looking at using nano-based labels for these product lines. And we also think it will have a pervasive impact in our health care business where we looked at both increasing a higher spatial and temporal resolution of our medical scanners, and frankly, introducing a whole new line of product lines and diagnostic pharmaceuticals that allow the targeting of specific biological activities in the body so that we can actually diagnose patients with specific diseases long before they would see symptoms of the disease in total. And a lot of that can be enabled by the use of these nanomaterials to give us the kind of signal that a doctor would look for to make a clinical determination very early on in a disease onset.
So these are all very, very important technologies for us. The research in this area is very, very difficult: identifying new compositions, exploiting those new material systems that give you very robust characteristics that we haven't seen before, and just as importantly, learning how to process those materials. I always like to tell people we don't make nano-sized high pressure turbine blades or nano-sized aircraft engines, and so the ability not just to identify these material properties but to learn the manufacturing process development by which you can make real products and real sizes and maintain the material characteristics that we saw at that nano scale is a very, very challenging task and one that requires a great deal of research, and frankly, time to occur.
The federal role, when we look at what is going on through NNI, the funding for research and development activity and deployment that we see in agencies like the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, is very encouraging. These are relatively long-time constant technologies, as any material system has historically been, to develop and deploy these. So the Federal Government funding and support of those programs is very important. Frankly, the early adoption is very important to have an opportunity to deploy some of these technologies and get them into the field and learn how to control and manipulate them is very important. The funding that we see that goes through the National Science Foundation to universities is extremely important. In our research laboratories every year, we hire approximately about 100 new Ph.D. students, most of which are conducting research for us in material sciences, and many of them in the field of nanotechnology. The hundreds of graduates at the BS and MS levels that are hired into our GE businesses every year that have to understand and have an appreciation for what these material systems can mean in terms of the design of the next generation of aircraft engine or health care scanner is very important. And so the NSF funding that supports the nanocenters and improvement in those areas is very, very important.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So in summary, nanotechnology is an extremely important technical field to us. It is one in which we are investing a great deal of funding. We are very supportive and appreciate the federal funding that is going into this; both the education as well as deployment through various agencies is very important, and we look forward to continuing to support that activity in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donnelly follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT DONNELLY
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hooley and Members of the House Research Subcommittee of the Committee on Science.
My name is Scott Donnelly, and I am the Senior Vice President for Global Research for the General Electric Company. I am appearing here today to give you our perspective on the challenges and opportunities in the emerging field of nanotechnology.
The term ''nanotechnology'' has quickly become one of the latest and greatest buzzwords and can mean different things to different people. At GE, we define nanotechnology as the ''ultimate material science,'' and we believe that the novel material properties found at the nanoscale can be leveraged to create completely new material performance levels for a wide spectrum of products and applications. The focus of our program at GE Research is to leverage these novel properties that are found at the nanoscale and develop methods to build materials from the nanoscale up to the macro world to capitalize on the enhanced performance characteristics demonstrated by these materials.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe that nanotechnology has the potential to impact numerous industries. Some examples include:
Energy, where new materials may enable improved machine efficiency and decreased emissions or enable alternative energy technologies
Transportation, where the development of new, lighter, stronger materials could increase jet engine efficiency
Homeland Security, where nanomaterials may lead to improved and faster detection of chemical and biological threats
Health care, where the development of improved diagnostic agents and equipment may lead to the diagnosis of diseases before symptoms even appear
Defense applications, where the development of new materials may better protect our soldiers or their vehicles or enable more electric ships.
It is difficult to predict which industries are most likely to be impacted in the near-term and which will be impacted in the longer-term. What is more likely is that in the nearer-term we will see nanotechnology making relatively incremental improvements to currently existing products; such as coatings for plastic and metals, or as additives to existing products. As with all new technologies, it will take longer to realize the truly revolutionary, game-changing technologies that will certainly come from nanotechnology.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What is important to realize, is that this adoption and development route is not unique to ''nanomaterials,'' but is typical for all new material development.
The primary barriers to commercialization of nanotechnology lie in the translation of a scientific innovation to a productive and cost-effective technology. The process of transitioning a successful experiment or even a prototype in a laboratory to a reproducible, high quality, cost effective manufacturing process is a time consuming and expensive hurdle for any invention. And even more challenging with high risk, emerging technologies And in this context it is important to understand that nanotechnology is not an industry, but that it is an enabling technology that will likely impact many industries, but that the challenges and solutions for one area do not necessarily (and probably will not) translate to other sectors.
The barriers to commercializing nanotechnology are not unique and are in fact the same for any new product or application and will require significant time and money—both from private industry and the government—to overcome. In addition, another hurdle nanotechnology will need to overcome as it is commercialized is the need to develop unique manufacturing processes to preserve the novel properties of the nanomaterials. To date there has been a large body of research in nanotechnology that has been done at Universities and there has been a significant effort to establish nano-based centers and user facilities at universities and national laboratories. Much of this has been done as part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and has provided solid scientific innovation in the field of nanotechnology. In addition, this investment has started to lay the foundation for the nano-workforce that will be required in the future. Scientists and engineers across multiple disciplines, including chemistry, biology, physics, medicine, electronics, and engineering, will need not only to be able to work at the nanoscale but they will also need to have the ability to understand and develop new materials, devices, and systems that have fundamentally new properties and functions because of their nanostructure and because of the convergence of these multiple disciplines. Since GE has it's own corporate research center, we don't typically need the infrastructure provided by the user centers and facilities, and so we have had limited interaction with these sites. We do collaborate with Universities as part of our nanotechnology program, as well as other research programs, and we have found the NSF Goali program to be a good mechanism for collaborating with Universities.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, the Nation's nanotechnology program is poised to transition to the next phase of it's development. The effort to date has resulted in well-done science, and should continue, but the next phase must also address nanotechnology development—that is making nanotechnology a reality, so that the full economic potential of nanotechnology and the benefit to the Nation can be realized.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify today, and I welcome any questions.
BIOGRAPHY FOR SCOTT C. DONNELLY
Scott C. Donnelly is Senior Vice President and Director of GE Global Research, one of the world's largest and most diversified industrial research organizations, and a member of the company's Corporate Executive Council. At Global Research, some 2,200 people—including approximately 1,700 scientists, engineers and technicians from virtually every major scientific and engineering discipline—concentrate their efforts on the company's long-range technology needs. The organization has research facilities in the United States, India, China and Germany, working in collaboration with GE businesses around the world.
Prior to assuming his current position, Donnelly served as Vice President, Global Technology Operations for GE Medical Systems. In that role, he drove Six Sigma product development throughout the organization, enabled GE Medical Systems to introduce more reliable technology faster than ever before, including: the world's first multi-slice CT scanner (LightSpeed), full-field digital mammography (Senographe 2000D), high-field open MRI (Signa OpenSpeed) and digital X–Ray (Innova 2000).
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Donnelly joined GE in 1989 as Manager of Electronics Design Engineering for GE's Ocean Systems Division in Syracuse, NY. He went on to serve in a variety of leadership roles for the Company, including engineering management positions with then-GE division of Martin Marietta in both Australia and the U.S.
In 1995, he moved to GE's Industrial Control Systems business, where he held leadership positions as Manager of Technology and System Development, and later General Manager of Industrial Systems Technology. Donnelly was named a Vice President of General Electric in 1997, when he assumed his previous role at GE Medical Systems.
Donnelly is a 1984 graduate of the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he earned a Bachelor's degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Donnelly serves on the Industrial Advisory Committee of several engineering colleges, the Research Foundation of the Medical College of Wisconsin and the Center for Innovation in Minimally Invasive Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital. He also serves as a Director of GE Capital Corporation and GE Capital Services Inc.
21195o3.eps
Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.
Dr. Kennedy.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN M. KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ADVANCED ENGINEERING FIBERS AND FILMS, CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
Dr. KENNEDY. Good morning, Chairman Inglis and Ranking Member Hooley. Greetings from South Carolina, Clemson University.
Clemson University continues to climb in the national rankings, which bodes well for the State of South Carolina and its drive toward a knowledge-based economy.
On behalf of the Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films representing Clemson University, our university partners MIT, Clark Atlanta University, and supporting industries, I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative provides a systemic program for helping the United States maintain its research and technical leadership in an increasingly competitive global environment. I am pleased to be here to provide CAEFF support for the initiative.
CAEFF is one of 22 engineering research centers funded by the National Science Foundation. We provide an integrated research and education environment for the systems-oriented study of fibers and films. CAEFF promotes the transformation from trial-and-error development to computer-based design. The industry partners provide practical perspective on our research program. For these industries to leverage advances at the nano level, computer-modeling techniques that maximize engineers' understanding of and control over structure are required.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The CAEFF team is very active in nanotechnology research. We are studying carbon nanotubes for bio-sensors, filtration, bio-compatibility, coatings, and infection prevention. We are also exploring nanotechnology to improve wound and incision healing and as a means for hydrogen storage. CAEFF supports a critical component of the U.S. manufacturing base.
However, globalization is changing this industry. A significant portion of the commodity fiber industry has relocated outside of the United States. The polymer industry is adjusting, however, to globalization by focusing on value-added products, which ties well to the push for an economy driven by innovation.
CAEFF is focusing its research on six product areas: carbon products for transportation, bio-based polymers, bio-inspired polymers, fibers and films for biotechnology, photovoltaic films, and sensing films. Each area supports specific commercial products that could help reshape the polymer industry. CAEFF derives its support from four sources: the base NSF-ERC grant, the State of South Carolina, industry membership fees, industry-supported research, and other federal support. The collective support for CAEFF has been outstanding, enabling us to be positioned as a national leader in polymer research.
CAEFF is training a new workforce to develop nano-based applications. A team of universities led by our center is developing an undergraduate, macro-molecular engineering curriculum that addresses design at the molecular level. This exciting concept will combine features of materials science and engineering so that graduates can consider molecular or nano issues in the design of new value-added products.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another workforce issue is the supply of American citizens involved in nano research. One goal of CAEFF is to develop a diverse community of scholars trained in polymeric materials design. We are making great progress. The center has formed a partnership with Clark Atlanta University to increase the participation of African American faculty and students. Diversity in the center is also fostered by outreach through Women in Science and Engineering, the Girl Scouts, summer research, graduate assistantships in areas of national need, Hearst Fellowships, and the newly-funded Southeast Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate.
Our graduates are entering the workforce as engineers and scientists in the polymer industry. Many of them have taken jobs with our industry partners. Several have chosen to enter academe.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative provides significant support for infrastructure, faculty, and students. As various components of the research mature, the challenge will be to transfer the technology into profitable business ventures. It is likely that an entirely new industry will be spawned from nanotechnology. This new industry will be comprised of small businesses that are exploiting research advancements. For these companies to survive, they may well need bridge funding.
To accelerate the application of nanotechnology, agencies that have a major stake in applied research and development can bring nanotechnology into practice through demonstration programs. This paradigm was used successfully by NASA and DOD to accelerate the application of advanced composite materials 25 years ago. These programs were partnerships between government and industry that drove industry to educate its personnel, develop infrastructure, and validated the advantages afforded by composites.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for inviting me to testify before your Subcommittee today. I am fully supportive of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. It is a critical initiative with huge potential to impact the citizens of the United States. I would be glad to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kennedy follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN M. KENNEDY
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Inglis and Ranking Member Hooley. Greetings from South Carolina and Clemson University. Clemson University continues to climb in the national rankings which bodes well for the State of South Carolina and its drive toward a knowledge-based economy. On behalf of the Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films (CAEFF), our university partners (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Clark Atlanta University), our 20 industry partners, and Clemson University, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to represent CAEFF at this hearing. The National Nanotechnology Initiative provides a systemic program for helping the U.S. maintain is research and technology leadership in the increasingly competitive global environment. I am please to be here to provide CAEFF's support of the Initiative.
The Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films (CAEFF) is one of only 22 Engineering Research Centers funded by the National Science Foundation. The CAEFF research team consists of faculty and students from nine academic departments at Clemson University (the lead institution), MIT (a core partner), Clark Atlanta University (a core partner), Lehigh University, McGill University, the University of Illinois, and 20 industry partners. CAEFF provides an integrated research and education environment for the systems-oriented study of fibers and films. CAEFF promotes the transformation from trial-and-error development to computer-based design of fibers and films. This new paradigm for materials design is revolutionizing fiber and film development.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NSF began funding CAEFF in 1998 and funding will continue through 2008, with research expenditures approaching $10 million annually. About 150 graduate students, 75 undergraduates, 15 high school students, and 50 faculty members support CAEFF's research program. Coordinated with CAEFF's research is an education program that is offering innovative multi-disciplinary courses, seminars, short courses, and workshops. The education experience is further enhanced by activities that emphasize teamwork and communication skills. CAEFF promotes diversity in its research team through scholarships, fellowships, and collaboration with universities that serve under-represented populations.
CAEFF is a cornerstone of Clemson University's research program. Several research niches, particularly nanomaterials, fall under CAEFF, and other developing research programs have been incubated in CAEFF. After 2008, CAEFF will be a self-sufficient research enterprise through additional government and foundation funding, industry sponsorship, and royalties from intellectual property.
Nanotechnology-Related Research
The CAEFF team is very active in nanotechnology research that can potentially advance technology and impact our citizens' health and well being. Our researchers are using carbon nanotubes (highly ordered carbon structures) for biosensors, filtration, biocompatible coatings, and infection prevention. We are also exploring nanotechnology as a means for improving healing from surgery and wounds. Controlling cell growth through optimally changing the texture at the nano-level of sutures and meshes will strongly influence healing and repair of living tissue as in a hernia repair.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have also discovered that activated carbon fibers (carbon fibers with nano-sized pores) can be used to achieve 30 percent of the Department of Energy hydrogen storage target at room temperature and moderate pressure.
