[Senate Hearing 112-688]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-688
THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT:
MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIALIZATION,
AND JOB CREATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 14, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-182 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROY BLUNT, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK WARNER, Virginia MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK BEGICH, Alaska KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
DEAN HELLER, Nevada
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Todd Bertoson, Republican Staff Director
Jarrod Thompson, epublican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
MARK WARNER, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 14, 2011.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 3
Statement of Senator Boozman..................................... 4
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 6
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 6
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 60
Witnesses
Chad A. Mirkin, Director, Northwestern University International
Institute for Nanotechnology, Rathmann Professor of Chemistry,
Professor of Medicine, Professor of Materials Science and
Engineering, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Professor of
Chemical and Biological Engineering............................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Dr. Charles H. Romine, Acting Associate Director, Laboratory
Programs, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Diandra L. Leslie-Pelecky, Ph.D., Director, West Virginia Nano
Initiative; Professor of Physics, West Virginia University..... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Dr. Thomas O'Neal, Associate Vice President of Research, Office
of Research and Commercialization, University of Central
Florida........................................................ 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Dr. George McLendon, Howard H. Hughes Provost and Professor of
Chemistry, Rice University..................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Appendix
Hon. Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator from Arkansas, prepared statement.. 69
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Chad A. Mirkin by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 69
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 71
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 72
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 72
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Charles H. Romine
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 73
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 76
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 77
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 80
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 82
Response to written questions submitted to Diandra L. Leslie-
Pelecky, Ph.D. by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 83
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 85
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 88
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Thomas O'Neal by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 88
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 89
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 90
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 90
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. George McLendon
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 91
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 91
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 92
THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY
INVESTMENT: MANUFACTURING,
COMMERCIALIZATION, AND JOB CREATION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Science and Space,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Good morning. We are really looking forward
to this hearing. Senator Boozman and I are quite honored to
have the senior leadership of the full Commerce Committee here
with us. And so I want to turn it over first to the Chairman of
the Committee, Chairman Rockefeller, and then recognize the
Ranking Member, Senator Hutchison.
Mr. Chairman?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. A most courteous gesture. I want to repeat
what Senator Nelson said. I think the depth of knowledge that
you have--I prepared for this hearing, and it was brilliantly
prepared for me by a woman sitting behind me, and it was one of
the best briefings I've ever gotten. And what it basically does
is--because we were doing this 12 years ago, if you can
remember. We had little demonstrations out here on the floor,
and we didn't know what we were looking at. And the people who
were explaining it didn't know how to explain it. And then here
you come absolutely brilliant, top people in the country.
So we're at a place today where big advances in technology
are happening at a very small level, stunningly small.
Everything from biotechnology tools to detect early stage
Alzheimer's disease, which is extraordinarily interesting, to
soon reducing your computer's entire memory to the size of a
single tiny chip. I can't believe that.
And, Dr. Mirkin, you're going to tell me why it's true.
Just over ten years ago, the government created the
National Nanotechnology Initiative to focus on this issue, and
that was a very wise move. That early and sustained commitment
has translated into U.S. global leadership in nanotechnology
research, for the moment, and development and
commercialization. So there are very significant economic
incentives to maintain our lead in this field. We have had lots
of leads in lots of areas, math and science and all kinds of
things. But we don't have it any longer, and we don't want this
to follow that path.
Others are very aggressive on their own projections for
commercialization of this technology. It was about $200 billion
in 2009. You're projecting a trillion dollars by 2015. That's
actually just two and a half years from now, maybe a little bit
more than that.
Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize such
areas as health care, which is incredibly important to me,
information technology; energy, also important; homeland
security; food safety; and transportation.
At a time when Americans and American businesses are
struggling financially, we've got to do whatever we can. And
all of a sudden, we're presented with this enormous gift which
could employ millions of people, if they were trained to so do.
Now, if Dow Chemical is telling me that they can't--because
their engineers are retiring and that they can't replace them,
in a chemical company, then that makes me really worry about
nanotechnology and what we're actually doing about that in this
era of budget cuts. And I want us to talk about that.
Germany and Japan are hot after all of this. So are China
and South Korea. They're commercializing investments to take
advantage of this growing nanotechnology product market.
I really look forward to hearing from you. I always say
that every time I chair a hearing. But I really mean it. You're
extraordinary people in your backgrounds and in the knowledge
that you have.
I have to put a plug, obviously, in for West Virginia, and
I can do that very easily through Dr. Diandra Leslie-Pelecky,
who is here, and has a whole group of researchers all over the
state of West Virginia helping her on this subject. And she
leads something called the West Virginia Nanotechnology
Initiative, WVNano, which started back in 2004. It was started
back in 2004, and the program focus is on stimulating research
in nanoscience. I couldn't be more pleased to welcome the new
director with us here today.
She's an expert in the use of magnetic nanoparticles for
medical diagnosis, treatment, and drug delivery. And one of the
things which perks my imagination-- she's also known for making
science accessible to everybody and, therefore, has even
written a book called ``The Physics of NASCAR,'' which has to
do with nanotechnology, I assume.
In any event, I'm really proud that you're here
representing our state.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your more than good courtesy.
[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
I want to thank you all for being here today to discuss what some
have referred to as ``the next industrial revolution.'' We are at a
place today where big advances on technology are happening at a very
small level--everything from bio-technology tools to detect early stage
Alzheimer's disease, to soon reducing your computer's entire memory to
the size of a single tiny chip.
Just over 10 years ago, the government created a National
Nanotechnology Initiative to focus on this issue. That early and
sustained commitment has translated into U.S. global leadership in
nanotechnology research and development and commercialization.
There are significant economic and societal incentives to maintain
our lead in this field. The global market for nanotechnology-related
products was more than $200 billion in 2009, and projections suggesting
that it will reach $1 trillion by 2015. With this growth, comes demand
for workers with nanotechnology-related skills.
Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize such areas as
health care, information technology, energy, homeland security, food
safety, and transportation.
At a time when Americans and American businesses are struggling
financially, we must do whatever we can to stimulate the economy. This
Committee has spent a lot of time this Congress focusing on job
creation and manufacturing. I believe nanotechnology plays a key role
in boosting the economy and creating jobs.
Like all science and technology efforts, however, our international
competitors are catching up and increasing their investments in this
area. China, South Korea, Germany, Japan and others are commercializing
their investments to take advantage of the growing nanotechnology
product market. If we wait too long, these countries will surpass us.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the best ways to
turn our nation's early research lead into successful commercialization
to create businesses and jobs here in the United States.
Realizing the potential of nanotechnology, my own state of West
Virginia established the West Virginia Nanotechnology Initiative--or
WVNano--back in 2004. The program focuses on stimulating research in
nanoscience, and I couldn't be more pleased to welcome the new director
here with us today.
Dr. Diandra Leslie-Pelecky is an expert in the use of magnetic
nanoparticles for medical diagnosis, treatment, and drug delivery. In
her role as director of WVNano, she works with about 40 researchers
throughout the state at West Virginia University, Marshall University,
and West Virginia State University to advance nanoscale science,
engineering, and education.
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky is also known for making science accessible
everyone--including explaining physics through a book she authored
titled, The Physics of NASCAR. As I'm sure you know, not every student
is found in a classroom, and I think you will find my colleagues and I
ready to learn from you today.
I'd like to thank you all again for being here today and look
forward to your testimony.
Senator Nelson. My pleasure.
Senator Hutchison?
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
for recognizing Chairman Rockefeller and me. And I hope you
realize that holding this hearing means we think it is a real
priority for this Committee to reauthorize the National
Nanotechnology Initiative.
Nanotechnology is one of the few growing sectors of the
economy. And the United States must do more to take advantage
of this great growth and our own leadership in this field. For
example, the Nobel Laureates who discovered the buckyball
molecule, which is a building block of nanotechnology, were
Rice University professors Dr. Richard Smalley and Dr. Bob
Curl.
And so I am very pleased that we have with us today the
Provost of Rice University, Dr. George McLendon. And thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for granting my request to have him come and
testify, because I do feel like Texas has taken a leadership
role in this field.
I hope that we can go forward and reauthorize the National
Nanotechnology Initiative with the same spirit that we have had
in Texas. We must share information and collaborate with the
different centers of excellence to go into the many different
fields of nanotechnology. And if we prioritize the consortia
and the collaboration, that's how we will really keep our
preeminence in this vital field.
Just as an example, Rice University houses the Consortium
for Nanomaterials for Aerospace Commerce Technology which
includes other universities such as the University of Texas.
And it is developing nanotechnology applications to recharge
personal digital assistants and to power unmanned aerial
vehicles, which are increasingly used by our military. And so
these are some of the outgrowths of this nanotechnology
research that have come about through a consortium of engineers
as well as scientists coming together to make the products with
the research.
But as we are going forward on the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, we've got to realize that America led because of
our pro-innovation incentives. We started the R&D tax credit
that has really put America in the forefront. But other
countries have now adopted our successful formula, and the R&D
tax credits in other countries are now stronger and better than
America's. Ours is more incremental and is not permanent. So
every couple of years, we have to come back and reauthorize the
R&D tax credit. One of the things that we should recommend out
of this committee is that we make the R&D tax credit permanent,
because it has been a foundation of our innovation and has
helped us so much. So I look forward to working with all of you
on this.