Adding nanoparticles to fibers dramatically improves the cut resistance of the fibers. Consequently, we are presently working with a company to exploit this technology for protective clothing that would improve workers' safety. This technology could be useful for police officers, workers that process food or handling sharp materials such as glass or sheet metal, or our infantry.
These areas point to nanotechnology that is being or is close to being applied in a commercial venture. However, CAEFF is also conducting fundamental research that provides results in new knowledge that may have impact on the way we make fibers or assembly materials. One of our research groups is trying to mimic the way spiders make fibers because spiders have optimized the fiber spinning process. They make a fiber with excellent properties at about room temperature and atmospheric pressure. Also, spiders do not use oil as the feedstock which is used for over 99 percent of all man-made fibers. All of the man-made fibers require various combinations of high temperature, high pressure, and toxic solvents. If we could mimic the process that spiders use to make fibers, then we could potentially develop processes that are less energy intensive and environmentally friendly.
We have also learning how to assemble molecules. Once we know how to do this, we will be able to sense, capture, and destroy toxins. This technology could be applied to provide healthier hospitals and security against bio-terrorism.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another research group has learned how to blend materials to produce nanolayers. This technology has been termed smart blending. The implications of this technology are tremendous, so much so, that patents have been issued, several companies have licensed the technology and many more are interested. With smart blending, plastic parts have improved strength, food packaging prevents spoilage better, and static build up in plastic parts is minimized. We are just beginning to tap the potential of this exciting technology.
Interaction with Industry
NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERC), like CAEFF, are required to have industrial partners on the research team. These partners help the ERC define the systems-level research program which is the key characteristic of an ERC. Systems-level research occurs on three planes—fundamental knowledge, enabling technology, and engineered system. Clearly, the industry partners provide practical perspective on what fundamental knowledge is needed, the technology that must be developed to make the research advancement a viable commercial product, and the experience to package the technology into a system for commercialization.
By focusing on fiber and film technology, CAEFF supports a critical component of the U.S. manufacturing base. The fiber and film industries provide the consumer with synthetic fibers, nonwoven fabrics, multi-layer films, flexible packaging, and state-of-the-art electronic components—just to name a few of its products. When CAEFF was selected as an NSF Engineering Research Center in 1998, economic projections indicated that the fiber and film industries could grow by 50 percent over the next ten years—if they responded to the needs of their customers by improving existing products, developing new products for future markets, and instituting more efficient, environmentally friendly processes. If it was apparent then that traditional research and development practices, basically a trial and error approach to product and process development, had not produced the breakthroughs necessary to revitalize these industries so crucial to our quality of life, today it is glaringly evident. A significant portion of the commodity fiber industry has relocated outside of the U.S. to take advantage of lower labor costs and to be close to the textile industry that they supply. Industry-wide restructuring has changed the operating philosophy of many major producers, who have increased profitability by reducing research and technical support. This point is driven home by the shift of polyester production from the U.S., Europe, and Japan to China, Japan and India and, closer to home, the regular announcements of textile plant closings in the southeast. However, the polymer industry is adjusting to globalization by focusing on value-added or ''niche'' products and on products that are not labor intensive such as carpet and consumables. Development of value-added products ties well to the push for an economy driven by innovation.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since its inception, CAEFF's mission has been to arm industry with a unique modeling tool to design fiber and film processes and predict final properties of the fiber or film product. This modeling capability provides industry with the knowledge, in a user-friendly software package, to develop innovative fiber and film products. Some of our industry partners are using this capability in designing processes for new polymers. It is our belief that the fiber and film industries need to develop products and processes in advanced engineering environments that use computer modeling techniques and visualization to minimize experimentation, allow manipulation of both molecular and continuum information, and maximize engineers' understanding of and control over structure formation and resultant properties. The properties of films and fibers depend on their polymeric structure. In nearly all commercial fiber and film processes, this structure is created by the production process.
In response to these industry and societal needs, the Center has developed a materials design environment, featuring an integrated model that allows users to design an entire fiber or film system by inputting precursor specifications, processing parameters, and desired properties. This virtual testbed will bring design improvements to current manufacturing systems, and also significantly reduces, if not alleviates trial-and-error experiments needed for the design of next-generation fiber and film processes.
Given the evolution of our research and the emerging needs of industry, CAEFF revised its strategic research plan in the last year. The primary change to the strategic plan was to establish six systems-level product areas that complement the multi-length scale modeling effort that is the cornerstone of the vision and strategic plan of CAEFF. Each of the product areas supports an opportunity for the polymer industry to develop value-added products. CAEFF is uniquely position to conduct research in these product areas because each requires cross-disciplinary teams to make substantive systems-level research advancements. The six product areas were selected because they focus the modeling efforts on specific commercial products that could help reshape the polymer industry as globalization drives production of conventional fibers and films offshore. The research will enable industry to shorten the cycle from concept to commercialization.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CAEFF presently has 20 industry partners that support our research with directed and undirected financial support and in-kind support. Our members represent a broad spectrum of companies from large to small and producer to user. The logos of our industry partners are shown on the chart below. Each member pays a membership fee that CAEFF management strategically directs to research, equipment and management. Some companies choose to provide additional funding for research specific to their needs. In this case, the company defines the research project. In many cases a confidentiality agreement is executed so that the company can exploit the results of the research that they sponsored.
21195e.eps
Our industrial collaboration, including transfer of intellectual property, is governed by a common CAEFF Membership Agreement that all companies must execute. The Membership Agreement provides each industry partner a seat on the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). The IAB is the body that provides industry guidance on research direction and policy as discussed above. A primary function of the Membership Agreement is the transfer of intellectual property. The intellectual property policy in the Agreement is structured to favor licensing by industry partners. The following flow chart shows the licensing process that is called out in the Agreement. The key features of the intellectual policy are: an industry sponsoring research has first rights to a license resulting from their project; intellectual property resulting from research funded by NSF, the State, or other federal agencies will be offered to all of the industry partners; and CAEFF will place industry-experienced personnel on the committee that determines which intellectual property will be patented by Clemson University.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The two greatest barriers to academic/industrial cooperation are the elimination or drastic reduction of central research and development staff in large companies and the existence of companies that have the vision to exploit new nanotechnology developed by CAEFF.
Support for CAEFF and Self Sufficiency
CAEFF derives its support from four sources: the base NSF ERC grant (currently about $3.8 million annually), the state of South Carolina ($1.0 million annually as cost share for the NSF ERC grant), industry membership fees (approximately $150,000 annually), industry supported research ($250,000 annually), and other federal support routed through CAEFF ($3.6 million annually). When CAEFF was in the formative stages the state and Clemson University provided even more support for renovation of space and salary support for CAEFF leadership to develop the research and education program. Additionally, the state has provided funding for the design and development of a new academic building on the Clemson campus for CAEFF and the School of Materials Science and Engineering. Construction of the building will commence when the next bond bill is approved by the South Carolina legislature.
These funds can be divided into five broad categories: research, education, industry liaison, equipment, and management with the largest portion going to research, followed by education and equipment. Generally, the support for industry directed research his highly compatible with the research supported by NSF. We have used our modeling capability and experimental testbeds, developed with NSF support, on numerous industry sponsored projects.
The support for CAEFF from NSF and the state has been outstanding, enabling us to be positioned as a national leader in polymer research. Professor Mike Jaffe (New Jersey Institute of Technology and former employee of Hoechst Celanese Corporation,) has suggests that CAEFF provides ''World leadership in modeling at Clemson CAEFF ERC.'' Without the NSF ERC and State support, the claim would not be possible. The NSF support for CAEFF will terminate in July 2008 as per ERC guidelines. CAEFF leadership is developing a strategic plan to assure that the NSF support will be replaced with funding from other resources.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Workforce Development for Nanotechnology
For the most part, the workforce and those entering the workforce in the nanotechnology area have received traditional engineering or science educations which do not provide a systems perspective related to nanotechnology. This perspective is crucial for companies because virtually all nano-based applications are multi-disciplinary, requiring the talents of scientists and engineers from several disciplines. Further, most engineering programs teach design at length scales that are much greater than the nanoscale.
21195f.eps
The Center is graduating students with a broad, systems-oriented technical foundation; modeling, simulation, and visualization skills; the critical thinking skills necessary to both analyze and integrate information; an appreciation of the industry perspective; and the teamwork and communication skills necessary to function effectively in collaborative virtual design environments. CAEFF's integrated research and education programs have developed advanced materials design techniques that are communicated through courses, workshops and conferences, and outreach programs.
CAEFF is working with a team of universities to develop an undergraduate macromolecular engineering curriculum that addresses design at the molecular level. This exciting concept will essentially bring together features of a materials science curriculum and those of engineering disciplines such as chemical and mechanical so that graduates will have background to consider molecular or nano issues in the design of systems. Adding molecular level considerations to the design process will expand the design envelope, leading to new value-added products in transportation, medicine, defense, and national security.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thirty-three percent of South Carolina's population is minority, principally African-American, the opportunity exists to greatly increase the diversity in both the student body and the faculty. For the population of South Carolina's Land Grant University to reflect the demographics of the state, a long-term, well funded educational program must be implemented at all societal and educational levels in South Carolina so that all students realize the importance of higher education and have prerequisite academic credentials and/or enter into bridge programs that give them the opportunity to succeed in the rigorous academic environment of engineering and science disciplines. Consequently, the goal of CAEFF became to develop a diverse community of scholars trained in polymeric materials design. The various populations (pre-college, undergraduate, graduate and faculty) of this community of scholars will mirror the demographics of the State of South Carolina. Meeting this overall metric was very aggressive and will substantially exceed national engineering-wide averages for the involvement of women, under-represented racial minorities, and Hispanic-Americans. We are approaching our goals for under-represented racial minorities in our undergraduate and masters student populations. Outlined below are the components of CAEFF's diversity program.
The Center has formed a partnership with Clark Atlanta University (CAU) to increase the participation of African-American faculty and students in the research and education programs of CAEFF. A research contract was awarded to CAU for the remainder of CAEFF's NSF lifetime. Faculty members and students from CAU are being integrated into CAEFF's research topics as core members of the research teams. CAU is being targeted to provide undergraduate and graduate students to CAEFF's programs at Clemson University. Our intent is to develop a dual degree program with CAU.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Diversity in the Center has been fostered by outreach through Women in Science and Engineering, the Girl Scouts of the USA, and the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program. The Center has also secured supplemental funding to support diversity initiatives. Department of Education-funded Graduate Assistantships in Areas of National Need provide attractive financial incentive packages to minority and female students of superior academic ability from across the Nation. The Hearst Scholarship endowment targets a diverse, academically qualified and economically disadvantaged student population. The newly-funded Southeast Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate will provide a mechanism for recruiting students from the University of Florida, the University of South Carolina, and the University of the U.S. Virgin Islands. This grant will also provide international opportunities for students through collaboration with the Latin American and Caribbean Consortium of Engineering Institutions.
Our graduates are entering the workforce as engineers and scientists in the polymer industry. Many on them have taken jobs with our industry partners. Several have chosen to enter academe.
The Federal/State/Industry/Academe Nanotechnology Partnership
The National Nanotechnology Initiative provides significant support for infrastructure, faculty, and students. As various components of the research mature, the challenge will be to transfer the technology in to profitable business ventures. It is likely that an entirely new industry will be spawned from the nanotechnology initiative. This new industry will probably be comprised of small businesses that fit a niche or are exploiting research advancements. For these small companies to survive, they may well need bridge funding which can be made available through the Small Business Innovative Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs, available from all federal agencies, and also the Advanced Technology Program which is run through the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To accelerate the application of nanotechnology and to identify unforeseen issues surrounding nanotechnology systems, agencies that have a major stake in applied research and development such as NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Transportation can bring nanotechnology into practice through demonstration programs. This paradigm was used successfully by NASA and the Department of Defense to accelerate the application of advanced composite materials in the 1970's and 1980's. These programs were partnerships between government and industry that drove industry to educate its personnel and develop infrastructure. It also provided validation of the advantages afforded by composites. Finally, after 20 to 25 years, advanced composites are being extensively used on commercial aircraft for major structural components. This large time lag was predictable because industry needed time to train a workforce, establish design methods, and build a database, all of which are required for confident application of composites in complex systems and structures.
Closure
Thank you for inviting me to testify before your subcommittee today. I am fully supportive of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. It is a critical initiative with huge potential to impact the citizens of the U.S. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
21195p3.eps
21195q3.eps
Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Kennedy. We look forward to those questions.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Cassady.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN M. CASSADY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. CASSADY. Chairman Inglis, thank you for holding this hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative. It is a privilege to be invited to testify before you this morning not only as a representative of Oregon State University and the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, ONAMI, but also as a scientist interested in the intersection of research and economic development.
I also want to acknowledge how pleased we are at Oregon State that our representative, Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, is now serving as the Ranking Minority Member on this Research Subcommittee.
I want to acknowledge the assistance of the leaders of ONAMI at Oregon State, the Dean of Engineering, Ron Adams, and the Director of ONAMI, Skip Rung, for input to this testimony.
My perspective is not as an expert in the area of nanotechnology, but as a person trained in organic chemistry who moved into the interdisciplinary area of medicinal chemistry and was involved during my research career in the discovery and design of potential anti-cancer drugs. Nanotechnology touches health in a major way, and eventually will have a major impact in the area of diagnostics as well as drug delivery.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a faculty member, department chair, dean of a college of pharmacy, and now the new Vice President for Research at Oregon State, I have promoted programs that are interdisciplinary and translational, so one of the things that attracted me to Oregon was the Oregon experiment in innovation that led to ONAMI.
Oregon is a small state, but it is thinking and planning in a big way as it moves in the direction of a commercialization alliance in micro and nanotechnology. All of the components were there in 2000, but they weren't aligned. There were institutional resources, our state's public research universities, Oregon State, University of Oregon, and Portland State, powerful research enterprises, the industrial infrastructure, companies comprising the Oregon ''Silicon Forest,'' Intel, HP, FEI, LSI Logic, Xerox, Tektronix, ESI, InFocus Systems, Pixelworks, Sharp, and many others.
Another strength was our regional government laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL. Then in 2002, an economic development report was commissioned by the state, which recommended the development of signature research centers. In 2003, the Oregon State legislature created the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, ONAMI, with an initial allocation of $21 million for support of operating costs and infrastructure.
The state began a commitment to make innovation a high priority. The research universities, the high-tech industries, and PNNL joined together in aligned missions in a national model for collaboration.
Let me describe one of the partnerships developed at Oregon State to create the Microproducts Breakthrough Institute, MBI. This institute, which is housed in a building on HP's campus, is a result of a collaboration between OSU and HP, which has donated the lab space, and PNNL, which is providing support through research collaborations and scientific personnel that are assigned to the project. When the institutes' laboratories become operational this year, up to 10 PNNL research staff are projected to be located at MBI in addition to faculty and students from OSU.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additional support from the state is expected, and this initial investment has leveraged over $5 million in support from the universities, $10 million from industry and private funding, and more than $30 million in competitive research awards. This cooperative venture is unprecedented and will lead to talented graduates, new technology, and corporate development.
There are some barriers to collaboration. Some of these are cultural. On the academic side of the house, I think it is acceptance of new metrics for academic excellence and our reward system. On the corporate side of the house, control of intellectual property rights and confidentiality limitations are what lead to what I consider to be non-transparent communications, in addition, rapid changes in funding decisions, personnel changes, and corporate structure.
Some of the barriers to protection, transfer and commercialization are lack of investment funds for IP protection, lack of gap funding for product development, and developing processes to make it easier to start businesses in the university.
We also need to make it easier to do business with the university and streamline our IP licensing. There are workforce issues. There is an impact on graduate programs due to security issues, and we need to keep the funding for research and graduate programs a priority.
In order to facilitate advances in these areas, one possible solution is to establish federal funding sources that set clear objectives related to translation of technology and economic development, put in place metrics to measure progress against these goals, and hold recipients accountable for funding for achieving these outcomes.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is the people of Oregon and the Nation that will benefit from programs like ONAMI. From individuals who can take advantage of such devices as compact portable home kidney dialysis devices to communities which experience economic prosperity with the establishment of new nanotechnology businesses and industry.
In conclusion, I wish to thank you for this opportunity. Nanotechnology is an exciting new area, which will have tremendous impact across multiple fields of science. We are excited that in Oregon we have been able to develop a vision for significant partnerships, such as ONAMI, and that private, state, federal, and university investments have made the vision a reality.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cassady follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN M. CASSADY
Chairman Inglis, thank you for holding this hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative. It is a privilege to testify before you this morning, not only as a representative of Oregon State University (OSU) and the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI), but also as a scientist interested in the intersection of research and economic development. I spent nearly forty years an academic research scientist and only recently closed my laboratory at Ohio State University to take the post of Vice President for Research at Oregon State University. I am very excited about the opportunity to oversee the OSU research enterprise and to work toward ensuring that innovation at the lab bench contributes to public life, be it through public education, outreach and engagement or business and industry. I also want to acknowledge how pleased we are at Oregon State University that our Representative, Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, is now serving as the Ranking Minority Member on this Research Subcommittee.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My testimony to you this morning comes from the perspective of a research administrator. I am an organic chemist and spent most of my research career focused on the discovery and design of anticancer drugs; I am not an engineer by training nor am I an expert in nanotechnology. However, what I can speak to is the desire of researchers to ask questions and solve problems and what I believe is my responsibility as a research administrator to direct these questions in a way that works to sustain the Nation's economic development and global technological leadership, builds an educated workforce, and contributes to public health and security.
I believe these were all goals in the development of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which was envisioned as a roadmap for the Federal Government's investments in a critical area of science. In Oregon, we, too, kept these goals in mind as we mapped out our plan to be a part of this scientific revolution and designed a research institute that created innovative new partnerships that cross university, government and industry boundaries that have not previously been formally connected.
Three words describe ONAMI: innovation, collaboration, and commercialization. The Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute is the first ''signature research center'' funded by the State of Oregon for the purpose of growing research and business development in order to accelerate innovation-based economic development in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Oregon policy-makers have the goal and desire to establish additional ''signature research centers'' that will lead to a long-term economic and competitive advantage for Oregon, including commercialization of academic research and the formation of new businesses.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ONAMI is also an unprecedented and powerful collaboration involving Oregon's three public research universities—Oregon State University, Portland State University, and the University of Oregon; the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Richland, WA); the State of Oregon; and the emerging ''Silicon Forest'' high technology industry cluster of Oregon and southwest Washington.
Many factors precipitated this focus on nanotechnology in Oregon. Businesses in Oregon were already leaders in industrial research and development. Intel employs 15,450 employees in Oregon and is the home of the headquarters of their semiconductor technology research and development unit. Hewlett Packard's Ink Jet headquarters are in Oregon and the company's largest and most advanced technology site with 3,900 employees is also located in the state. FEI Company, LSI Logic, Tektronix, Xerox, Invitrogen, InFocus, Pixelworks and Electro Scientific Industries are just a few of the many other technology-based industries with a significant presence in the state. Our proximity to the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was also a factor. PNNL, a $650 million year research operation is the largest R&D operation west of Chicago and north of San Francisco. And, last, but certainly not least, Oregon's three largest research universities have world-class expertise and have decided to collaborate in three critical areas: Microtechnology-Based Energy, Chemical and Biological Systems; Safer Nanomaterials and Nanomanufacturing and Nanoscale Metrology for Nanoelectronics and other applications.
Microtechnology-based Energy, Chemical and Biological Systems, led by Kevin Drost of Oregon State University and Landis Kannberg of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, integrate nanoscale materials science and mechanical microstructures to miniaturize a wide range of important devices for both military and commercial use. Translational research and commercialization efforts related to this work will be carried out by the Microproducts Breakthrough Institute (MBI), an ONAMI facility jointly staffed and operated by PNNL and Oregon State University.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These technologies will have widespread commercial application and may well lead to whole new industries. Examples include compact power supplies for portable electronics; vehicular and auxiliary fuel cell systems; distributed biofuel, hydrogen, and chemical production at point-of-use; automotive cooling systems that operate using exhaust heat; and a new generation of distributed heating and cooling systems for residences with energy savings of approximately 50 percent. OSU researchers in this area are also working with an Oregon company, Home Dialysis Plus (HD+), to develop a compact kidney dialysis machine that will dramatically improve quality of life for end-state renal disease patients while also reducing treatment cost.
The Safer Nanomaterials and Nanomanufacturing research, led by Jim Hutchison of the University of Oregon, is focused on developing functional nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing methods that simultaneously meet the need for high performance materials, protect human health and minimize harm to the environment. This initiative has been focused on the applications of mixed nanoscale and microscale systems to research problems such as those involved in nanomanufacturing. The initiative takes advantage of the world-class expertise within ONAMI in green chemistry, nanoscale materials and processes and the design and fabrication of microscale systems (such as microchannel reactors).
Discoveries in nanoscience are providing new, powerful tools for achieving green chemistry goals such as reducing the use of hazardous materials and improving the efficiency of material and energy consumption. The opportunity exists to apply nanotechnologies to the invention of new products and processes that will produce superior products for less money and simultaneously enhance public security and protect our environment. Researchers within the ONAMI are at the forefront in defining this emerging field with their research programs that focus on safer/greener products and manufacturing methods for making products.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Nanoscale Metrology Initiative, critical to continued progress in semiconductors and other forms of nanoscale manufacturing, is led by John Carruthers, former Director of Components Research and Development for Intel, and Distinguished Professor of Physics at Portland State University (PSU). The team's efforts are supported by the PSU microscopy facility, which features one of the Pacific Northwest's most powerful transmission electron microscopes and other instruments that enable the characterization of nanostructures. The ability to design, fabricate and test nanoscale materials and devices depends entirely on the ability to image and measure them, which the network of ONAMI-affiliated user facilities can provide.
The purpose is to initiate additional research in nanometrology and testing of nanodevices and circuits that enables the implementation of nanoscale materials into useful electronic applications such as high density memories on silicon integrated circuits.
This will leverage the large nanotechnology-related investments of LSI Logic, Nantero, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, ESI, FEI Company, and Invitrogen in Oregon's ''I–5 Technology Corridor'' between Portland and Eugene and ensure that a leading edge research and education capability will be established to further grow the global competitiveness of the nanotechnology industries there.
All of these ONAMI partners came together with several goals in mind: to attract federal research investments in the Oregon and Pacific Northwest; to provide an outstanding collaborative environment for researchers who are at the forefront of innovation in their fields; to increase the impact of this research on Oregon industry; to develop superior workforce talent—especially growth in Ph.D.s; and to spin out the innovations and new companies that will provide the high-wage jobs of the future.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At your request, I am providing to you today responses to the questions you posed examining the challenges and opportunities related to nanotechnology, based on our experiences at Oregon State University and with the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI).
How do Oregon State University (OSU) and the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) interface with the private sector? What are the greatest barriers to increased academic/industrial cooperation in nanotechnology?
In Oregon, the cooperation OSU and our other academic partners have with private sector via ONAMI is unprecedented. Perhaps most notably, Hewlett-Packard developed a very comprehensive inter-institutional agreement with OSU. As a part of this partnership, HP donated the use of a building on their campus in Corvallis, Oregon to accelerate the startup facility. This was a remarkable display of corporate citizenship. This facility serves as a product development space for new ONAMI-related companies while the three universities complete construction of additional ONAMI research facilities. HP donated the three-year lease of the building, valued at $2 million. The construction of new facilities, currently underway, is primarily funded through gifts and state appropriations.
ONAMI Board members include senior executives from some of the world's leading nanotechnology companies: Hewlett Packard, FEI Company (the world leader in tools for nanotechnology, based in Hillsboro, Oregon), LSI Logic and Nantero (a partnership with a focus on nanotechnology-based semiconductor memory development, based in Gresham, Oregon), Pixelworks (the fourth fastest growing company in the U.S.), and Battelle (the operator of five national laboratories). The ONAMI board is chaired by a general partner of the state's leading venture capital firm and ONAMI has relationships with many others in the investment community. ONAMI's sponsored research includes research collaborations with HP, FEI, LSI, Nantero, Xerox, many smaller companies, and Intel. In several cases, we are able to work with industry research and production facilities that are far superior to anything most universities typically acquire. ONAMI also has a physical joint venture with PNNL/Battelle, which is a unique asset for not only performing cutting edge research, but translating that research into new products, new companies, and high-wage jobs.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At Oregon State University, I also want to mention other efforts that keep the university connected to industry. In our College of Engineering, we have a very successful internship program, the Multiple Engineering Cooperative Program (MECOP). This internship experience is so sophisticated it bears little resemblance to the ordinary internships that are increasingly common in higher education. MECOP is, and has been since its inception more than 20 years ago, self-supporting. Dues are paid by participating businesses and industry to support the staff needed to develop, monitor and fine-tune the program. The program is built on a high order of industry interaction with the university and its students; and it is continually improved as the University adjusts its curriculum on recommendations made by the industry partners. Participating industries include Freightliner, Boeing, Sun Microsytems, Tektronix and many, many others. Additionally, as at other institutions, OSU faculty are engaged in industry funded R&D, some researchers utilize their sabbatical leave to gain private industry experience and others take leaves of absence to help start up new companies.
While our ties to private industry are strong, there are existing barriers to collaboration. The first is industry's need to own the intellectual property rights on research they pay for, which can be in direct conflict with faculty and student needs to publish their work, as well as, in some instances, public information laws. An additional barrier is the proprietary nature of private business strategic plans and their internal efforts to achieve them. It is often difficult for academic researchers to know if their work is relevant to industry needs when industry is trying to protect their product development efforts to ensure they are developing unique and competitive products for the marketplace.
Academic and research funding traditions and cultures have traditionally not rewarded (through promotion, tenure, peer reputation) researchers for working in teams, performing industrially relevant research, patenting their inventions, or commercialization. In addition, unpredictable funding processes in both industry and academia also present challenges. Industry also is subject to frequent organizational restructuring involving staff turnover and reassignment.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The lack of research funding for joint industry/university research is a critical barrier and has slowed down several promising opportunities. While larger businesses typically have some kind of R&D budget, this is not the case for smaller, emerging businesses. Generally there is a lack of university funding for what the military calls ''6.2'' research, research that seeks the application of basic science. The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds nearly exclusively basic science and does not typically fund development. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the best source for university 6.2 funding, but this often is for highly specialized devices with military applications and without a strong commercial market. ONAMI researchers have expressed a need for a source of funding that could be seen as ''a DARPA'' for commercial nanotechnology.
How does the State of Oregon provide support to OSU and ONAMI for nanotechnology and other high-technology activities? How does this complement funding from the Federal Government and the private sector? What, if any, gaps remain?