I thank you, Senator Nelson, for making it a priority for
your Subcommittee to hold this hearing so we can gain the
knowledge from the researchers on the ground to know how better
to utilize our resources and what the future promises.
Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Senator Boozman?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am very
much looking forward to hearing from these witnesses and
working with you on this important issue of nanotechnology
research and development.
There's no doubt that advances in science and engineering
are essential for ensuring America's economic growth and global
competitiveness. Amongst these advances, the Federal investment
in basic research in nanotechnology has been a striking success
story. From its original beginnings as a niche science,
nanotechnology R&D now spans across disciplines and has a
burgeoning global market.
The field continues to have great potential in addressing
some of the grand challenges facing our Nation in energy,
defense, healthcare, water, and agriculture. Both industry and
academia have acknowledged the effectiveness of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. And over time, the NNI has
established a track record and reputation as a successful and
cooperative organization. A great part of that success is that
the NNI has leveraged the strengths of our scientific agencies,
focusing primarily on the development of fundamental scientific
knowledge through basic research while at the same time
interfacing with industry and universities.
The NNI's effectiveness is increasingly necessary. Analysts
have forecast that by 2014, products incorporating
nanotechnology will rise to 15 percent of all global
manufacturing, worth $2.6 trillion. All states, big and small,
should be able to supply the growing market for nano-enabled
products. And while nanotechnology R&D is more broadly
distributed geographically than other scientific disciplines,
the growth in nanotechnology R&D in EPSCoR states should be,
and could be, greater.
Fortunately, my home state of Arkansas has laid the
groundwork of research infrastructure to take advantage of
market growth. The University of Arkansas system now has a
nationally recognized Nanotechnology Center and Institute for
Nanoscience and Engineering. And the university system has
committed to build a regional institute for nanoscale material
science and engineering in the near future.
The university system helped to develop NanoMech, whose
primary products, TuffTek, which allows tools to last three
times longer, and NanoGlide, which makes oil 30 to 50 times
more efficient, are part of the $20 billion market Arkansas
will now have access to. Furthermore, considering that Arkansas
is home to major business entities, corporate, agriculture, and
retail that would be excellent customers for nanotechnology
businesses, it becomes clear that any state, regardless of
their size, should be capable of building their innovation
infrastructure to be able to conduct cutting edge
nanotechnology R&D.
The President's proposed signature initiatives in solar
energy, nanomanufacturing and nanoelectronics should not become
bi-coastal research and commercialization consortia. The very
interdisciplinary nature of the nanotechnology research
suggests that signature initiatives should be national
collaborations involving a wide variety of research
institutions. In fact, in the report on the NNI, the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
acknowledged the need for the NNI to improve its outreach to
states, stating the need for engaging in closer and more
frequent interactions with states which could provide important
leverage of resources for the NNI.
As competition for leadership in nanotechnology has
intensified with Brazil, Russia, India, China, and the EU all
matching U.S. investments in nanotechnology research, we must
align nanotechnology R&D stakeholders and use our Federal
dollars efficiently and effectively. Ultimately, we all want
the U.S. to continue to be a nanotechnology leader and a place
where talented people engage in cutting edge research, where
companies can develop products, and where graduate students can
learn.
I very much look forward to hearing from the witnesses. We
appreciate you being here. We appreciate the hard work and the
fact that today we truly are going to hear about a success
story.
Thank you. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. It's my understanding that Senator Ayotte
wants to make a comment.
Please.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this
hearing. In my state of New Hampshire, we are fortunate to have
two companies doing innovative work in the nanotechnology
field. Nanocomp Technologies in Concord is the nation's leading
manufacturers of advanced carbon nanotube materials. They are
leveraging Federal and private dollars to build the Nation's
leading center for the manufacturing of 21st century products.
In the next 2 years, the company expects its workforce to
increase by a factor of seven. For the past 14 years, Swanzey,
New Hampshire has been the home of Moore Nanotech, which has
quickly become a leader in state-of-the-art, ultra-precision
manufacturing systems and advanced optics.
With so much innovation in my state and across the country,
I'm excited about this hearing today. I want to drill down on
this rapidly growing field and have a discussion about how our
Federal research dollars are being invested, so that we can
help continue to foster a positive climate to create jobs in
this exciting field. I also want to align myself with the
comments of Ranking Member Hutchison regarding the R&D tax
credit. I firmly believe we should make them permanent and
would further encourage investment not only in this field but
in other fields of manufacturing across this country.
So thank you for being here today. I look forward to
hearing the witnesses.
Senator Nelson. Senator Blunt?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. I'm glad to be here.
I'm looking forward to the witnesses.
We do have a significant nanotech effort in Missouri at
Missouri State University in Springfield, where I live, and, in
fact, at the Jordan Valley Innovation Center, lots of nanotech
work focused on seeing what we can do to harden our satellites
and other things that may be able to replace big equipment that
would be really hard to replace, square inch for square inch,
with equipment that does the same job that's much more
resistant to electro pulse, magnetic pulse attacks and things
like that.
This is an important hearing, and I'm glad to be here to
listen and learn. And thanks for holding it.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senators. And I've reserved my
comments, mainly to introduce our very distinguished panel.
But this is quite extraordinary. We're talking about gold
nanoparticles that can detect prostate cancer. We're talking
about ``buckypaper'' that can end up being 250 times the
strength of steel and 10 times lighter. We're talking about
carbon nanotubes put directly on a metal surface that results
in much longer life batteries and powerful energy storage
devices.
And so what we want to do is examine--now that we have this
interagency initiative called the National Nanotechnology
Initiative--what we need to do to keep this going so that the
genius of America can blossom to continue this research, and
then so the genius of America can be encouraged to take that
research and development and get it out into the commercial
sector. And we want to look at things like international
standards, understanding that the absence of standards could
also be a hindrance to commercialization, because if venture
capitalists don't have something that they consider to be
certain, then that could delay the commercialization of these
products.
This is a distinguished panel. I'll take the parochial
privilege of pointing out Dr. Tom O'Neal from my home area of
central Florida, from our university there, that heads up the
business incubation program, and they're just doing great
things there.
We also have the jurisdiction under this subcommittee of
America's space program. We know that the space program is
transitioning, and we're going from one set of rockets that
have been so reliable for us called the Space Shuttle for 30
years, not without tragedy. Now we're going to two new
different lines of rockets, one to and from the Space Station,
and another, the big rocket. But in the process, we're going to
be more efficient, and what we need to do is diversify.
This subject area of nanotechnology is another opportunity,
Dr. O'Neal, of taking your expertise in your incubator and
expanding a lot of the role in and around the Kennedy Space
Center with the extraordinary talent that is available to put
them to use on this.
Dr. Chad Mirkin is the Director of the International
Institute for Nanotechnology at Northwestern and a member of
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
He's the founder of three nanotechnology companies that are
commercializing the fruits of his research.
Dr. Charles Romine is the Acting Associate Director for
Laboratory Programs and the Principal Deputy in the Office of
the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
And we want you to talk about those standards, Dr. Romine.
And he's going to discuss the work of the NIST Center for
Nanoscale Science and Technology and NIST's broader role. And
then Dr. Diandra Leslie-Pelecky who Senator Rockefeller has
already introduced--she is the Director of the West Virginia
Nanotechnology Initiative and a professor of physics.
We're looking forward to your testimony.
Dr. George McLendon is the Hughes Provost and Professor of
Chemistry at Rice. His testimony will discuss how
nanotechnology can help address our nation's challenges in
energy independence--does that sound familiar?--healthcare--
does that sound familiar?--economic growth--does that sound
especially sound familiar?--and, of course, keeping America
competitive in a changing global marketplace.
So we welcome all of you here. I thank the chairman and the
ranking member for their presence. And shall we just start from
that side of the table and just go right on down?
Instead of just sitting there and reading a speech, as much
as you can, talk it. And then keep it about 5 minutes so that
we can really get into some good give-and-take.
Dr. Mirkin?
STATEMENT OF CHAD A. MIRKIN, DIRECTOR, NORTHWESTERN
UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
NANOTECHNOLOGY, RATHMANN PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY,
PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE, PROFESSOR OF MATERIALS
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, PROFESSOR OF BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING, PROFESSOR OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Dr. Mirkin. Thank you. Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member
Boozman, and members of the Committee, thanks for the privilege
and honor to provide testimony today regarding the NNI.
As Chairman Nelson said, I come from Northwestern
University, where I run one of the largest institutes for
nanotechnology in the country. We have hundreds of students and
post-docs working in this area and contributing to the
development of the field.
In addition, I have been involved in two of the largest
policy reports that evaluated the NNI and also the U.S.'s
position in the world in nanotechnology. We just finished a
very large study where we traveled all over the world--to four
different countries, where we brought together 35 different
countries, or representatives from 35 different countries, to
tell us about what they've been doing, some of the strategies
they've been taking, and we learned a lot from that. And we
learned a lot about where we stand compared to them and how far
we have to go and some of the great things that are happening
not only in the U.S. but also in the rest of the world.