With unprecedented focus and consensus, Oregon has chosen to focus on Nanoscience and Microtechnologies as the state's first ''signature research center'', based on a clear finding that this represented the greatest overlap of (1) existing research excellence, (2) future market opportunity, and (3) Oregon's existing industrial strengths. In 2003, the State committed $21 million to ONAMI, and the Governor included $7 million in the proposed state budget for 2005–6. In addition, there is a dedicated State of Oregon Innovation Economy Officer, a proposed statutory Oregon Innovation Council, and state-assisted mechanisms to increase the supply of venture capital by almost $140M, of which over $30M will be pre-seed and seed stage. The state's role is to assist the research institutions in increasing their capacity for competitive sponsored research and to assist entrepreneurs in commercializing new technology.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Industry support of ONAMI's operation since its inception has totaled approximately $10 million in equipment, facilities use commitments, R&D, and gifts. Other research awards have totaled approximately $25 million, including federal awards from the Department of Defense and NSF, as well as foundation awards. Oregon State University's commitment thus far, outside of the specified state appropriations for ONAMI, is estimated to be approximately $3 million.
Again, the gap between State, federal and private support is in support for investigations in technologies that are beyond the basic research, but not quite ready to be tested for commercialization. Smaller businesses often simply do not have research budgets to support these needs, and government funding for this stage of inquiry is not widely available.
What is the workforce outlook for nanotechnology, and how can the Federal Government and universities help ensure there will be enough people with the relevant skills to meet the Nation's needs for nanotechnology research and development and for the manufacture of nanotechnology-enabled products?
During the December 2004 Oregon Leadership Summit Steve Grant ,Vice President for the Technology & Manufacturing Group at Intel Corporation reported that, ''Over the last four years, Intel has hired 441 PhD's in engineering and computer science in Oregon. Only seven came from the Oregon University System. [Intel] hired 347 Master's degree engineers and only 11 percent came from Oregon schools. At the Bachelor degree level [they] did better, with 21 percent.'' Oregon is not producing enough highly skilled quality engineers to meet our hiring needs, especially at the graduate levels. However, this is not just the case in Oregon, it is a problem nationwide.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Increased barriers to American colleges and universities for foreign students, as well as greatly enhanced opportunities for them at home, and a lack of progress in filling the pipeline with qualified American students are trends in direct opposition to an increased need for workers with advanced degrees in physical sciences and engineering. Without a trained workforce, the United States will find it hard to remain a leader in nanotechnology. Further, intense global competition has reduced industry's investment in scientific research, while the Federal Government investment in research that will lead to technology-based economic development has stagnated. This is a confluence of unfavorable trends.
I know you have heard this message repeatedly, but federal funds for physical science and engineering are a part of what is needed to address the work force issue. In the end, faculty and graduate students go where the money is and funding for nanotechnology research is critical for producing the graduate level workforce that nanotechnology-based industry needs. Since World War II, the Federal Government has supported training grants and research assistantships hand-in-hand with support for basic research. The combination of study and training is a successful avenue to train a highly educated workforce.
We also need a greater emphasis on curriculum development at all levels with serious research on what academic skills are needed for the emerging technologies, best practices in science and engineering education need to be identified and disseminated throughout the academic community.
What is also critical is inspiring young students, in elementary school, high school, and as undergraduates to see themselves as scientists and to be exposed to exciting new and multi-disciplinary trends. We need more students to find scientific concepts practical and approachable and we need to inspire them to consider careers in science. At Oregon State University, we are host to numerous outreach programs that try to get the attention of future scientists and engineers. Many of these programs, too, are federally funded, such as the NSF GK–12 graduate fellowship program, and the NASA Space Grant program, and I encourage you to continue to invest in these activities and to work toward ensuring that they are administered in a way that ensures their effectiveness. I also think that there should be ways to encourage novel curricular changes.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How can Federal and State governments, industry, and academia best cooperate to facilitate advances in nanotechnology?
It is generally recognized that university-based research is a long-term investment in the future. The Federal Government's support for basic research contributes to the discoveries and innovation that underpins the future technologies and knowledge that contribute to the well-being of our nation. However, as our scientists get involved in areas of research, such as nanotechnology, where there are demands for near-term delivery, many challenges emerge.
In order to facilitate advances in these areas, one possible solution is to establish federal funding sources that set clear objectives related to translation of technology and economic development, put in place metrics to measure progress against these goals, and hold recipients of funding accountable for achieving outcomes. While this is not an appropriate direction to take with basic research, there are ways to designate a certain percentage of publicly funded research for multi-disciplinary teams focused on big and emerging fields with a potential for translation and commercialization. An example of this is the NIH Roadmap Initiative and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) National Cooperative Drug Discovery Programs (NCDDGs).
As I noted earlier, three words describe ONAMI: innovation, collaboration, and commercialization. If Federal and State governments, industry, and academia can all keep these in mind as they examine avenues to advance nanotechnology research and development, it is the public that will benefit from individuals who can take advantage of such devices as compact, portable, home kidney dialysis devices to communities which experience economic prosperity with the establishment of new nanotechnology businesses and industry.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In conclusion, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to address you today. Nanotechnology is an exciting new area which will have tremendous impact across multiple fields of science and throughout many aspects of our lives. We are excited that in Oregon we have been able to develop a vision for significant partnerships such as ONAMI and that private, State, federal and university investments have made the vision a reality.
BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN M. CASSADY
John M. Cassady received a B.A degree from DePauw University in 1960 with a major in chemistry; he obtained his M.S. degree in 1962 and his Ph.D. degree in 1964 from Western Reserve University with a major in Organic Chemistry. Dr. Cassady was an NIH postdoctoral fellow from 1965–1966 at the University of Wisconsin where he worked under the direction of Dr. Morris Kupchan on the isolation and structural elucidation of tumor inhibitors from plants. In 1966, he joined the faculty of the School of Pharmacy, Purdue University as Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy. He was promoted to Associate Professor in 1970 and Professor in 1974. He was appointed Associate Head of the Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy in 1976 and became Head of the Department in January 1980. In 1987, Dr. Cassady was appointed as the Glenn L. Jenkins Distinguished Professor of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy at Ohio State University College of Pharmacy. On July 1, 2003 he returned to the faculty after more than 15 years as Dean. Dr. Cassady was appointed as Vice President for Research at Oregon State University, March 2005.
Dr. Cassady holds membership in the American Chemical Society, American Society of Pharmacognosy (ASP), Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences, British Chemical Society, AACR, ASHP, AAAS, Sigma Xi, Rho Chi, and the AACP. He has served on the nominating and publicity committees for the ASP, was scientific program chairman for the 1976 annual meeting of the Society, was elected to the Executive Committee (1978–1981) and President (1993–1994) and is chair of the ASP Foundation Board (1995–present). He has served as a consultant to the National Institutes of Health and was a member of the Bioorganic and Natural Products Study Section from 1980–1984. He has served on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of Natural Products and the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. Dr. Cassady has served on the publicity, scientific program and awards committees for the Medicinal Chemistry Division of the American Chemical Society. He was appointed a member of the Long-Range Planning Committee of the Medicinal Chemistry Division from 1983–1986 and in 1987 he was elected Councilor for the Medicinal Chemistry Division. He was appointed to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) National Advisory Council from 1997–2002. He was a member of the AACP National Commission on Graduate Education (1996–1998), Chair of the AACP Institutional Research Advisory Committee (1997–1998), and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Budgeting and Accountability (1997–1998). He was elected AAAS Chair-elect for the Section of Pharmaceutical Sciences in 1997 and served as Chair from 1999–2000. He served on the ASHP Commission on Goals in 2001 and 2002. He currently serves on the Corporate Advisory Board of Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL).
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Cassady's research interests involved the discovery and design of anticancer drugs from natural products and nutraceuticals, specifically, the isolation, structural elucidation, and chemical studies of chemopreventive and antitumor agents from higher plants and the synthesis of potential antitumor agents. Other areas of research interest involved the design of enzyme inhibitors, including protein tyrosine kinases, synthesis of selective dopamine agonists as potential antipsychotic agents, anti-malarial and anti-Parkinson's agents from natural products. His research resulted in the publication of more than 150 manuscripts and 150 abstracts and over $12,000,000 in research support from the NIH and other funding agencies. Dr. Cassady has developed strategic alliances between academic and corporate sectors. He led a strategic alliance with Pharmacia, served on the Corporate Advisory Board of Yuhai Phytochemicals, China, Dean's Advisory Board for Merck-Medco and as a consultant for Gaia Botanicals, Leadscope, Milkhaus and SSCI.
Dr. Cassady was elected to membership in the Royal Society of Chemistry and American Association for Advances in Cancer Research, was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences in 1979, a Fellow of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Sciences in 1987 and a Fellow of the AAAS in 1990. Dr. Cassady received the Purdue University Cancer Research Award in 1981 and the Gisvold Lecture Award from the University of Minnesota in 1986. In June 1989, he was awarded the D.Sc. (Hon.) by DePauw University. He received the Research Achievement award in Natural Products Chemistry from the American Pharmaceutical Association in 1990. In 1991, he was appointed Honorary Professor to the Institute of Medicinal Plant Development by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.
21195r3.eps
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Cassady.
Mr. Fancher.
STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL FANCHER, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC OUTREACH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF NANOECO-NOMICS, ALBANY NANOTECH
Mr. FANCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Research Subcommittee on the Committee on Science. I am appearing here today to provide our perspective on what we believe is a new model for technology, business, and education that creates what I would call a naturally occurring multiplier, or as PCAST refers to it as the innovation cluster with academia, governmental agencies, and industry each contributing and benefiting in their own way.
It is important for the Science Committee to understand that nanotechnology is emerging from the discovery phase and is now entering the commercialization stage and that the NNI must evolve and expand its funding priorities to address the daunting technology, business, and economic challenges confronting the Nation's high-tech industries.
As the promise of nanotechnology provides game-changing opportunities in a variety of applications as being better defined, as we heard from Scott Donnelly, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the cost to commercialize nanotechnology is rising exponentially.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman INGLIS. Mr. Fancher, excuse me just a second.
Mr. FANCHER. Yes.
Chairman INGLIS. Do you want some slides up?
Mr. FANCHER. Yes, I am. This is just my intro.
Chairman INGLIS. Oh, okay.
Mr. FANCHER. Companies are seeking new models to collaborate.
What I would like to do is just provide a few slides to describe what that model is, and so please bear with me.
[Slide.]
I think it is helpful to understand that—and we have heard already that Oregon is taking the—New York—the state has gotten involved in this, and New York State has, I think, done it in a way that I think can be replicated around the country. And when you look at the strategy New York State is focused on, it has been four key drivers: selecting an overarching discipline, such as nanotechnology, investing in state-of-the-art infrastructure, focusing on world-class, hands-on education and training, not just Ph.D. and Masters in Engineering, but the whole supply chain, and then, of course, leverage public-private partnerships.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to just spend a slide on each to give you an example.
[Slide.]
Well, nanochips. We have already heard about it. Nanochips are enabling defense, bio-health, sensors, aerospace, pervasive tether-free computing, communications, energy, and of course, automotive industry. I think the key element here, though, is the nanochip industry is probably the first industry that has begun integrating nanotechnology into a high-yield, low-cost production process mode. That means they are breaking the ground for other industries to adapt that technology, that process technology, to a variety of applications.
[Slide.]
A key driver, too, for New York State has been investment in state-of-the-art infrastructure. This is the Albany NanoTech complex. It will be at about $3 billion in assets by the end of 2006 in addition to the facilities that you see there. We have around 750,000 square feet of cutting-edge facilities with 85,000 square feet of clean rooms for what is known as ''300-millimeter wafer process technology.'' That is important because 300-millimeter is the state-of-the-art of technology used by the computer chip industry. And it will be the platform on which nanotechnology is integrated for a variety of those applications that I already described.
Our partners include Sematech, IBM, AMD, Micron, Tokyo Electron, General Electric, and ASML. We have 200 researchers at Albany NanoTech in the college and 300 industry scientists on site, and by the end of 2007, we will have around 1,600 people in the complex.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to spend just two slides on workforce, because I think that is a particularly important challenge.
[Slide.]
And with that we have established the world's first college of nanoscale science and engineering. We have constellations in nanoscience, nano-engineering, nano-biotechnology, and nano-economics, of which I am Associate Professor in that school.
I think when you look at the challenge for the workforce, what you are looking at, and I am quoting the National Science Foundation, is that the United States will need two million nanotech-savvy workers by the year 2014. That is a daunting challenge when you consider that China is producing 250,000 engineers and scientists per year while we are producing 56,000 engineers and scientists, and I take that number from the American Electronics Association.
When you look at the breakdown of that two million, 20 percent will be scientists, and 80 percent will be the engineers, technicians, operators, business leaders, etc. So that means we need to start focusing on children 10 to 17 years old right now if we are going to make that objective.
I would like to give a case in point on what Albany NanoTech has been doing in the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering to meet those workforce needs.
Well, as I have said, we have established the world's first college to break the walls down between the sciences so that everyone is talking common language between biology, computational science, physics, and chemistry. We have established partnerships with our community colleges, supporting the semiconductor manufacturing technology training program for the operators of the tools. We have high school and undergraduates doing internships in the program. And we also host the semiconductor equipment materials international workforce development institute, what we call a ''chip camp.'' It is a four-day exposure for your vocational students. And then finally, we have established a $6 million center for the construction trades.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, I think what is important to understand is that atomic-scale manufacturing, if pushing all levels in the workforce to rise to new levels of expertise and training right down to the construction of the building to hooking up the equipment is all now very critical to the success of the overall commercialization.
The third driver for New York State has been establishing the Center of Excellence in Nano-electronics by Governor Pataki back in 2001. This has been—and I am just doing this as a timeline, but it has been critical to provide the infrastructure and partnerships with industry, with the SAI, with the focus center, IBM, the anchor tenant, and the Center of Excellence with $150 million. We have a Sematech North program, Tokyo Electron R&D center, the first established outside of Japan is embedded in our facilities. Our complex was completed about a year ago. Albany NanoTech was formed. We have established the first college. We recently announced the $400 million research center with ASML, one of the world leaders in lithography equipment. And then finally, we are closing on what we call the Center for Semiconductor Research, a partnership with Applied Materials, which is about $450 million.