I've also been involved in starting three companies, one of
which has gone public--it's traded on the NASDAQ--called
NanoSphere. The other two are private companies, AuraSense and
NanoInk. They employ hundreds of people and, hopefully, 1 day
soon, thousands of people. And they represent, I think, some of
the first real dividends from the early investments in the NNI,
and I'm very proud to be a part of them.
Consequently, I have a pretty broad view of the field and
an understanding of some of the issues facing it. If we step
back and look at what's happened over the last decade, I don't
think anybody would argue that the first 10 years of the NNI
has been an overwhelming success. The visibility and societal
importance of nanoscale science and engineering and technology
have been confirmed, while extreme predictions--and I'm sure
you remember in the early days, they were extreme, both pro and
con--they've receded. And so we've gotten down to the serious
business of real science, finding out what we can really do
with this field and making real advances in the development of
important technologies.
The field has been recognized as revolutionary and
comparable with the introduction of the biotechnology and
digital information revolutions. And the U.S. is positioned to
make extraordinary strides over the next 10 years. But, as I
said, it's clear the rest of the world now understands the
importance of the field, and many countries are building
efforts that rival what has been established by the NNI. This
includes dozens of institutes throughout Asia, the Mideast, and
Europe.
If the United States does not act now and aggressively
pursue development of nanoscience and nanotechnology, we will
lose our position as a global leader in this transformative
field. Moreover, and maybe more importantly, we will lose the
opportunities it can afford us to build our economy and new
manufacturing base.
So why is there so much interest in nanotechnology? The
reason is simple and we've heard allusions to it: it really has
the potential to transform almost every aspect of our lives by
providing rapid routes to addressing some of the most pressing
problems in healthcare, electronics, energy, and the
environment, just to name a few. Anywhere where materials are
important, nanotechnology is going to play a big role.
Take, for example, a technology like gene regulation. A few
decades ago, this technology held the promise of treating and
potentially curing some of the most debilitating diseases,
including cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders like
Alzheimer's disease, and many forms of cancer. As scientists
and doctors, we have learned that it is not an easy technology
to implement and requires materials that can deliver the
genetic drugs effectively and without toxicity.
The good news is that researchers are now discovering all
sorts of nanomaterials through NNI funded efforts, like the
National Cancer Institute's Centers of Cancer Nanotechnology
Excellence, that show extraordinary promise for the effective
use of such therapies in humans. I'm convinced that
nanotechnology will play a lead role in finding the cures to
many of these diseases and not just in the long term--but in
the short term. I think there are real major inroads that have
been made in the last decade that will contribute to that goal.
On the diagnostic side, meaning medical diagnostics, the
NNI funded efforts like the NSF's Science and Engineering
Centers have discovered powerful new ways of detecting and
tracking disease markers at very early stages, stages that
cannot be detected with conventional tools and when
therapeutics can be more effective. Several of these
technologies are FDA cleared and commercialized. And after only
a decade, it is just simply remarkable to see what scientists
would call basic science, the early stages of science, already
transitioned into meaningful commercial successes.
That is an incredible feat, to do that in only 10 years. If
you follow technological development and commercialization, it
usually takes much longer. Innovation and the related job
creation will likely continue at an accelerated rate if we
maintain a well coordinated and implemented NNI.
What are the challenges going forward? In my opinion, we
should not be discussing the renewal of the NNI but rather its
expansion. That's a tough but critical decision in troubled
economic times. The United States simply cannot afford to lose
its competitive edge in nanotechnology over the next decade.
There are three primary areas which need to be addressed
over the next decade, and they pertain to management of the
NNI, which is a big beast to navigate and steer, and to do it
effectively; developing strategies for future investment in
both research and education and training--that's really the
core; and then dealing with environment, health, and safety
(EHS) issues potentially posed by nanotechnology. I'm going to
only share my recommendations with respect to one of these. We
have other experts that are going to talk about the EHS issues,
and I've testified in my written testimony on some of the
management issues.
With regard to strategies for future investments, the NNI
should maintain a parallel focus on basic research, the
discovery part of research, and its translation into
commercializable products and processes. You can't have the
latter without the former. So it would be crazy to not invest
heavily in basic research while we begin to translate the early
fruits of that basic research into commercializable
technologies that can lead to companies that will create jobs
and build our economy.
With a budget planning process coordinated by OSTP, each
agency should continuously reevaluate its NNI balance of
investments among the program component areas. There are
several program component areas if you look at the reports.
Each area should enhance its focus on commercialization and--
this is key--double its investment in nanomanufacturing over
the next 5 years, while maintaining the current level of
investment in basic research. So, again, we harvest what we
initially planted a decade ago.
The NNI should have a focus on signature initiatives in
areas such as nanomedicine, advanced nanomanufacturing,
nanoelectronics and photonics, nanomaterials for energy
applications, and environmental monitoring and remediation.
Each signature initiative's lead agency should develop
coordinated milestones, promote strong educational components,
and create public-private partnerships to leverage the outcomes
of the initiatives.
The opportunities in this field are immense, but we need a
way to identify and coordinate national centers of excellence
to act as international hubs to attract and keep the best and
the brightest in the field and train the next generation of
workers and leaders in nanomanufacturing in the U.S. That's
central here, taking advantage of the whole pool, in this case.
In conclusion, advances in nanotechnology will continue to
play a critical part on the world economic stage. And it is
imperative that the U.S. continue to support, strengthen, and
expand the NNI in order to maintain its competitive edge.
I thank you for your time, attention, and service to the
country, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
The prepared statement of Dr. Mirkin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chad A. Mirkin, Director, Northwestern University
International Institute for Nanotechnology, Rathmann Professor of
Chemistry, Professor of Medicine, Professor of Materials Science and
Engineering, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Professor of Chemical
and Biological Engineering
Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Committee, Thank you for the privilege and honor to provide testimony
today regarding the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). This
testimony provides my personal perspective on the issue that is the
subject of this hearing, and does not necessarily reflect that of any
organizations with which I affiliated.
I am Chad Mirkin, a Professor at Northwestern University and
Director of the Northwestern University International Institute for
Nanotechnology, one of the largest university nanotechnology centers in
the world. I also am a member of the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) and contributed to their report titled,
``Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative.'' In addition, I served as a co-
chair on the science policy report committee, coordinated by the World
Technology Evaluation Center, which produced ``Nanotechnology Research
Directions for Societal Needs in 2020,'' an analysis of world
accomplishments in nanotechnology during the first ten years of the NNI
and an assessment of the prospects for the next ten years. This report
had input from leading experts from academia, industry, and government
from over 35 countries in forums held in four different countries last
year. In addition, I have started three nanotech companies, Nanosphere,
NanoInk, and AuraSense, which have commercialized NNI-sponsored
university-based inventions, generated hundreds of new jobs, and begun
to build a new economic and manufacturing base for the Nation.
Consequently, I have a fairly broad view of the field and an
understanding of some of the issues facing the United States as it
tries to maintain a leadership position within it.
The first ten years of the NNI have been an overwhelming success.
The visibility and societal importance of nanoscale science,
engineering, and technology have been confirmed, while extreme
predictions, both pro and con, have receded. The field has been
recognized as revolutionary and comparable to the introduction of the
biotechnology and digital information revolutions. The worldwide market
for products incorporating nanotechnology is significant and reached
about a quarter of a trillion dollars in 2009. This is just the ``tip
of the iceberg'', and the U.S. is positioned to make extraordinary
strides over the next ten years. However, the rest of the world now
understands the importance of this field, and many countries are
building efforts that rival what has been established by the NNI. This
includes dozens of institutes throughout China, Japan, Singapore,
Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and many countries in Europe, including Germany,
Switzerland, and Great Britain. If the United States does not act now
and aggressively pursue the development of nanoscience and
nanotechnology, we will lose our position as the global leader in this
transformative field; moreover, we will lose the opportunities it can
afford us to build our economy and new manufacturing base.
Why is there so much interest in nanotechnology? The reason is
simple; it has the potential to transform almost every aspect of our
lives by providing rapid routes to addressing some of the most pressing
problems in health care, electronics, energy, and the environment. One
of the lessons learned over the first ten years is that every material,
when miniaturized, has new properties, and many of these properties can
be used to create applications and technologies that solve these
problems.
Take for example, a technology like gene-regulation--a few decades
ago, this technology held the promise of treating and potentially
curing some of the most debilitating diseases, including cardiovascular
disease, neurological disorders like Alzheimer's disease, and many
forms of cancer. As scientists and doctors, we have learned that it is
not an easy technology to implement and requires materials that can
deliver the genetic drugs effectively and without toxicity. The fastest
way to new materials is through the miniaturization of existing
materials (a tenet of nanotechnology). Researchers are now discovering
all sorts of nanomaterials (through NNI-funded efforts like the
National Cancer Institute's Centers of Cancer Nanotechnology
Excellence) that show extraordinary promise for the effective use of
such therapies in humans. I am convinced that nanotechnology will play
a lead role in finding cures for these diseases.
On the diagnostic side, NNI-funded efforts like the National
Science Foundation's Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers have
discovered powerful new ways of detecting and tracking disease markers
at very early stages--stages that cannot be detected with conventional
tools and when therapeutics can be more effective. They have created
ways of differentiating patient populations to determine which ones
will respond to a given therapeutic and which ones will not. This not
only improves patient care but also substantially lowers the cost of
healthcare, since many costly therapeutics are now often broadly (and
needlessly) distributed to the American population, when their
effectiveness is in question for a significant portion of it.
In the area of energy, we need new advances in solar energy
technologies, batteries, and biofuels. Meaningful advances in these
areas have been hampered over the last decade because existing
materials do not offer the properties required for a given application.
Again, nanotechnology is leading the way to solving these problems. New
plants are being built and jobs are being created. Companies like A123
have used nanotechnological approaches to create powerful new batteries
that are being built in Michigan and will go into some of the current
and future lines of electric cars and commercial vehicles. After only a
decade, it is simply remarkable to see basic science already transition
into meaningful commercial successes. Innovation and the related job
creation will likely continue at an accelerated rate if we maintain a
well-coordinated, and implemented NNI.
What are the challenges going forward? Based upon my personal
observations and the Committee that wrote the world overview report, we
should not be discussing the renewal of the NNI but rather its
expansion--a tough but critical decision in troubled economic times.
The United States cannot afford to lose its competitive edge in
nanotechnology over the next decade, and an expanded, well-coordinated
and targeted NNI is the only effective way to accomplish this
objective.
There are three primary areas, which need to be addressed,
including:
1. Strengthening the NNI management structure,
2. Developing strategies for future investment in both research and
education/training, and
3. Dealing with environment, health, and safety (EHS) issues
potentially posed by nanotechnology.
I would like to share with you my recommendations in two of these
three areas. I will not focus on EHS since we have other experts
providing testimony on this topic.
In the management area, the National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office (or NNCO) should broaden its impact and efficacy and improve its
ability to coordinate and develop NNI programs and policies related to
those programs. The OSTP should facilitate these improvements by taking
the following actions:
First, require each agency in the NNI to have senior
representatives with decision-making authority participate in
coordination activities of the NNI.
Second, strengthen the NNCO to enhance its ability to act as
the coordinating entity for the NNI.
Third, mandate that the NNCO develop metrics for
nanotechnology-specific program outputs and that it work with
the Bureau of Economic Analysis to develop meaningful metrics
and to collect data on the economic impacts of the NNI. PCAST
estimated that 0.3 percent of NNI funding should be dedicated
to the NNCO in order to ensure the appropriate staffing and
budget to effectively develop, monitor, and assess NNI
programs.
With regard to strategies for future investments, the NNI should
maintain a parallel focus on basic research and its translation into
commercializable products and processes. We cannot have the latter
without the former.
With a budget planning process coordinated by OSTP, each agency
would continually re-evaluate its NNI balance of investments among the
Program Component Areas. Each area should enhance its focus on
commercialization and double its investment in nanomanufacturing over
the next five years, while maintaining the current level of investment
in basic research.
The NNI should have a focus on signature initiatives such as the
development of nanomaterials to enable the development of nanomedicine,
advanced nanomanufacturing, and nanomaterials for environmental
monitoring and remediation. Each Signature Initiative's lead agency
should develop coordinated milestones, promote strong educational
components, and create public-private partnerships to leverage the
outcomes of the Initiatives. Each lead agency also should develop
strategies for monitoring, evaluating, and disseminating outcomes. The
opportunities in this field are immense, but we need a way to identify
and coordinate national centers of excellence that act as international
hubs to attract the best and the brightest in the field, and train the
next generation of workers and leaders in nanomanufacturing.
In the area of education, the agencies of the NNI should continue
making investments in innovative and effective education, and the NNCO
should consider commissioning a comprehensive evaluation of the
outcomes of the overall investment in NNI education. As products are
being commercialized and nanotech industries are being built, we must
have a parallel effort in student training and education. These are the
folks who will become the workers and leaders in these new companies. I
just visited one of our companies, NanoInk, and they are producing
products that are very important to the pharmaceutical industry for
high throughput drug screening applications. Pharmaceutical companies
want to use these tools in-house immediately, but they do not have a
competent workforce available to handle them. Universities need to
train a new workforce and retrain an old one, so that these positions
can be filled with highly qualified individuals at the pace of the
nanotechnology industry development. The NNI should play an important
role in making this happen for the field at large.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that advances in nanotechnology
will continue to play a critical part on the world economic stage and
that it is imperative that the U.S. continue to support, strengthen,
and expand the NNI in order to maintain its competitive edge. I thank
you for your time, attention, and service to the country, and am happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Nelson. Thank you. Dr. Romine?
STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES H. ROMINE,
ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, LABORATORY PROGRAMS,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Romine. Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Boozman, and
members of the Subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to
appear before you today to testify about NIST's role in
nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing.
The administration has aggressively worked to promote the
growth of basic and applied nanotechnology. In February 2011,
the National Science and Technology Council released the
National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. NIST has a
key role in this initiative. As the benefits of the NNI
continue to accrue, the role of NIST and the breadth of its
innovation-related programs will become even more important in
ensuring that the end results match the promise in terms of new
jobs and revolutionary technologies that benefit the Nation's
economy and the American people.
NIST is uniquely equipped to develop the improvements in
measurements and standards that are essential for the adoption
of advanced technologies needed by U.S. manufacturers to
compete more effectively in the global technology-intensive
products market. The nanotechnology-related research conducted
in NIST's laboratories and user facilities develops
measurements, standards, and data crucial to a wide range of
industries and Federal agencies.
NIST has a history of serving the needs of manufacturing
sectors. One high-profile area of current support is in the
measurements of a nanoscale material, graphene. Graphene, the
subject of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics, is one of the most
promising materials for the next generation of semiconductor
devices needed to make electronic devices ever smaller and
faster.
Working closely with academic and industrial partners, NIST
has recently completed the most advanced ultra-low temperature
scanning probe microscope in the world, allowing an
international team of researchers to measure key properties of
graphene. As a result of NIST research, multiple components of
this microscope are now products being sold by U.S. companies.
NIST has a history of working with industry through public-
private partnerships and other consortia. For example, NIST's
partnership with the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, the
NRI, a consortium that brings together the semiconductor
electronics industry, government agencies, and universities,
has leveraged a modest NIST investment, $2.75 million per year,
by $5 million per year from industry partners and $15 million
per year from states to support projects at 30 universities to
work in 4 regional centers. The partnership has attracted state
and private funding to support business development and
commercialization. NIST-NRI interactions are currently
supporting over 100 graduate students and have produced
scientific publications as well as patented technologies.
The President's 2012 budget request outlines
nanomanufacturing research priorities at NIST that include
developing measurement capabilities for large-scale
nanomanufacturing and the manufacture of cost-competitive solar
technologies that incorporate nanoscale structures. As part of
the Materials Genome Initiative announced recently by the
President, NIST will work together with other agencies to
develop the design tools needed to accelerate materials
development for industry.
NIST will also continue close and targeted interaction with
other agencies in NNI's signature initiative, Sustainable
Manufacturing. In February 2011, NIST hosted a workshop in
support of this initiative on the topic of technical challenges
to the commercial development of high-performance carbon-based
nanomaterials.
Nanotechnology standards foster greater industry and
consumer confidence, resulting in accelerated deployment of new
products. NIST actively leads the development of international
nanotechnology standards and guidelines. An understanding of
the environmental, health, and safety of nanomaterials and
nanotechnology-based products, known as NanoEHS, is critical
for the responsible development and oversight of
nanotechnology. NIST research in NanoEHS provides the
underpinning science and measurement needed for a science-based
approach to risk management. In Fiscal Year 2012, NIST plans to
further develop validated measurement methods, tools,
standards, and protocols that help to enhance understanding of
the safety of nanomaterials.
NIST's Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology is the
nation's only nanotechnology user facility established with a
focus on commerce. An important goal of the NIST's CNST is to
reduce measurement barriers to innovation by providing access
to world-class nanoscale measurement and fabrication methods
and technologies. Industry access to these resources will help
accelerate nanotechnology transfer to the marketplace. The
number of commercial users has roughly doubled on an annual
basis over the past three years.
The nanofabrication facility at the CNST is a world-class
shared resource, home to major commercial measurement and
processing tools. The NanoFab has streamlined the process to
obtain access to the facility. In Fiscal Year 2010, the CNST
hosted nearly a thousand researchers, including a small company
whose entrepreneur needed the tools to turn an invention into a
working prototype, to a large company, using the CNST resources
to develop future supercomputing technologies.
The President's 2012 budget request includes $5.18 million
to replace and update the equipment in the CNST so that it can
continue to meet the needs of growing numbers of industry
customers and other stakeholders.
In conclusion, the breadth of the programmatic activities
uniquely positions NIST to provide the underpinnings that will
foster the transfer of new technologies into products for
commercial and public benefit.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss NIST's
nanomanufacturing activities, and I'm happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Romine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Charles H. Romine, Acting Associate Director,
Laboratory Programs, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Boozman, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to testify about the Department of Commerce's National Institute of
Standards and Technology's (NIST) role in nanotechnology and
nanomanufacturing.