So I would like to take that focus of where we are, and now let us go take it to the global marketplace.
I think it is important for you to understand that our competition is very steep, and it is global, and that what is happening in the nanochip world is global alliances. And when you look at what is going on in Albany, you are seeing a partnership that initially started with AMD, Sematech, and IBM and has now grown to Sony, Toshiba, and Chartered Semiconductor. Our competition is in Belgium. It is IMEK. It includes SD Phillips, and a few other companies, TSMC, and Motorola, and then, of course, Japan.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The global R&D competition drives the industry clustering effect that PCAST mentioned. And for New York State, we have already achieved $8 billion of investment just since 2002. I think two——
Chairman INGLIS. Mr. Fancher.
Mr. FANCHER. Yes.
Chairman INGLIS. Hold on just a second.
Mr. FANCHER. Okay.
Chairman INGLIS. We are expecting votes at 11:15, so we probably need to move a little quickly.
Mr. FANCHER. Okay.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fancher follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FANCHER
A Successful New Paradigm for Innovation and Education
University based, co-located with some of the biggest names in industrial innovation, and committed to building a thriving, educated and globally-competitive workforce, Albany NanoTech is a $3 billion enterprise dedicated to creating partnerships for leading edge nanotechnology innovations. Through its unique, vertically-integrated model that includes the world's first College for Nanoscale Sciences and Engineering at the University at Albany—State University of New York, Albany NanoTech's partnerships with business, government and academia have created the world's premier powerhouse for research, development, technology deployment, and education resource supporting accelerated nanotechnology commercialization.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Albany NanoTech is the umbrella under which the CNSE and the five Centers operate; namely, the Center of Excellence in Nanoelectronics, Center for Advanced Technology in Nanomaterials and Nanoelectronics, Interconnect Focus Center, Nanoscale Metrology and Imaging Center, and the Energy and Environmental Technology Applications Center. The CNSE and the five centers are all located at Albany NanoTech and have access to its facilities, but the nature of our model—through which there are no divisions between disciplines, or between academia and industry—means that there is great cooperation and cross-pollination among the various centers and between CNSE faculty and industrial partners. Faculty are involved in all of the centers and in some cases, the centers cooperate closely with one another to advance the science. Nobody is working in silos, and that is part of the reason why we have been able to get so much accomplished.
Partnerships
How does Albany NanoTech interface with the private sector?
Albany NanoTech seeks to leverage resources in partnership with business, government, and academia to create jobs and economic growth for nanoelectronics-related industries. Governor George E. Pataki created a Center of Excellence in Nanoelectronics at Albany NanoTech's facilities in 2001 and since then has worked very closely on building relationships with leading industrial players in nanoelectronics like IBM, ASML, Tokyo Electron, and International Sematech. Since 2001, we have attracted over $1 billion in direct private investment and now have over 100 industrial partners many of whom are on-site, which represent companies of all sizes that share a commitment to nanotechnology innovation.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Boasting over 100 partnerships with universities, federal labs, and industry such as RPI, Stony Brook University, Argonne National Laboratory, DARPA, NASA, General Electric, Honeywell, and IBM, to name a few, Albany NanoTech strives to help companies overcome technical, market, and business development barriers through technology incubation, pilot prototyping, and testbed integration support leading to targeted deployment of nanotechnology-based products.
Albany NanoTech's partnerships encompass multi-year research programs with IBM, ASML, Tokyo Electron, Applied Materials, Infineon and Micron as well as sponsored research collaborations with national defense agencies, such as the Naval Research Laboratory and DARPA as well as start-up companies, such as Daystar Systems and Crystal IS. Small, medium and large corporate and university partners have access to state-of-the-art laboratories, shared user facilities, supercomputing capabilities, and an array of research and development centers serving the short-, medium-, and long-term nanotechnology development needs while training the workforce for the 21st century. Partners are able to collaborate formally and informally, establish strategic alliances, or form joint ventures and consortia within a technically aggressive and financially competitive environment.
The CNSE & Centers
What is the workforce outlook for nanotechnology, and how can the Federal Government and universities help ensure there will be enough people with the relevant skills to meet the Nation's needs for nanotechnology research and development and for the manufacture of nanotechnology-enabled products?
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to National Science Foundation, the U.S. will need approximately two million nanotech savvy workers by 2014. Approximately 20 percent of these workers are expected to be scientists, 80 percent must be highly-skilled engineers, technicians, business leaders, economists, etc., and that means children between the ages of 10 and 17 need to be educated NOW about the field that will define their job market as adults.
The location of the College in the Albany NanoTech complex provides students with a unique public-private education through research partnerships that are not available at any other college or university. This partnership allows maximum leveraging of synergistic resources to create a comprehensive, fully integrated powerhouse for the attraction and retention of highly qualified students to careers in the various disciplines of nanotechnology, from theoretical principles to experimental demonstrations and practical applications.
As the first of its kind, the College provides a comprehensive education of the highest quality enabling the discovery and dissemination of fundamental knowledge concepts and new frontier scientific principles in the emerging interdisciplinary fields of nanotechnology, from nanosciences and nanoengineering to nanoeconomics. The College offers Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in the science and engineering tracks pertaining to the nanoelectronics, opto-electronic, optical, nano/micro-electro-mechanical, nano/micro-opto-electro-mechanical, energy, and nanobiological fields with curriculum integrating the fundamental science principles of physics, chemistry, computational science and biology with the cross cutting fields of nanosciences, nanoengineering and nanotechnology.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, the College supports hands-on workforce training by providing access to state-of-the-art facilities, training the entire spectrum of technicians, operators and technical trades through partnerships with community colleges, high schools and leading industry players. CNSE has established partnerships with several community colleges providing the hands-on workforce component to their associate degree education necessary to operate nanotechnology equipment. The CNSE works with local undergraduate colleges and high schools by sponsoring year round and summer internships for students and by hosting in partnership with the Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI) four day ''chip camps'' targeting high school vocational students to encourage then to consider carriers in nanotechnology through hands-on curriculum. Finally, Albany NanoTech participates in a $6 million workforce training partnership for nanotech infrastructure construction trades in partnership with M+W Zander, one of the world leaders in nanotechnology facility design and construction, the Watervliet Arsenal Partnership and New York State.
Research & Facilities
The research performed at Albany NanoTech is broadly focused on all aspects of the emerging nanosciences including: nanoelectronics and microelectronics, Nano/Microsystems including MEMS, nanometrology, nanophotonics and opto-electronics, analytical sciences and process control, nanopower, and advanced computer modeling for nanosystems and processes.
To assist in accomplishing these prominent research goals, Albany NanoTech consists of over 500,000 square feet of on-site office, laboratory, and cleanroom incubation facilities. The complex includes the only 200mm/300mm wafer facilities in the academic world that encompasses nanoelectronics; system-on-a-chip technologies; biochips; opto-electronics and photonics devices; closed-loop sensors for monitoring, detection, and protection; and ultra-high-speed communication components.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Albany NanoTech has literally hundreds of tools, ranging from STMs and supercomputers to the ASML TWINSCAN AT:1500i scanner, the world's first 300mm wafer immersion lithography tool. Our tool arsenal is one of our best recruiting tools, since many of our scientists can do everything they need to advance their research right here.
NanoFab 300 South, which opened in January 2003, is a 138,000-square-foot technology acceleration facility that provides for business incubation, classrooms for the CNSE, workforce training, offices for Albany NanoTech, and large and small industrial sponsors and partners including IBM, TEL, Honeywell, and SEMATECH North. The facility also includes 16,000 square feet of cleanroom to support the SEMATECH North, IBM, and other next-generation nanotechnology research activities.
Scheduled to be completed by the end of 2005, NanoFab 300-North features a 35,000 square foot Class 1-capable 300mm wafer R&D cleanroom, pilot prototype, incubation, and workplace training facility that will house a full nanoelectronics process line. The 500,000+ square-foot complex includes over 65,000 square feet of cleanroom space supporting the nanoelectronics-related industries. Albany NanoTech not only has the site where the world's first 300mm wafer immersion lithography tool was installed in August 2004, enabling partners like IBM to get a jump on this technology but Sematech has also announced that it is conducting the bulk of its research in extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography at its laboratories located at Albany NanoTech. The fact that two leading organizations in nanotechnology research—IBM and Sematech—have both announced major lithography research milestones in the past year and both of these took place at Albany NanoTech demonstrates the effectiveness of the model.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NY ''Nano'' State
How does the State of New York provide support to Albany NanoTech and the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering at UAlbany–SUNY? How does this complement funding from the Federal Government and the private sector? What, if any, gaps remain?
New York and its industrial partners committed over $1.4 billion to establish five Centers of Excellence throughout the State in nanoelectronics, photonics, bioinformatics, information technology, and environmental systems. Each Center of Excellence acts as a bridge between scientific discovery and commercialization by supporting pilot-prototyping development, workforce training and economic outreach. Combined, these distributed technology deployment centers represent a comprehensive nanotechnology commercialization effort reflecting regional strengths.
Government support encouraging private and public investment in nanotechnology is a key to industry success and future economic growth. New York's tremendous support of nanotechnology development has caused industry leaders such as IBM, General Electric, and Corning to expand their research and development activities within the state. New York State's support for joint technology research, development and deployment in the form of state-of-the-art facilities and capabilities has played an important role in lowering the risk and cost for companies to accelerate the commercialization of nanotechnology.
New York State already shows signs of being a 'Nano Hub' and, in particular, the capital region is becoming the world's first 'Nanopolis.' Since 2002, two of the world's most influential tool suppliers, Tokyo Electron and ASML, have chosen to open up their first cutting-edge R&D laboratories outside their home countries at Albany NanoTech. Smaller high-tech startups like Starfire Technologies and Evident Technologies that were incubated at Albany are growing and attracting venture capital funding. Finally, we are finding companies are actually moving to Albany from other parts of the world.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Future & Recommendations
Albany NanoTech's overarching goal is to become the Bell Labs of the new millennium—bringing the best minds together, whether they are in industry, government or academia, to work on leading-edge technologies that can revolutionize our lives in the coming decades. In the immediate term, this means building partnerships and creating a paradigm that practically compels companies that value leading-edge nanotechnology research to establish partnerships at Albany NanoTech if they want to remain competitive. In the long-term, it means re-inventing and drastically speeding how innovation is brought to market.
The College's goals are to completely redefine how scientists are educated by tearing down the traditional disciplinary silos in which they operate and by tearing down the barriers between the research institutions, community colleges, high schools, vocational schools and even the trades. We are confident that subjects like biology, chemistry, physics and medicine will become increasingly irrelevant in the coming decades as science merges around the development of tool sets and methodologies. In the immediate term, we want CNSE to be part of this redefinition of research and pedagogy. In the long term, we aspire to create a world-class academic center on par with—but not a clone of—the world's greatest research universities.
Atomic-scale manufacturing requires a closer coupling between research, development and manufacturing. A new generation of institutions executing dynamic cross-industry, cross disciplinary models are emerging, such as Albany NanoTech, that are responding to the unique challenges and opportunities created by nanotechnology. These institutions are establishing a new paradigm for state-of-the-art research, education and technology deployment that offers the Federal Government a highly leveraged return on its investment in projects, programs and centers.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Federal funding must recognize the emergence of new university-based technology, educational, and business models that concurrently support long-term research, medium-term development and short-term manufacturing. Federal funding should reward universities and state governments who successfully pursue new paradigms for innovation and education by encouraging joint investments in shared-use infrastructure by industry. Federal investments in shared-use infrastructure supporting the entire continuum of nanotechnology research, development and manufacturing must be a strategic priority supporting. New business and technology models such as Albany NanoTech's is critical for U.S. industry to convert nanotechnology discovery into commercial opportunities supporting national industrial competitiveness and defense and security priorities.
Shared investment and collaboration by industry, academia and government not only improves the probability of success, leading to economic growth for both small and large companies, but also provides the critical infrastructure necessary to support educational programs for the entire spectrum of workers to effectively compete in the 21st Century. Significant and consistent support for the operations of this university-based shared-use infrastructure by the Federal Government is critical for supporting the growth of small, medium and large companies, training the entire spectrum of nanotech savvy workers with hands-on educational programs, and achieving the grand challenges set forth under the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) which are critical for national defense, public health and economic security. More specifically, continued support for the NNI should be a priority while recognizing that current programs neither effectively address nor accommodate less traditional models, and as such, requires a new category of funding to support ''Successful New Paradigms for Innovation and Education.''
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For more information about Albany NanoTech, its mission and its programs, visit our website at www.albanynanotech.org or contact Michael Fancher, Director of Economic Outreach at mfancher@uamail.albany.edu.
21195g.eps
21195h.eps
BIOGRAPHY FOR MICHAEL FANCHER
Michael Fancher has been the Director for Economic Outreach at Albany NanoTech, University at Albany—SUNY for over six years. During that time he has supported the development of partnerships with high technology companies, industry consortia, governmental entities, research institutions, private financing and not-for-profit organizations. Specifically, he identifies opportunities to leverage financial, technological and market development resources by formulating strategic application-specific and technology-driven development programs. Michael also supports the business acceleration initiatives by coordinating federal, State and local financial and technical assistance programs for high technology business enterprises through each stage of technology commercialization. Mr. Fancher holds a Master's degree (international economics-finance) from the University at Albany-SUNY, an undergraduate degree in business administration (accounting & finance) from Syracuse University and is a Certified Public Accountant in New York State.