The Administration has aggressively worked to promote the growth of
basic and applied nanotechnology. In February 2011, the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC) released the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Strategic Plan. The goals of this plan
are to advance a world-class nanotechnology research and development
program, move nanotechnology discoveries from the laboratory into new
products for commercial and public benefit, encourage more students and
teachers to become involved in nanotechnology education, create a
skilled workforce and the supporting infrastructure and tools to
advance nanotechnology and to support the responsible development of
nanotechnology.
NIST has a key role in this initiative, consistent with its mission
to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing
measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance
economic security and improve our quality of life.
Specifically, in the area of nanotechnology, NIST has a number of
existing and planned programs that support the development, adoption,
manufacture, commercialization, and use of nanotechnology-based
innovations and products. Furthermore, the NIST efforts in the area of
nanotechnology have been a key element of the NNI, of which NIST is one
of 25 participating agencies. As the benefits of the NNI continue to
accrue, the role of NIST and breadth of its innovation-related programs
will become even more important in ensuring that the end results match
the promise in terms of new jobs and revolutionary technologies that
benefit the Nation's economy and the American people.
Providing Industry with the Measurements and Technology to Support
Innovation
NIST is uniquely equipped to develop the improvements in
measurements and standards that are essential for the adoption of
advanced technologies needed by U.S. manufacturers to compete more
effectively in the global technology-intensive products market. The
nanotechnology-related research conducted in NIST's laboratories and
user facilities develops measurements, standards, and data crucial to a
wide range of industries and Federal agencies.
NIST has a history of serving the needs of manufacturing sectors.
NIST's work with the semiconductor electronics industry provides one
compelling example. The 2007 ``Economic Impact of Measurement in the
Semiconductor Industry'' report estimated that the $12 billion spent on
advancing measurement capabilities during the decade beginning in 1996
will have saved that sector more than $51 billion in scrap and rework
costs by 2011--a net benefit of $39 billion \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.nist.gov/director/planning/upload/report07-2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One high-profile area of current support to this industry is in
measurements of the nanoscale material graphene. Graphene, the subject
of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics, is one of the most promising
materials for the next generation of semiconductor devices needed to
make electronic devices ever smaller and faster. Working closely with
academic and industrial partners, NIST has recently completed the most
advanced ultra-low temperature scanning probe microscope in the world,
allowing an international team of researchers to measure key properties
of graphene with unprecedented resolution. This unique instrument
includes multiple components developed jointly with NIST that are now
products being sold by U.S. companies.
Measurements and modeling by NIST researchers are helping
electronics industry manufacturers to develop improved and new
processes for the nanofabrication of electronics components like
microprocessors and memory chips. For example, following on a
semiconductor industry roadmap determination that copper interconnects
would be needed to manufacture smaller and faster devices, NIST
researchers identified critical technical barriers and developed a new
predictive modeling tool. The model helped lower the cost of R&D and
reduced the time to production, resulting in an estimated NIST benefit-
to-cost ratio of 5.8 and a net benefit for industry of over $9 million,
according to a NIST 2008 economic analysis.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.nist.gov/director/planning/upload/report08-1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST employs a number of tools to enable technology and knowledge
transfer from NIST to promote U.S. competitiveness, including
cooperative R&D agreements, facility use agreements, and intellectual
property tools such as NIST inventions, patents, and licenses. NIST is
home to a significant number of Associates and Guest Researchers,
including summer undergraduate students and postdoctoral researchers,
who develop technical expertise at NIST before continuing in their
scientific careers.
NIST has a history of working with industry through public-private
partnerships and other consortia. These groups help drive manufacturing
research priorities and leverage investments. For example, NIST's
partnership with the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI), a
consortium that brings together the semiconductor electronics industry,
government agencies, and universities, has leveraged a modest NIST
investment ($2.75 million per year) by $5 million per year from
industry partners and $15 million per year from states to support
projects at 30 universities to work in 4 regional centers. The
partnership has attracted $110 million over 5 years in state and
private funding to support business development and commercialization.
NIST/NRI interactions are currently supporting 111 graduate students
and have produced 159 scientific publications as well as patented
technologies (3 issued and 2 filed). NIST is also engaged with industry
consortia in the areas of flexible electronics and neutron-based
measurements for the manufacture of soft materials such as chemicals,
petroleum products, and pharmaceuticals.
The President's 2012 budget request outlines research priorities at
NIST that are specific to needs in nanomanufacturing. This includes
developing the measurement knowledge and capabilities to enable cost-
effective in-line measurement techniques for closed-loop process
control, thereby overcoming a major obstacle to large-scale
nanomanufacturing. In addition, NIST researchers are planning to
develop and demonstrate measurement capabilities required to overcome
barriers to the manufacture of cost-competitive third-generation solar
technologies, which incorporate molecular films, quantum dots,
nanoscale crystals, and other nanoscale structures. As part of the
Materials Genome Initiative announced recently by the President, NIST
will work together with other agencies to develop the computational and
design tools needed to accelerate materials development for industry.
Also in Fiscal Year 2012, NIST will continue close and targeted
interaction with other agencies in the three NNI Nanotechnology
Signature Initiatives: Sustainable Nanomanufacturing, Nanotechnology
for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion, and Nanoelectronics for
2020 and Beyond. In February 2011, NIST organized and hosted a workshop
in support of the Sustainable Nanomanufacturing initiative, on the
topic of carbon nanostructured materials. This event brought together
stakeholders from industry, academia, and government to identify the
technical challenges to the commercial development of high-performance,
carbon-based nanomaterials, and discuss potential pathways to
establishing a public-private consortium to address these challenges.
Providing the Scientific Basis to Support the Safe and Responsible
Deployment of Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology standards foster greater industry and consumer
confidence, resulting in accelerated deployment of new products. NIST
staff members actively lead the development of international
nanotechnology standards and guidelines conducted through international
fora and coordinated with other agencies through the NSTC. Altogether
these activities create favorable conditions for the responsible
transfer of nanotechnologies into products for commercial and public
benefit.
An understanding of the environmental, health and safety aspects of
nanomaterials and nanotechnology-based products (NanoEHS) is critical
for the responsible development and oversight of nanotechnology. NIST
research in NanoEHS provides the underpinning science and measurement
needed for a science-based approach to risk management. Policymakers
and regulators can use the information to ensure that the U.S. is
supporting innovation, encouraging new technologies, and not creating
trade barriers.
NIST's NanoEHS activities provide information and data for research
institutions, regulatory agencies, the public, and industry. NIST
activities include the development of reference materials for widely
produced nanomaterials used in a broad range of applications, including
electronics, personal care products, and construction materials.
Examples include the first gold nanoparticle standard reference
material; providing technical support and help to lead development of
documentary standards that enable consistent and reproducible
measurements of nanomaterial properties; and developing instruments and
transferable methods to measure key properties of nanomaterials as
needed by industry and regulatory agencies to make sound, science-based
risk assessments.
NIST's Fiscal Year 2012 request will increase NIST's ability to
further develop validated measurement methods, tools, standards, and
protocols that help to enhance understanding of the safety of
nanomaterials and their mechanisms of interaction with the environment
and humans with a focus on nanomaterials of greatest concern based on
such factors as production volume, widespread use in products, and the
potential for hazard or likelihood of exposure.
NIST will continue to coordinate its NanoEHS program with other
Federal agencies' activities through the nanotechnology subcommittee of
the NSTC, using the 2011 NNI Environmental, Health and Safety Research
Strategy \3\ as a framing document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Draft publicly available; awaiting final clearance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing Industry and Academia Access to Advanced Nanofabrication
Facilities
NIST's Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST), is the
Nation's only nanotechnology user facility established with a focus on
commerce. An important goal of the NIST CNST is to reduce measurement
barriers to innovation, by providing industry, academia, and other
government agencies with access to world-class nanoscale measurement
and fabrication methods and technology. NIST has undertaken a sustained
effort to reach out to industrial researchers whose access to these
resources will help accelerate nanotechnology transfer to the
marketplace; the number of industry users has roughly doubled on an
annual basis since Fiscal Year 2008.
The NIST CNST mission is guided by an understanding that rapid
commercial development of nanotechnology--in particular, the speed with
which industry can bring a specific new nanotechnology from discovery
to production--depends critically on the availability and efficacy of
applicable metrology tools and processes at each stage of the
transition. Developing these tools and processes will have an immediate
and significant impact on the commercial viability of nanotechnologies
in a diverse array of fields, such as electronics, computation,
information storage, medical diagnostics and therapeutics, and national
security and defense.
The Nanofabrication facility (NanoFab) at the NIST CNST is a world-
class, 60,000 square foot shared resource for nanofabrication and
measurement--with over 19,000 square feet of cleanroom laboratory space
and over 90 major commercial measurement and processing tools. To meet
specific needs of industry, the NIST NanoFab has created a rapid, easy
process for users to obtain equitable access to the facility, whether
or not they are doing proprietary research. Research at the NIST
NanoFab can be done by individual users or alongside a technical expert
from the NIST NanoFab staff, imparting flexibility to industry users
depending on the nature of the research and individual competencies.