Prior to joining Albany NanoTech, Michael served as Deputy Budget Director for the New York State Assembly Ways and Means Committee overseeing project development financing and program policy structures supporting university research, regional infrastructure, energy industry restructuring, public & private construction projects, environmental protection, procurement reform, transportation capital planning & industry regulatory issues. He was awarded the Governor's commendations for legislative achievement supporting business competitiveness and project development financing.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a Certified Public Accountant, Michael has provided audit, tax and financial planning services for business formation, expansion, merger and acquisitions and is experienced in financial and economic modeling.
21195s3.eps
Discussion
Chairman INGLIS. But while you have got that slide up, let me ask you the first question, if I may.
Mr. FANCHER. Yes.
Chairman INGLIS. You were actually in the process of answering a question that I had, and perhaps others on the panel have, which is where is our main competition? Who should we be concerned about?
Mr. FANCHER. I think, when you look at the competition from abroad, you are seeing the European Union as a very strong block that invests heavily in supporting the business—the similar model as what is at Albany NanoTech. When you look at Asia and Japan, they also have formed a similar model in Japan. France has also established in Grenoble, a similar model. So the model is validated, I think, by—but the competition—and the focus is similar. They are focusing on developing the expertise in this process technology to not only provide a platform for nanotechnology, but to take the knowledge base of processing and apply it to rolling production for photovoltaics, all types of different production of materials and substrates.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman INGLIS. That is helpful.
Mr. Donnelly, I should have mentioned that we are extremely happy to have General Electric in our District making gas turbines. I saw that operation recently. Amazing that you can run gases over those rotors that are the higher—the gases are being at a higher temperature than the melting point of the metal that comprises the rotors. It is amazing.
So perhaps you—because you are in business at General Electric to make products, tell us how we, in the Federal Government, and folks like Dr. Kennedy in academia and Dr. Cassady, can help you get to products. What can we best do here in government and in the university to help you get a product into the marketplace?
Mr. DONNELLY. Well, all I can say is it is in two parts, Mr. Chairman. One is certainly students coming out of universities. So again, the funding that goes through NSF, you know, the people that try to figure out how to make those materials survive beyond their melting point, which is actually the tricky part of these systems, is all of that intellectual capital. So the, you know, the talent that we are able to bring in out of university systems on a constant basis to design that next generation is incredibly important to us.
And other avenues that we see in terms of the federal role in things like next generation aircraft engines, you know, it is—you can't state the importance of where the military tends to go with things like JSF engine technology, which is important, obviously, for the military mission perspective. But that technology then floats and works its way down through our commercial aircraft engines, our energy businesses, and things like that.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think when you look at the programs that the Federal Government funds, it helps to pull a lot of these very high performance, leading-edge technologies that might first show up in a military application but ultimately work their way into a commercial application as well. The same is true in the energy area. If you look at the DOE funding that is in place to help support and bring some of these new technologies to the market, frankly, before they might be economically suitable for wide-scale deployment, it is a very necessary step to get that technology out on the marketplace and start working on the cost and validation of that, which ultimately ends in a very large business.
Chairman INGLIS. Okay. Dr. Kennedy, what do you think we could do, we, in the Federal Government, could do to help you accomplish your objectives of——
Dr. KENNEDY. I feel like that in terms of translating—transferring nanotechnology into companies, you need graduate students that have broader perspective than just how to make polymers or how to make this nano-material, because they don't have it—they really don't have a business experience in their graduate education. And we are looking at that as universities, but one of the things that has happened in the polymer industry that we, as an ERC [Engineering Research Center] and the polymer industry, now are facing is central research at the polymer industries that was downsized because of globalization. And that is a void that now exists in commercialization. And the government and the universities really need to think about how that void can be replaced. And that is something that our center is actually thinking about right now.
Chairman INGLIS. Dr. Cassady, anything to add there from your perspective?
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. CASSADY. Well, I think it is interesting to look at this industry and maybe compare it a little bit to the biotech industry that developed. And I think that you really have two types of corporations that are moving into these fields. You have the GEs, the major, large corporations, but you also have a lot of start-up companies. I think if you look worldwide, and this is based on data, that probably about half of the start-up companies in this area are in the United States. So we are not doing too badly in terms of getting the companies to that stage. But if you actually look, government investment is as much in this area as corporate investment. So I think that there is a problem there in getting the 600 start-up companies into a stage where they can develop through investments. So to me, I think gap funding is important. At the university level, I think it is important to be able to protect intellectual property. One of the things that we don't have at the university is a way to operate like a business. For example, we have a lot of good ideas and innovations and intellectual property, but how do we pay to get those protected? And then once you have a—I guess I would call it almost an idea for a product, how do you get it through that gap so you can actually develop it into a product? And that needs investment.
So I think that those are areas that need to be looked at. If you really want to talk about getting the innovation, especially out of our universities, into something that becomes a product or a company. I think there are only six nanotech companies out of the 600 in the United States that have received a second round of venture capital funding. And that, to me, is pretty limiting.
Chairman INGLIS. Thank you.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am happy to recognize Ms. Hooley.
Ms. HOOLEY. I want to yield to Mr. Honda for a follow-up.
Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much.
The comments to—the answers to the question of the Chair were very intriguing to me, and I have been reading through your testimonies, and it seems like there is one conclusion I come to on the question of what role the Federal Government has in commercialization. I think I heard Dr. Cassady say that we need to have gap funding. I hear other folks saying that there is a role—definite role of Federal Government in bridging the ''Valley of Death'' so that research can reach commercialization in this area. This is not a nano industry. It is a nanoscale activity, which is an enabling technology.
And so my question is, given the kinds of things that are going on today, and from your point of view, what is the further role—or what is an additional role that the Federal Government can play that may be considered by some folks in the Federal Government as corporate welfare? But it seems to me that we—in this new arena of nanoscale activities, that the Federal Government has a critical role to play with universities, start-ups, and established corporations to be able to help and assist in bridging this gap until we have reached that critical point where private investors can come in with some confidence and support commercialization. Is there a comment from any one of the four of you? And perhaps we could start with Dr. Cassady and then work to Dr. Kennedy and——
Dr. CASSADY. In the discussions that we have been having, one of the points that was made is that we need, and to be really frank with you, this is a new terminology to me, but what the military calls ''6.2 funding.'' It is DARPA type funding. And I think that the people at ONAMI feel like that there is a need for this sort of funding for this area. And again, I think that there is a role of government. And I know in some of the current discussions at the state level in Oregon, there is an issue that is being raised with regard to trying to attract more venture capital into this area. So part of it is that. We have a fairly good environment in Oregon.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HONDA. But what I am hearing you say is that there is a model out there that it should be applied to——
Dr. CASSADY. There may be a model, I think, that you could look at.
Mr. HONDA. And in spite of the fact that a lot of pressure is being put on states that the Federal Government still has a role?
Dr. CASSADY. I—you know, I would add another piece to it, because I think, you know, the collaboration between federal and state is going to be needed in order to optimize this approach.
Mr. HONDA. And to the Chair. Would this enhance our competitive edge globally?
Dr. CASSADY. I would think so.
Mr. HONDA. I just needed an opinion from the field, that is all. Perhaps the others have some more comments.
Dr. KENNEDY. I would like to reiterate some of my comments that the NASA activity 25 years ago, we had done a tremendous amount of research on composite materials. And the push that NASA provided and DOD provided by developing components for aircraft, such as wing flaps and wing boxes, really helped the industry. It pushed the industry to develop that technology. I think that is an important step that the Federal Government—and that is consistent with the comment you heard on DARPA. So DOD, NASA, Department of Energy, those are some wonderful places where demonstration programs could benefit nanotechnology I think.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HONDA. I appreciate your patience. What you are talking about is basically a paradigm shift in how we do things, and this composite research took, what, 20 or 25 years to get to the point of commercialization? Is that something that the private sector can afford to do, given the time?
I know the answer is no. The Federal Government—what you are saying is that has a critical role in helping to bridge this end.
Dr. KENNEDY. Well, the Federal Government funded that activity for——
Mr. HONDA. Right.
Dr. KENNEDY.—a very long period of time. But now what you are seeing now is aircraft that are having 50 percent, or a large fraction of their structure, made out of composite materials, and it just—it takes a while for the industry to develop the confidence to put something on an airplane where you have—where there is potential for disaster. So there are a lot of issues there.
Mr. HONDA. And the composite has been applied to the tail section of our commercial jets now. It is stronger, lighter, and more reliable. And this could be applied to, say, launching of satellites that could be lighter and stronger and carry a heavier payload and things like that.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. KENNEDY. And that is where nanotechnology—those are opportunities for nanotechnology, I think.
Mr. HONDA. Thank you.
Chairman INGLIS. Mr. McCaul is going to be recognized, but he is going to come and take the Chair for a moment while I run to a vote in the Judiciary Committee.
So Mr. McCaul and the Chair.
Ms. HOOLEY. He came a long way.
Mr. MCCAUL. [Presiding.] Yeah, I appreciate the promotion from being just a lowly freshman to the Chair of the Subcommittee.
My District is from Austin, Texas to Houston. I have got high tech on either end. I have Dell, Samsung, Applied Materials. I also have the University of Texas, and so I have the research and development arm of the university. And I am very interested in this issue of nanotechnology as it applies to what I view as really a great partnership between industry and the universities. We have a lot of scientists at the universities that are interested in this partnership. I think it is good for industry as well.
So I wanted to see, first, if you would comment on that, and then specifically, if you could discuss two issues. One is computer models being funded by NSF. I know that with the UT system that is very important with respect to nanotechnology. And then, second, in terms of the industry's collaboration, there is always the issue of intellectual property management and how they can properly protect intellectual property.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I know I am throwing a lot out there, but if—just to the panel as a whole, if you would comment on that.
Mr. FANCHER. Well, I will take a stab at the modeling, if you would like.
I think it is important. You know, a science is a science, while it is limited to just an experiment, you get one data point, and you don't really have predictability in it if you change variables in that experiment, which is what is required for a manufacturing process. So once you have more predictability, it is just to turn into a technology. And that modeling is really a precursor or a critical event that has to happen in manufacturing so that you can start to have the confidence to control that production process to know that as you are changing your inputs a certain way, what the outcome will be.
So that would be my—so yes, it is critically important.
Dr. CASSADY. I will take a stab at the intellectual property.
I think that each institution is different, but I know at our institution, we have—and I would guess that probably the other Oregon institutions, we have to look at our process. I made the comment that we have to make it easier to do business with the university. And that is one of those barriers that occurs if you have too many steps in the process to approve these transfers of intellectual property and licensing.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second thing is partnerships. I think that we have to find a way to make these work, and I like the idea of trying different models around the country and then learning from one another as to what works and what doesn't work. And I think our experiment is going to be very interesting.
I come from a background that was involved in—where NIH National Cancer Institute funds partnerships, inter-institutional, and always involving a pharma partner in what they call ''national cooperative drug discovery programs.'' The bottom line, you want drugs, you want NDAs, and you want drugs going on the market. And I think those types of partnerships are excellent, and they are excellent places for students to learn.
Dr. KENNEDY. I would like to comment both on the intellectual property issue and on modeling, but I will pick modeling first.
Our engineering research center was funded based on modeling. It was our view that we could help the fiber and film industry transform from a trial-and-error industry to a predictive industry, but that would require that we do modeling at both a core scale, which we call a continuum scale, and at the molecular level. And we are doing that now.
But let me point out the kinds of advances that we have made. The initial algorithms that we were using to compute at the molecular level were indicating that to get an answer, it would take thousands of years, 10= years. We have modified those algorithms to the point where we can get that answer in several hours. That is a major advancement. But it still takes powerful computers and excellent computer infrastructure to do that. So we are making progress, and we are training students to use modeling in the fiber and film industry.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Concerning intellectual property, I heard a woman from the Dow Company talk about their interaction with universities. And she pointed out that universities need flexibility in the way they approach intellectual property, and she was saying that it had been their experience that universities were very rigid in that regard and so much so that Dow was starting to utilize industries in other countries. Particularly, they are going to Europe to get research done. It says that the universities really need to take a hard look at that, and I think that has been suggested here. And it is something that we need to do.
Thank you.
Mr. DONNELLY. I would comment on the modeling side. This is very important. It has been important for many years in terms of, first, gaining a better understanding of what is going on. And in terms of the cycle times for material systems, you reference the composites that took 25 years.
This is quite common in any material system, nano or otherwise. The cycles are very, very long, and utilizing modeling to understand better what is going on and reduce the number of experiments is very important, especially as you get to the nano level. The degree to which you can experiment and truly understand the material behaviors is very, very difficult without augmenting that with a good modeling program. And so that is very important.
IP from an initial standpoint, I can echo the Dow position as it has been articulated. Frankly, it is an enormous barrier to working with universities. I would say there is a great deal of variability. Some universities are very good to work with in this regard. Others are on the other end of the spectrum and virtually impossible to work with. And so it can be a significant barrier. The need to invest a great deal of funding over a long time and not have good IP terms and exclusivity, in many cases, frankly, just leaves industry to have to walk away and look other places for this capability, because having that intellectual property ownership is very important commercially. You really can't do it without it.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCAUL. Well, thank you.
And of course any suggestions to enhance that industry-university relationship, I think the universities, to be competitive, sort of need to get with the program, so to speak, and start working. I think some have worked very effectively, and Dr. Kennedy, I was actually concerned to hear that some were not, but I think it is a great partnership for America.
So the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
Ms. HOOLEY. I didn't realize I was giving away all of my time to Mr. Honda, but that is okay. I thought you were going to ask him a short question.
I am going to ask just a couple of very—I had some specific questions, but many of them have been asked—some very general questions. One is if there was one thing that we, the Federal Government, could do differently that would help us really be at the head of the class in terms of global competition, what would it be? And I will just start at one end with Mr. Donnelly and go to the other end.
Mr. DONNELLY. I think if you will look in—and this was—I referred to it a little bit earlier in the question by Mr. Honda, but when you think about new material sciences, of which nanotechnology is sort of the central theme of that right now, these are technologies that can bring a lot to new applications. That is how we have to look at it. At the end of the day, we are not doing nano because nano is something to do, but because we want to improve performance characteristics of some end application. It could be an aircraft engine. It could be a medical scanner. Any number of different things.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Where the Federal Government can play an important role in that is more funding in the early stages of science and much more focused on the ''R'' side of R&D. References were made to NASA and a number of other military application programs. That money that is—you know, whether it is 6.2 money and things of that genre are really where that kind of research activity goes on for many years before you really get the technology insertion. And there are plenty of applications across our military and NASA and NIH where we have challenges in terms of things we want to achieve in new areas where new material science is ultimately the answer to that, but they are things that need to be nurtured for a number of years to really put money into that science side of it before you are going to see that in the end application.
Ms. HOOLEY. Okay. So you would say more money into the research side?
Mr. DONNELLY. More money into the research side, more money into the 6.2s, more money into the real challenges we have in NASA and DOE and DOD and areas like that.
Ms. HOOLEY. Dr. Kennedy.
Dr. KENNEDY. More money is always wonderful, but I think we have also got to look at workforce, very definitely. And when I say workforce, I think we have got to back up into the public education system and figure out ways to excite pre-college students about science, mathematics, and engineering. We graduate 56,000, I heard, engineers a year, and China's goal is to graduate a million engineers a year. Well, the competition—you see where the—they are great minds. So we really need to reach out and involve other people in science and technology, and the Federal Government needs to think about that. And they are doing that. We have outreach programs that we participate in, NASA does, but we have really got to continue to push hard on that, I think.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HOOLEY. Dr. Cassady.
Dr. CASSADY. Well, I certainly agree with both of those conclusions. I guess that my feeling is that something that would encourage the relationships between research teams in the research universities and these start-up companies in this industry that don't really have the R&D funding, I think that, to me, is a place where you could have a big impact. You know, there is something wrong when you have 600 start-up companies, only 10 percent of those got a first round of venture capital funding, and only 10 percent of those got a second round. So you really have a big gap there.
The other point I would make is in terms of the workforce. Are there some issues that I think surround some of our concerns about national security that could have a big modulating effect on our ability to attract graduate students, international graduate students? Now I am very concerned about that. So I think if, you know, we don't want to have a double-edged sword where all of a sudden they are gearing up, which they are, and then we make it less available because of certain regulations that may be placed. I am thinking in terms of export control, for example, as an area where we are seeing a potential really big impact on our ability to bring graduate students in from certain places and have them work as part of these teams.
Those are a couple thoughts that I would have.
Ms. HOOLEY. Before we go to Mr. Fancher, I want to ask a question.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Is there the—being able to bring in graduate students or college students from other countries, is that a big problem for other universities? No?
Dr. CASSADY. Well, I am talking about a potential problem and the potential impact of export controls.
Ms. HOOLEY. Okay.
Dr. CASSADY. For example, where we may be actually in a situation where we have to get students from certain places licensed to be able to have access to certain equipment to do their research.
Ms. HOOLEY. Okay. Okay.
Dr. CASSADY. And if you do that, and I am not saying that we have gotten to the point where it has been done, but if you do that, I think it will have an impact on where students decide to come and do their graduate work.
Mr. FANCHER. Finally, I would say you are probably beginning to observe several states have entered the game of nanotechnology in a, I think, very complementary way to federal investments. But I think what you also are seeing is that there is a—I kind of am complementary to Scott's comments about focusing just on research. I think that it is time to begin focusing on the development and early manufacturing that the nanotechnology has come out of the lab and it is now ready to go into commercialization. And our competition is focusing their investments heavily in what I would call ''next generation Bell labs.'' PCAST noted that in their study back in 2003. There is a—the cost is daunting to commercialize nanotechnology. It is increasing exponentially. We are producing lots of wonderful research, but to capture the economic rewards requires a focus on supply chain, getting your partners, leveraging the resources from the states, leveraging the resources from companies, industry to tackle that. And I think other—competition is doing that, and if we just look at the number of papers that are published, what you are going to be focused on is the success in the research, but we are not going to be fully realizing the benefits of development and manufacturing for homeland security, defense, and all of our other economic security.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HOOLEY. All I know is having visited ONAMI and not having quite the wonderful floor space that you have in—facility that you have in New York, that a couple of the products that have been—are in the stage of being developed really make a difference in people's lives. I mean, it is amazing what nanotechnology can do and really transforming how people live. And so it is—I mean, I think it is really important work you are doing, and I like the partnerships. And if you would—please, if you have any suggestions about what we can do and what we can do better, let us know.
Thank you so much for taking your time to be here today.
Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Ms. Hooley.
I will recognize myself for another round of questions here.
Mr. Fancher, it was very interesting to hear you talk about hands-on kind of learning, I think, in one of your slides. And the engineering statistics that you cited are of great concern to us on this committee, and we have talked about it a number of times here. And it seems to me, as a lure, that one of the things that would make engineering more interesting is if it is, as much as possible, hands-on education, so that it is not an abstract principle, but rather something that, ''Oh, I can see how that might work.'' And if you can see it, then it is an exciting thing to study. Like the law has stories that it tells in its cases. It is interesting to study law, because they are about people and they are about cases and they are about situations. If you make engineering that interesting, then hopefully we will keep a lot of students going at it.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another thing I wanted to comment on is the—I think I have heard comments on collaboration both in Mr. Fancher's testimony, and I wanted to congratulate Dr. Kennedy on what Clemson is doing. It really is significant, I think, that Clemson University is teaming with MIT. That is obviously significant, and with Clark Atlanta University. That is an exciting thing that you realize that your commitment to diversity and to expanding this—opportunities for engineering education from MIT north of you to Clark Atlanta University south of you, and so I wanted to congratulate you on that.
Now what is the—those of us that are new to this nanotechnology get very excited about it. But help me to figure out the difference between what we should be expecting here and the hype. We have to be careful, I suppose, those of us that are novices at this, not to be carried away and think that we have found a perpetual motion machine or something like that and go running out and tell everybody to buy heavy in those areas. So does somebody want to help me figure out the distinction between the reality and the hype?
Mr. FANCHER. Well, I will take a stab, not to miss out on that opportunity.
I think the hype a lot of times is what is often described as ''bottom up nanotechnology.'' And it is the concept of basically creating something molecule by molecule exactly the way you want it. Think of it as a statue from the inside out. The more closer to commercialization, though, is the top-down approach where you are integrating nanotechnology in incremental ways. And I would give an example. Maybe you are familiar with microsystems or MEMS. Okay. Well, game-changing performance improvements can be made or captured by integrating nano-materials onto these microstructures. So it is the—it is an incremental process, or an evolution of nanotechnology versus there are isolated examples of the revolutionary impact of nanotechnology. For example, the clothes that don't absorb dirt. You know, there are a few, but those will be fewer and far between. The other wins, I think, are going to be an incremental evolution. And the reason for that is that your supply chain—you know, just because you invent something, I mean, doesn't—you have to bring the whole supply chain along with you before it goes into production. The tool suppliers, materials, the chemistries. And it is one thing to make just one device. It is quite a completely different challenge to make a high-yield, low-cost production flow for that. It is a completely different challenge. And I think that is my—I hope that I—you know, at least from our perspective would kind of——
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman INGLIS. That is helpful. And Mr. Donnelly, something that you mentioned is interesting. You said R&D, we should really be focusing on the ''R'' part of that in government. And yesterday, I was with some folks from General Motors, and that is really what they were saying about hydrogen, that we really need for the government to be taking risk in the ''R'' part, I suppose, in your terminology, and leaving to companies like yours and General Motors to pick up from that. But tell me how you see that ''R'' part, the risk taking in the research area. I mean, that is, I assume, what you would say is what government has to do is take the risk in the research.
Mr. DONNELLY. I think that is true. And not the sole responsibility, obviously. Companies like ourselves are investing in the basic research, and we will continue to do that. But I think what happens, if you look at the government and willingness to take risk is to provide some early application opportunities for these technologies. I think one of the challenges in nanotechnology and for people to understand nanotechnology and sort of what is involved in this process is, perhaps, more difficult than a lot of other technologies we have talked about, because if people are expecting that, you know, some day, whether it is a year or 10 years from now, you wake up and start buying nanotechnology products, people are really confused. I don't know what a nanotechnology product would be. Where the nanotechnology is going to be, it is truly enabling technology. So whether you are talking about enabling a technology that would allow more highly efficient ways to convert water to hydrogen, to enable the hydrogen infrastructure, or whether you are talking about an aircraft engine that gets, you know, better fuel economy because you can fire at a higher combustion temperature because of a nano-alloy and a high-pressure turbine blade, the places where the technology is going to make an impact, it is not going to be terribly obvious. And 99.9, probably, out of 100 people in this country will never understand or know there is nanotechnology in the product they are buying. It is the change in that technology that is enabling that better performance or that higher reliability that is how the impact of nanotechnology manifests itself. And so it is hard, really, to go to the public and say, ''This is what nanotechnology is,'' because it is many different things, and it is going to manifest itself not as a nano-product but as something in a bigger product, everything from a semiconductor chip that runs at a higher speed or higher transistor densities to an aircraft engine turbine blade.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think when you look at what the government role can be, and why I say to focus on the ''R'' side is that historically, the government applications, whether they be for security purposes or military purposes or energy infrastructure purposes, can have these challenges that can be solved by new material systems. And that is where I think the government can take those risks in those early applications and allow the technology to mature before it shows in the commercial sector.
Chairman INGLIS. Thank you.
My time has expired, and I would recognize Ms. Hooley for a second round of questions.
Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you.
Mr. Donnelly, I am going to ask you this question, and then the rest of you can answer it afterwards.
Bridging the gap between research—basic research and nanotechnology commercialization, as you have just explained, is an enormous challenge.
The Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce was designed to address this transition problem. And it currently supports projects in the nanotechnology area. Do you, or any of you, believe—or have had experience with this program, and if so, do you believe it is valuable and deserving to be continued—the support continued for it?
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DONNELLY. Well, I am familiar with the NIST programs. I probably should preface by saying I am on the NIST Advisory Board, and so I am—or the ATP program, and so I am familiar with their programs.
Ms. HOOLEY. Okay.
Mr. DONNELLY. And I think they do have value. They do encourage promotion of very novel, early-on technologies and promote the interaction, frankly, in many cases, between companies both large and small and universities and other small companies. And so I think that is an area on the research side where it has provided some funding to develop some novel technologies in clearly what is a pre-commercialization state. And so it is not necessarily targeted at an application that is DOE related or DOD or NIH related but really provides an avenue that historically will fund some very early technology, pre-commercialization, and does promote what I would kind of refer to as some ''R'' funding well before you know where that application is going to go and where the development phase will go.
Ms. HOOLEY. Do you think it has been successful?
Mr. DONNELLY. I think it has been largely successful. Again, it is a case of the government taking some risk and investing in some early technologies, and so you certainly would look at some of those programs and say, ''Nothing came of it.'' That is truly the nature of research.
Ms. HOOLEY. Right.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DONNELLY. And we have to look at that as well. We invest in many things that don't happen, but some of the things turn out to generate some technologies to become very commercially important.
Ms. HOOLEY. Do any of the rest of you have experience with that program and—yeah, Dr. Kennedy?
Dr. KENNEDY. Yes, ma'am. We have been very interested in the ATP program as our NSF money runs away and goes away in another three years, and we are looking for supplemental funding to keep our center running. And that is one of the places we will look is at ATP with our industry partners, because we do have 20 industry partners. So we are very positive about that program.
It is not a big program. It is only, what, $200 million to $300 million, I believe, so it is not really, really big, and—but I think it is a good idea. We have attended a number of their workshops, and so we are pretty positive about it, and we would like for it to stick around.
Mr. FANCHER. I would also comment. I think the NIST ATP program is extremely effective. And the reason for that is that it provides for the integration of several companies' technologies to work—to be integrated together. It is the funding to allow for those types of mid-range programs that are so critical to commercialization. So it is really pre-commercialization, but it is—and I think NIST does a nice job of focusing on taking—selecting high-impact opportunities, things that are—you know, yes, there is risk, but if it hits, it will provide a broad impact on a variety of other companies that—for example, tool development or something like that. So——
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HOOLEY. Dr. Cassady, any——
Dr. CASSADY. I am not that familiar with the ATP program.
Ms. HOOLEY. Okay.
Dr. CASSADY. But SBIR I am more familiar with. I think that that also plays a role in helping with early stages of business development. And that has actually been a mechanism to help faculty that wish to do this actually move into a business development phase. And that has been done very successfully in certain areas, and we just need to figure out how to make that process more efficient. But that is another mechanism that helps fill that gap.
Mr. FANCHER. I think it is also important to note, venture capital does not tread there. And everybody thinks——
Ms. HOOLEY. Right.
Mr. FANCHER.—venture capital is early. No, venture capital——
Ms. HOOLEY. No, venture capital wants to be where they know they are going to——
Mr. FANCHER. It is there generally where there is production already in place.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. HOOLEY. Yeah.
Mr. FANCHER. There are sales, and they are ready to take it global or something. There is a lot of research——
Ms. HOOLEY. They are not risk-takers.