In the few years since its inception, the NIST CNST has become a
major national resource for nanoscale science and the development of
nanotechnology. Having now completed its initial ramp up in staff,
equipment, facilities, and processes, the NIST CNST is continuing to
expand on its strategic relationships and collaborations with
industrial and academic partners.
In Fiscal Year 2010 the NIST CNST hosted nearly 1,000 researchers
from companies, government institutions, and universities from across
39 states and the District of Columbia; during the same period NIST
NanoFab tool use increased by 90 percent. Corporate researchers ranged
from a small company, needing the tools to turn an invention into a
working prototype, to a large company, using the NIST CNST resources to
reduce the development cycle time of future supercomputer technologies.
The President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request includes $5.18
million for the recapitalization of the NIST CNST. This funding is
needed to replace and update the equipment and instrumentation in the
NIST CNST so that it can continue to meet the nanoscale measurement and
fabrication needs of growing numbers of industry customers and other
stakeholders.
Accelerating the Development of Transformational Technologies
NIST external partnership programs provide a coordinated set of
activities to meet manufacturing challenges. The Technology Innovation
Program (TIP) funds small companies and joint ventures comprised of
businesses, institutions of higher education and other organizations
such as national laboratories or nonprofit research institutes to
support high-risk transformational R&D. The 2010 TIP competition
focused on manufacturing technologies, resulting in awards to small
companies and joint ventures producing a range of nanotechnology-
enabled products in areas including flexible liquid crystal displays,
organic photovoltaics, and lithium-ion batteries.
In its Fiscal Year 2012 budget request, the Administration proposed
the creation of the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia Program
(AMTech) at NIST. AMTech was also included in the President's recent
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) initiative that is aimed at
strengthening support for U.S. manufacturing. The AMTech program will
address a critical need for early stage technology development by
providing incentives for the formation of, and providing resources to,
industry-led consortia that will support precompetitive R&D, thereby
enabling technology development and creating the infrastructure
necessary for more efficient transfer of technology. AMTech builds on
lessons learned from NIST's partnership with the NRI, which I mentioned
previously. In addition, although similar to TIP in the pursuit of
high-risk, high-reward research, the AMTech program brings together
multiple players in the innovation cycle, under a single consortium, to
accelerate the pace of innovation in a particular industry sector. This
strategy has the potential to drive economic growth, enhance
competitiveness and spur the creation of jobs in high-value sectors of
the U.S. economy.
Finally, the nationwide network of Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) centers helps small and medium manufacturers
strengthen their competitive positions. The MEP system does this by
accelerating the adoption of technological innovations, facilitating
the adoption of environmentally sustainable business practices,
providing training and assistance to increase exports, promoting
renewable energy initiatives, fostering market diversification, and
connecting domestic suppliers to manufacturers. All of these services
are to assist manufacturers in successfully competing over the long
term in today's complex global manufacturing environment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is a breadth of programmatic activities at
NIST covering scientific discovery, measurement science, standards
development, and technology transfer relating to nanomanufacturing.
NIST programs span all stages of the innovation ecosystem that enable
the development and implementation of advanced technologies. These
programs will help U.S. industry become more efficient and competitive.
NIST is uniquely positioned to provide the scientific underpinnings for
these emerging technologies that will foster the transfer of new
technologies into products for commercial and public benefit.
I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to discuss NIST's
nanomanufacturing activities and I welcome the opportunity to answer
any questions you may have.
Dr. Charles (Chuck) H. Romine
Dr. Charles (Chuck) H. Romine serves as the Acting Associate
Director for NIST Laboratory Programs. He is responsible for oversight
and direction of NIST's six laboratory programs and is the principal
deputy to the NIST Director. The position of Associate Director for
Laboratory Programs was created in October 2010 as part of the first
major realignment of NIST programs in 20 years.
NIST's six laboratories include the Physical Measurement
Laboratory, Material Measurement Laboratory, Engineering Laboratory,
Information Technology Laboratory, the Center for Nanoscale Science and
Technology, and the NIST Center for Neutron Research. The NIST
Laboratories collaborate with U.S. industry and universities to conduct
measurement, standards, and technology research that advances the
Nation's R&D infrastructure. The overarching goal of the NIST
laboratory programs is to accelerate U.S. innovation, which is a major
driver of economic growth and job creation.
Prior to his appointment as the Acting Associate Director for
Laboratory Programs, Romine served as the Senior Policy Advisor to the
NIST Director and as the Associate Director for Program Implementation
within the NIST Information Technology Laboratory. He joined NIST in
2009 after serving for 5 years in the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy as the Senior Policy Analyst responsible for
providing expert technical and policy advice to the President's Science
Advisor for all areas related to information technology.
Romine began his career in 1986 with the Department of Energy after
receiving a Ph.D. in applied mathematics and a B.A. in mathematics,
both from the University of Virginia. He spent 15 years conducting
research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory on advanced algorithms for
supercomputers and 4 years at the Department of Energy Office of
Science as program manager for the Office of Advanced Scientific
Computing Research.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky?
STATEMENT OF DIANDRA L. LESLIE-PELECKY, Ph.D.,
DIRECTOR, WEST VIRGINIA NANO INITIATIVE; PROFESSOR
OF PHYSICS, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. Thank you very much. I'd like to echo
my colleagues' thanks for the invitation to testify here today.
And I want to emphasize this really isn't an abstract thanks,
because the NNI has had a huge impact on moving my own research
from very fundamental to more applied.
Just to give you an idea of what I do, I think most of you
in the room are old enough to remember a toy called Wooly
Willy. It's a picture of a guy's face with iron filings. You
use a magnet to make a beard and hair and things. I do the same
thing with magnetic nanoparticles.
What we do is we attach chemotherapy drugs to the magnetic
nanoparticles. We inject them, and then I use a magnet to hold
them where I want them, which is near cancer tumors. By doing
this, we concentrate the chemotherapy drugs. That allows them
to be more efficacious and also decreases side effects.
Now, our work has been funded by the National Science
Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. We've also
run into situations where our work is too disease-focused for
NSF but not quite disease-focused enough for NIH. Funding
agencies have started having coordinated funding--calls for
funding, but more coordination is necessary to ensure that
these ideas that are sort of out of the funding box don't get
lost and they can move from that eureka moment to actual
applications.
One of those interesting concepts that I've been learning
about is called bioactivity. And that characterizes how
nanomaterials interact with living organisms in the
environment. It should seem like bioactivity of a nanomaterial
is something we really ought to be able to predict. But it
turns out that the same surprising properties of nanomaterials
that make them so useful often sometimes surprise us when we
look at how they interact with the biological systems.
We can create new nanomaterials in a matter of days. It can
take us up to months to really understand the bioactivity of
those materials. We've developed an amazing ability to make new
materials. Now we need to advance the understanding of
bioactivity to catch up with our ability to make materials.
I moved to West Virginia recently in part because of the
proximity of West Virginia University to the National
Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health. Collaborations
between our two organizations are making exciting progress on
understanding the bioactivity of nanomaterials. One of those
lines of research is developing microfluidic devices for real-
time analyses. These devices could allow a researcher or a
company to learn within minutes how a brand new nanomaterial
would interact with different types of cells. These sensors
could be used to monitor the presence of nanoparticles in the
work environment. They could be used for homeland security
purposes. There are really exciting opportunities for companies
that are capable of doing rapid, accurate bioactivity
screening.
This knowledge is extremely valuable for industries.
Companies need the data to convince them to invest in new
technologies. They want to know that their products are safe,
and they want to know how to keep their workers safe. Even more
importantly, those companies which are developing new nano-
enabled products would benefit from better guidance as to the
likely bioactivity of new materials.
Now, the situation of not being able to predict bioactivity
greatly complicates regulation. It's basically like being asked
to referee a game for which you didn't know all the rules.
Consequently, nanomaterials have to be regulated on a case-by-
case basis according to their actual properties, not some
potentially superfluous characteristic such as size. That means
the regulatory agencies must be nimble and able to adapt as our
knowledge changes.
Let me conclude by briefly addressing a topic that
sometimes gets lost in all of our excitement about the
possibilities of nanomaterials, and that's the need for
education. So when I was in graduate school, I studied physics.
I worked with physicists. Now I study nanomedicine. I work with
medical doctors, biologists, toxicologists, pathologists, not
to mention chemists, engineers, and occasionally the odd
physicist or two.
Nanomaterials transcends boundaries. It's a very different
type of training than the discipline-based education that all
of us went through. We need to invest in developing the most
effective and efficient ways of educating the next generation
of scientists and engineers who will lead the way.
But we also need to educate lawyers and business people,
elected officials, regulatory officers, and venture capitalists
about the realities of nanotechnology, especially as they
pertain to specialized sectors of the economy, like energy,
health, and the environment.
Most importantly perhaps, in my view, is educating all
citizens to be able to make informed decisions about
nanotechnology. Nanomaterials will eventually affect all facets
of our lives, and some of them have been pointed out--
everything from medical care to the cars we drive and the food
we eat. Consumer understanding of nanomaterials is a
prerequisite to their acceptance and thus realizing the huge
potential of nanotechnology to improve our country, our
economy, and our quality of life.