Mr. FANCHER. Yes. There is—a majority of the funding is in the research realm, very little in this development mid-range. And you are seeing it from NIST ATP. DOD, when they need something for the battlefield, they will fund in that space. And then Department of Energy, also. So there is—I think it is important to understand—and PCAST mentioned it. Research and development and manufacturing, they are two pieces of it. They co-exist, and they feed back and forth. And that is back to the workforce training. How do you do hands-on workforce training if you are only in the lab? You do work for hands-on exposure, because you have got actual, real-life—this is what your work environment is going to be. This is what you are going to get, you know, to work in with these kinds of tools or in this environment. And I think that is very engaging. Particularly, we expose kids in high school, even the vocational student kids are being brought in and rotated through. And in fact, our region, they are actually pushing forward to build a new high-tech vocational school focused on this, and it really creates, I think, an avenue, a strategy for engaging a restructuring of the educational curriculum that is nano-centric, let us say.
Ms. HOOLEY. I think it is interesting that you are looking at high-tech vocational training, because, at least in my state, when I look in the newspaper and look in the help wanted ads, the number of jobs tend to be in the highly skilled area. I mean, they are asking for not particular engineers, but highly skilled workers in a variety of things. And that seems to be where we are missing the boat. So I think it is interesting that you are looking at high-tech vocational programs.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FANCHER. Yeah. Well, if you were to look at a chip fab, a large chip fab, about 2,000 workers in it, about 20 percent of those are Ph.D.s and engineers. The 80 percent are operators, technicians. You know. I mean, you can—they make very good money——
Ms. HOOLEY. Right.
Mr. FANCHER.—fixing these tools without even an associates degree. You are global. You are in demand. I mean, it is a very exciting opportunity. And what is nice is that there is a whole continuum so that you can go back to school. There is a—it is a nurturing—the industry provides—or the nanotechnology, I think, promises to have a whole continuum of opportunities for a worker to pursue lifelong education and training to work their way up the—you know, the pay scale and the technology responsibility scale.
Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you.
Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Ms. Hooley.
Mr. Honda is recognized for a second round of questions.
Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I hear a bell ringing, so I will be real quick.
I want to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for putting this together. And the four of you have made today really a day well worth living, because the kinds of things that you are sharing with us is the kind of information that we need to hear constantly, because there seems to be some—at least in my opinion, some foot-dragging in this arena.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I agree that we have to do a lot more in pre-high school education in the area of education and bringing along the community in terms of they are being critical consumers of products and also the idea of having ATP continue, which has been zeroed out.
And I guess—there doesn't seem to be a disagreement also on the role of government in bridging the gap. My question would be, given that, how do you see us creating the solution set for the problems that you have described? And you know, with the short time, I would love to have that in writing so that it would give us a little bit more time to cogitate over the responses you may have, the solution sets that you may be suggesting from both the corporate, to the university, to the research arena. And that would be something that I would really love to have, because we are struggling here to be able to address everything from ATP to funding the gap.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. And if you have an immediate response, I will take it.
Mr. FANCHER. I would love to take a shot at that.
Actually, my written testimony, at the very end, it has my recommendations.
I think, just as in the past four years of the nanotechnology initiative, investments were made in strategic critical research infrastructure. The National Labs, for example. Significant amounts of money were invested in the National Labs in key areas of nanotechnology, the same as NNI provided for key research at a variety of universities around the country. I think what is important to understand that—to help the smaller and medium-sized companies through the ''Valley of Death,'' you can try to do it grant by grant, company by company, but you end up with winners and losers, and frankly you feel like you didn't get your money's worth. I think what is important is to begin to focus on focusing the investments in national resources. Ours, for example, is at—we view ourselves as a national nanotechnology resource. It is $3 billion of investment there. To not leverage that for small and medium-sized companies in a variety of applications is a huge lost opportunity. The same, though, for rolling production of—in polymers and fibers. There are different challenges there, but there is a need to focus the investment in key integration points. I think PCAST calls it ''innovation clustering.'' Now it is not to say that all of the jobs happen there. It is that middle that—what NIST ATP is trying to do, you are supporting it through infrastructure, and that lowers the risk, lowers the cost for the companies to engage work together, leverage each other's resources, and pull their resources towards a common end. And I could envision having centers like this established around the country in—focused on different production or applications for nanotechnology, depending on the particular area and in—of advancement. Certainly Europe is doing it. Asia is doing it. If we don't do it, I think we are going to find ourselves losing the economic rewards.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. CASSADY. I would be pleased to provide further responses after I consult with colleagues, but I think the idea, and the idea that we are pursuing at Oregon State, is very similar, that is creates centers of innovation. Our research universities are centers of innovation, but find a way to create places where we can translate that out in a way that is more than rhetoric, that—where it actually occurs. And you need places where you can bring these teams together to move these ideas into products and eventually into businesses.
Chairman INGLIS. The gentleman yields back.
And I want to thank you all for coming. As you hear, we have got votes on over at the House Chamber. Thank you for allowing me to run out to a couple of votes at the Judiciary Committee. As you see, we get our good exercise around here.
And I very much want to thank you for coming to share your thoughts. It has been a very helpful hearing for me, and I am sure for others. And we look forward to working with you on these exciting developments.
Thank you for coming.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by John M. Cassady, Vice President for Research, Oregon State University
Questions submitted by Representative Dave G. Reichert
Q1. Under funding from the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, researchers at Washington State University in my state are using nanotechnology to develop new energy production systems based on piezoelectric materials and nanotubes for energy switching. Although such technologies have significant potential for security and consumer applications, development of the technology for applications can be expensive and time consuming.
Q1a. What role could national laboratories play in helping move significant new technologies enabled through nanotechnology from university research to applications?
A1a. I believe the best group to answer this would be our national laboratory administrators. We are working very closely with PNNL and I will discuss this with my counterpart there, Dr. Len Peters. Question is how they would view in-licensing. The partnerships we now have to develop joint proposals lead to access to support that academic PIS normally do not have. In some cases, this may lead to development.
Q1b. When multiple organizations, all of which are funded by the Federal Government, are involved in such work, how can the universities continue to receive appropriate credit in accordance with the Bayh-Dole Act without directly licensing the technology to the national laboratories for further development?
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A1b. These relationships are framed by agreements (MOUs) that address issues of licensing, commercialization and revenue sharing. That is if you mean by ''appropriate credit'' licensing income. These agreements are always negotiated up-front. The national lab might have first right-of-refusal on licensing the technology and could be involved in further managing development.
These responses had input from Skip Rung, Director, ONAMI.
Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record
STATEMENT OF BOB GREGG
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
FEI COMPANY
Chairman Inglis:
Thank you for providing the opportunity for us to express our observations on the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
I am Bob Gregg, Executive Vice President of FEI Company. Our corporate headquarters are in Oregon, and we have 1,800 employees. Our association with nanotechnology derives from the tools we build and the diverse international markets and customers that we serve. FEI develops, manufactures, distributes, and services transmission and scanning electron microscopes and dual ion and electron beam tools. Our tools enable nanotechnology by allowing materials and devices to be observed over a size range of eleven orders of magnitude. The tools are used to observe, characterize, manipulate, and modify structures. They allow human vision to be continuously extended from the naked eye to the macro- and micro-worlds, down to the meso- and the nano-scale and below. Because of the existence of these tools, the imaging of atoms is routine. This level of performance capability is necessary to further not only basic research, but also to enable industry to manufacture at economic levels of yield. Our products are used worldwide in academia, institutes, and industries for research, prototyping, and production. FEI's designated markets are NanoElectronics, NanoBiology, and NanoResearch. Our sales revenues are evenly distributed among the Asian, European and North American markets. In 2004 our revenues approached $500 million.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have been selected by the DOE as the primary contractor on the TEAM project which is intent on building the highest resolution electron microscope in the world. This instrument is targeting subatomic resolution levels and will lead to a new generation of more powerful research tools. FEI Company is also actively pursuing initiatives with government entities in the area of researching proteomics and in technical education.
As a consequence of our business activities that are on the forefront of nanotechnology developments, we believe that we can offer a unique global perspective on the National Nanotech Initiative and its impact on U.S. economic development.
Our comments are directed at actions that are needed to stimulate a more direct connection between academic science research and the economic growth of the Nation. The task is to prioritize and then channel the basic research we require into the academic research community in order for U.S. industry to meet its strategic objectives. The need is for a structured and sustained dialogue between U.S. industry and Government research policy makers. If we do not succeed in this, the U.S. will become a net importer of foreign nanotechnology-based products in the future with serious negative consequences to the social welfare and standard of living of all U.S. citizens.
We restrict our observations to the following points.
1. The announcement of the National Nanotech Initiative in the year 2000 had the purpose of stimulating and directing science to create a platform for new technologies and, by implication, a basis for maintaining economic growth. The initiative has succeeded admirably in revitalizing U.S. science. It has also had the effect of catalyzing other nations and economic blocs to actively compete for predominance in a future nanotechnology-based global economy. The U.S. now trails government investments in nanotechnology in Europe and Japan. This impacts our potential for innovation and, in turn, threatens our future economic growth.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. Competitive government bodies appear to have taken a business approach in positioning themselves for future success. The fundamental difference with the NNI approach is that other governments are gearing their strategies to rapid commercialization of nanotechnology. The objective is a rapid return-on-investment. Their approach is to focus their efforts into specific industrial enterprises that play to their strengths and then provide direct government investment to industry to accelerate product time-to-market.
3. It can be argued that the commercialization of nanotechnology is made more complex within the U.S. free-enterprise system, as there is no mechanism to allow government to make direct investment into the industrial sectors.
The current options for industry which are needed to embrace scientific research at the nanoscale are:
To finance their own R&D. The trend here is not encouraging as there is a shortage of skilled manpower within the U.S., and companies are under pressure to reduce overhead. The predictable result is either a reduction in the level of research or stretching the available R&D budgets by transferring operations to regions where talent and cost savings coincide.
To either identify (a) a scientific discovery at a university that has a commercial fit and negotiate the IP rights or (b) establish piecemeal, a research program with a given university department. For industry, this is a time-consuming, arduous task and difficult to sustain; for the university, the time and specific nature of the investigation may conflict with current constraints-and-reward system within the academic community.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To await academic business spin-offs financed by VCs to evolve to the point of proof-of-concept and engage in acquisition activity.
Relative to the process of direct government investment to industry, these routes extend the time needed for the commercialization of nanotechnology and put the development of U.S. nanotechnology-based international commerce at a disadvantage.
4. The last observation is that the U.S. is now fighting a war on two fronts. The obvious one is that against terrorism; the unstated one is the battle to dominate future nanotechnology-based industrial markets. The costs of the former are causing serious cuts in investment in the latter. As other nations competing with the U.S. are not burdened by this dilemma, our progress is again impeded. The long-term economic impact for the U.S. at this point in a new era of technology shift could be major and is probably being under-estimated.
What can we do to improve our current situation?
We note that research and development do not earn money—they cost money—and that our nation's wealth and prosperity is ultimately driven by the level and added value of our exports to other countries. Our economic growth is heavily influenced by our manufacturing industry. Our options to improve the NNI program within the existing national constraints are very limited and must focus on using the basic academic research resources available to us to directly contribute to economic growth. We must create mechanisms to allow existing industrial sectors that are now involved in building nanotechnology-based economies to communicate their basic research needs to government. The dialogue should be structured to enable industry to directly support government in setting priority areas and in creating and maintaining science/technology roadmaps.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In short, if the government is opposed to direct investment in industry to promote economic growth, it must use its power and responsibility to focus the efforts of the academic research community to support U.S. industry in competing in the coming nanotech-based economy.
The government, through its funding agencies, would create the appropriate incentives and conditions for funding. These programs would not only have the intent of direct funding, but would also create an environment and the rewards to encourage academic research as a team effort (nanotechnology will need a multidisciplinary approach), establish clear performance guidelines (already a reality for industrial-based research), and a tangible result (science directed to economic benefit).
We perceive that the original National Nanotechnology Initiative was carefully phrased, as the word ''technology'' implies an end product and thus some social/economic benefit. The current reality is, however, that all the funding is directed to ''nanoscience,'' and that while there is great promise of things to come, we have few new nanotechnology-based products in the public domain. This leads to a concern that, without more focus and evidence of progress, there could be either a public or political backlash that would be detrimental to U.S. commerce.
We urge the Committee to take every action within its power and sphere of influence to accelerate the transition from academically based science to commercially relevant technology.
We thank you for your attention.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
21195i.eps
21195j.eps
21195k.eps
21195l.eps
21195m.eps
21195n.eps
21195o.eps
21195p.eps
21195q.eps
21195r.eps
21195s.eps
21195t.eps
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
21195u.eps
21195v.eps
21195w.eps
21195x.eps
21195y.eps
21195z.eps
21195aa.eps
21195bb.eps
21195cc.eps
21195dd.eps
21195ee.eps
21195ff.eps
21195gg.eps
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
21195hh.eps
21195ii.eps
21195jj.eps
21195kk.eps
21195ll.eps
21195mm.eps
21195nn.eps
21195oo.eps
21195pp.eps
21195qq.eps
21195rr.eps
21195ss.eps
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
21195tt.eps
21195uu.eps
21195vv.eps
21195ww.eps
21195xx.eps
21195yy.eps
21195zz.eps
21195a3.eps
21195b3.eps
21195c3.eps
21195d3.eps
21195e3.eps
21195f3.eps
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
21195g3.eps
21195h3.eps
21195i3.eps
21195j3.eps
21195k3.eps
21195l3.eps
21195m3.eps
21195n3.eps
(Footnote 1 return)
Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, 2002.
(Footnote 2 return)
Lux Research, ''Sizing Nanotechnology's Value Chain,'' October 2004.
(Footnote 3 return)
Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology is the report on a workshop convened on September 30–October 1, 2003 by the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee, the interagency group that coordinates NNI activities. The report is available online at http://www.nano.gov/041805Initiatives.pdf.