The NNI has facilitated the growth and development of this
very important field. Reauthorization of the NNI must include
coordination of effort among multiple government agencies;
increasing understanding of nanomaterials bioactivity to
facilitate safe and responsible use; and supporting
infrastructure necessary for future research, development, and
commercialization.
Finally, the NNI must promote education at all levels, from
the future scientists and engineers that will enable us to
maintain global leadership in nanotechnology to helping the
public make informed decisions about the role nanotechnology
will play in their lives.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address you about
this very important issue.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leslie-Pelecky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Diandra L. Leslie-Pelecky, Ph.D., Director, West
Virginia Nano Initiative; Professor of Physics, West Virginia
University
The National Nanotechnology Initiative has had a tremendous
impact in producing new materials for potential commercial
applications, advancing fundamental knowledge, and developing a
scientific and engineering workforce that has made the United
States a global nanotechnology leader. Re-authorization of the
NNI will ensure that the U.S. retains this leadership and will
promote the transfer of basic knowledge to applications with
important economic and societal impacts in energy, health and
medicine, environmental monitoring and remediation, and
homeland security.
Nanotechnology is highly interdisciplinary and ranges from
basic research to applications, making it critical for funding
agencies to coordinate their efforts. Recent interagency calls
for proposals in targeted areas involving nanotechnology must
be continued and expanded upon to ensure that important
research areas receive the necessary support.
Realizing societal and economic benefits depends critically
on establishing scientifically valid principles for responsibly
developing and using nanotechnology.
We have much to learn about nanomaterial bioactivity:
how a material interacts with biological organisms and the
environment. In particular, we need to understand the
relationships between physicochemical properties of
nanomaterials and their bioactivity to enable ``safety by
design''.
Regulation of nanomaterials is important to corporate
and consumer adoption of this new technology. Companies
need confidence that their products and manufacturing
methods are safe for consumers and workers, while the
development of new nanomaterials and nanotechnologies will
benefit from being able to focus effort in the directions
that are most likely to produce safe products.
Nanomaterials are a unique form of matter and we do
not yet have all the knowledge we need to develop complete
regulations for nanomaterials. Acquiring this knowledge
must be a priority and nanomaterials regulation must remain
flexible enough to adapt to our evolving understanding.
A potentially large market exists for products and
services that determine nanomaterial bioactivity quickly
and precisely. Sectors that would benefit include
nanomanfacturing, homeland security, health and medicine,
and a wide spectrum of basic and applied research.
Nanotechnology research requires significant infrastructure
for its continued development. Once-exotic instruments like
electron microscopes are now basic tools for research and
development. Funding opportunities to acquire these basic tools
(some of which cost a half-million to a few million dollars)
need to be developed. New state-of-the-art tools need to be
invented and made available on a regional basis.
Education is a priority to ensure our continuing world
leadership in nanotechnology, to transfer basic discoveries to
applications, and to ensure public acceptance of
nanotechnology.
Educating the next generation of scientists and
engineers requires new models at undergraduate and graduate
levels that focus on integrating diverse fields without
sacrificing depth of knowledge in core disciplines;
Lawyers, businesspersons, venture capitalists, elected
officials, and government regulators need to acquire
knowledge about specific nanomaterials and their
applications to allow informed decision making;
Basic science and engineering education at the K-12
level is a pre-requisite for future scientists and
engineers--but more importantly, it is critical for all
citizens to develop fundamental scientific literacy so that
they can make informed decisions about the roles
nanomaterials will play in their lives.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Diandra
Leslie-Pelecky and I am the Director of the West Virginia Nano
Initiative and Professor of Physics at West Virginia University. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the impact of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and its reauthorization.
This is not an abstract thanks, as I am one of literally thousands
of scientists and engineers who have had the opportunity to contribute
in some small way to the huge advances in our understanding of
nanomaterials because of the government's commitment to nanotechnology
and its potential impact on our country's future through the NNI.
Reauthorization of the NNI will further our basic understanding of
nanomaterials, and help transform that knowledge into products and
services that will benefit the people of the United State and our
economy.
The idea that one can change the basic properties of a material
simply by changing its size introduced a major paradigm shift in
science and engineering. The possibilities for using nanomaterials to
solve some of the country's most important problems--like more
efficiently transforming and storing energy, or detecting diseases like
cancer when there are only a few cancerous cells present--are moving
ideas from the realm of science fiction to reality.
Despite having worked in nanomaterials my entire career, I had a
very traditional preparation to become a physicist. I started out
studying the fundamental properties of magnetic nanoparticles--
particles about a thousandth the width of a human hair--trying to
understand how their magnetism changes as their size varies. About
eight years ago, I was inspired to consider how these magnetic
nanoparticles might be applied.
You may remember a toy called Woolly Willy--a drawing of a man's
face in a container that also contained iron filings. You use a magnet
to move the iron filings around to create a beard or hair. I do
something analogous with magnetic nanoparticles. I attach chemotherapy
drugs to the nanoparticles, inject them, and then use magnets outside
the body to hold the nanoparticles where I want them--which is at
cancer tumors. This magnetic targeting approach allows us to
concentrate the chemotherapy drugs near the tumor, increasing efficacy
and decreasing side effects.
This is how I entered the field of nanomedicine, which uses the
unique properties of nanomaterials to detect and treat disease. Like
many of the hybrid fields that have evolved from nanomaterials
research, nanomedicine sometimes finds itself at the edges of two or
more funding agency mandates. Our work has been funded by the National
Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, but we've
also found that some aspects of the research are too disease focused
for NSF, but not focused enough for NIH. Funding agencies have started
to issue joint calls for proposals in the last few years, but more
coordination is necessary to ensure that ideas that don't fit neatly in
a funding ``box'' can still move from the eureka moment to application.
It is especially important to address the gap between the basic
research pursued in most universities and the very applied work that
immediately precedes commercialization.
As I continued working in nanomedicine, I've learned about a
concept called `bioactivity', which characterizes how nanomaterials
interact with living organisms and the environment. My nanoparticles
are designed to enter the body, locate near the tumor and release their
chemotherapy drugs. After their mission is accomplished, the
nanoparticles are metabolized by the body into oxygen and iron, both of
which can be used or easily removed by the body. We do extensive tests
to ensure that our nanoparticles' bioactivity is limited to cancer
cells.
It might seem like the bioactivity of a material is something that
we ought to be able to predict; however, the same surprising properties
that we want to utilize to treat diseases and use energy more
efficiently also sometimes surprise us when we look at how the
materials interact with biological systems. Some materials have a
threshold size, below which they start having undesired consequences.
We can combine two materials that are fine on their own, but produce an
undesired bioactivity when combined. Bioactivity has to be
experimentally determined nanomaterial by nanomaterial.
We can create new nanomaterials in a matter of days; however, it
takes several months for us to investigate and really understand the
bioactivity of just one of those nanomaterials. Nanomaterials have
turned the basic tenets of toxicology on their heads. We must support
the basic research necessary to develop predictive capabilities for
nanomaterials bioactivity. We have exceptional abilities in producing
new nanomaterials of all kinds. Now, we need to advance our
understanding of bioactivity to catch up with the rapid development of
new nanomaterials.
I moved to West Virginia last year in part because of the proximity
of West Virginia University to the National Institutes of Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH). Collaborations between our organizations are
producing some of the most exciting progress on understanding the
bioactivity of naturally occurring and human-made nanomaterials. As the
production of nanomaterials increases from lab quantities to
nanomanufacturing-scale amounts, companies and regulatory agencies are
going to need the type of information we collect on the intended and
unintended environmental, health and safety impacts of nanomaterials.
Companies are uneasy about investing in new technologies that have
so many unanswered questions. Companies need to know that their
products are safe, and what steps they need to take to ensure that
their workers have a safe environment. Even more importantly, companies
developing new products would benefit significantly by being able to
access a broad database of knowledge of environmental health and safety
effects that could help predict the behavior of new nanomaterials and
combinations of nanomaterials.
The ability to develop appropriate guidelines and regulations are
hampered by lack of basic knowledge about nanomaterials bioactivity.
Imagine being asked to referee a game for which you didn't know all the
rules. The rules for nanomaterials are not likely to be simple, either.
Nanomaterial bioactivity doesn't depend simply on size or shape or
chemical composition. Nanomaterials must be regulated on a case-by-case
basis according to their actual properties, not simple and possibly
superfluous characteristics such as size. Regulatory agencies must be
knowledgeable and nimble, willing to change as our knowledge increases.
There's an unfortunate perception that emphasis on understanding
the environmental health and safety aspects of nanomaterials is a
hindrance to using nanomaterials to drive the economy. Understanding
nanomaterials bioactivity is a critical component of developing safe
products and building consumer confidence in nanotechnology. It's also
a potential business opportunity.
For example, researchers at West Virginia University and NIOSH are
working on a microfluidic device that uses different types of cells as
sensors to perform a real-time analysis of nanomaterials bioactivity.
This device could allow a researcher or a company to learn within
minutes how a new nanomaterial interacts with each different type of
cell. There are industrial possibilities for developing sensors that
monitor the presence of nanoparticles in the work environment or for
homeland security purposes, and opportunities for companies capable of
doing rapid, accurate bioactivity screening.
Realizing these opportunities requires advancing our basic
understanding of nanomaterials bioactivity, which in turn requires
infrastructure. The multifaceted nature of nanomaterials demands
multiple characterization measurements, many of them pressing at the
boundaries of what we are able to measure. The government has done an
outstanding job making high-cost instrumentation available on a
regional basis at national laboratories, such as the NSF-funded
National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. These facilities make
important contributions to research, but also provide unique
educational opportunities for nanotechnology students.
Once-exotic instruments like electron microscopes are now basic
tools that are required for nanomaterials research. There are a very
limited number of funding opportunities for universities to acquire
instruments in the half-million dollar to few million dollar range.
These instruments do far more than facilitate research--they provide
training opportunities for the next generations of nanotechnology
researchers and developers.
Let me conclude by briefly addressing an aspect of nanotechnology
that often gets lost: the need for education at many different levels.
In graduate school, I studied physics and I worked with physicists. Now
I study nanomedicine and I work with medical doctors, biologists,
toxicologists, and pathologists--not to mention chemists, engineers and
other physicists. I've learned almost an entirely new vocabulary in the
last eight years. The undergraduate and graduate students working in my
labs need to learn very different things than I learned when I went
through school. Nanomaterials transcends disciplinary boundaries,
requiring students to develop breadth of knowledge while still gaining
expertise in their core discipline. Today's students won't be working
in a small group of like-minded people in a single lab: they need to
learn how to work with groups of people from very different
backgrounds, on a wide spectrum of instrumentation. They need to learn
about the importance of fundamental research, but they also need to
learn about industrial applications of nanomaterials and
entrepreneurship. This is a major departure from the discipline-based
education most of us are used to and we need to invest in developing
the most effective and efficient ways of educating the next generation
of scientists and engineers.
Perhaps more importantly, we need to educate lawyers and
businesspeople, elected officials, regulatory officers and venture
capitalists about the realities of nanotechnology, especially as they
pertain to specialized sectors of the economy like energy, health, and
the environment. They need to utilize a principle of science that we
often fail to communicate: cutting-edge scientific knowledge is dynamic
and constantly evolving. Patent examiners, policy makers and the
government scientists responsible for creating a stable and predictable
regulatory climate will have learn how to adapt to our changing
knowledge in a proactive and not reactive way.
Most importantly, in my view, is educating all citizens to make
informed decisions about nanotechnology. This education starts in the
K-12 system by building fundamental science and math literacy--
something we are not doing very well at present. Our efforts need to be
focused beyond developing curricula that define and explain
nanomaterials. We need to emphasize the more fundamental objective of
teaching people how to think critically. We need to switch the focus of
education from memorizing information that any teenager can pull up in
a microsecond from her phone to teaching that student how to synthesize
and use that information to make valid decisions.
As the author of a science book written specifically for non-
scientists, I have a lot more contact with the public than your average
physics professor. What surprised me most was how hard the average
person is willing to work to learn about science--if you can show them
how it affects something they care about. Nanomaterials will eventually
affect all facets of our lives, from our medical care to the cars we
drive and the food we eat. Consumer understanding of nanomaterials is a
pre-requisite to realizing the huge potential of nanotechnology to
improve our country, our economy and our quality of life.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative has facilitated the growth
and development of this very important field. Re-authorization of the
NNI must include coordination of effort among multiple government
agencies, increasing understanding of the environmental health and
safety impacts of nanomaterials to facilitate their safe and
responsible use in consumer products, and supporting the infrastructure
necessary for future research and development. Finally, the NNI must
promote education at all levels, from the future scientists and
engineers that will enable us to maintain global leadership in
nanotechnology, to developing the scientific literacy of the public so
that they can make informed decisions about the role of nanotechnology
in their lives. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input on
this very important issue.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Dr. O'Neal?
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS O'NEAL, ASSOCIATE VICE
PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
COMMERCIALIZATION, UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
Dr. O'Neal. Let me echo my thanks for the opportunity to
speak with you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee about this very
important issue. Again, I'll state from the start that I'm
fully in support of renewing and expanding the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. And I think that it has made us a
global leader in the development of nanotechnology, and I
really think we need to maintain that effort.
I'm from UCF. It's a growing university. If you're not
familiar with it, we're actually the second largest university
in the country now, just over 40 years old. So we're a new
growing entity, if you will, and we've done a lot of
experiments.
One thing we did was take a look at our ecosystem in terms
of how to commercialize technologies and realized, in one
sense, there were a lot of resources on land or air, but we're
kind of like a sixth grade dance where all the girls and boys
shut up and nobody's really dancing. So we try to figure out
ways to bring people together.
And we created our incubator initially to commercialize
technology. But we ended up doing a whole lot more than that.
We ended up being the neutral site, if you will, for folks to
come together and kind of act like a magnifying glass, if you
will, to bring the community together to commercialize
technologies.
I want to certainly say today that I think we need to
continue this investment. It will keep us competitive and
dominant in the world for years to come. And by that, I mean,
you really need to almost consider doubling the university--the
Federal investment in research.
We need to make sure we have the dominant supply of
intellectually derived raw materials to supply our
commercialization stuff. Then we need to create the
commercialization stuff with the same kind of excitement we get
about the science. And it really has the same challenges, if
you will. There's tremendous scale-up properties that are
problems that nano people face when they're taking things off
the bench top, if you will, into commercial productivity.
So what can we do? I have some suggestions. Certainly, we
need to really encourage universities and industry to partner
more. Maybe we can increase the amount of the small--the STTR
portion of the Small Business Innovative Research Program that
requires universities and industry to partner before they can
do Federal research. That would be an incentive for folks to
start learning how to work together.
We could consider stipends, if you will, for really
profound research that would go toward the commercialization
and any kind of gap found of a really promising technology
being developed in the research lab. We can also begin to think
about an open call for the SBIR program, so we can do funding
in real time, if you will, to companies that really have great
discoveries they need to commercialize.
We have a matching grants program in Florida, High Tech
Corridor, that provides additional money for when universities
and industry do research together, and with the industry
providing research, so we know it's something that's important
to them--but additional money to help the faculty, incentivize
them to work with things. I would consider creating proof of
concept centers, where faculty and industry can come work
together, share equipment, share space, share stuff with
investors--really to figure out how we're going to get the
commercialization out in the marketplace. They also need help
with the manufacturing, and the scale-up issues we talked about
earlier need to be addressed and, hopefully, some help to do
that.
I'd offer that we provide help with compliance, too, for
these entrepreneurs. Make it user friendly, you know. These--
it's very daunting for faculty to start companies when they
have to figure out all this compliance stuff and in real time.
And it's a mine field, so, again, maybe a tour guide to help
them get through that stuff would be great.
Industry can share space in each place. It can--when you
think about ways to enhance university tech transfer, funding
for university tech transfer offices and commercialization is
sparse, usually taken out of the F&A recovery--cost recovery
from the university--so ways to help them get the
commercialization out of the technology, in supplements, maybe,
again, from really exciting research to do the
commercialization part, or they can go directly to a tech
transfer office or incubators or the college of business and
maybe even the company itself. That's where the money needs to
go.
The last thing we really need to address is the capital
problem--maybe a fund of funds for technology investment funds.
Maybe we could create a fund like the CI did to help
commercialize their technologies--figure out ways to
incentivize angels to get off the sidelines and really start
investing in these companies.
With that said, I'd like to conclude. Think about--we use
the term ecosystem a lot--but think about ecosystem as a coral
reef or a rain forest. Certainly, a coral reef and a rain
forest are very different ecosystems, but they're both very
complex in nature, and lots of things going on at the same
time.
Communities and entrepreneurs and different areas of
technology are also very different and they all need different
support. So I really would include bringing, you know, city and
industry and government and states together to solve their
local community problems as well as addressing a national
issue, if you will.
With that, certainly, I think that entrepreneurships need
to be really considered. The last statistic I saw showed 90
percent of the companies in the United States have nine
employees or less. So I think entrepreneurs and small
businesses will be leading or have a major role in this effort.
And with that, I thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. O'Neal follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Thomas O'Neal, Associate Vice President of
Research, Office of Research and Commercialization, University of
Central Florida
Distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Science and Space of
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Please
let me thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony related to an
area that holds great potential to make a significant contribution to
the U.S. economy. I wholeheartedly support the renewal and expansion of
the National Nanotechnology Investment: Manufacturing,
Commercialization, and Job Creation.
My testimony will focus on the commercialization aspects of
nanotechnology:
Industry potential
Technology transfer
University/Industry Interaction
Economic Development
The Potential of NanoScience
Nanotechnology has been recognized as a revolutionary field of
science and technology, comparable to the introduction of electricity,
biotechnology, and digital information revolutions. Between 2001 and
2008, the numbers of discoveries, inventions, nanotechnology workers,
R&D funding programs, and markets all increased by an average annual
rate of 25 percent. The worldwide market for products incorporating
nanotechnology reached about $254 billion in 2009. (Lux Research)
Nanoscience or Nanotechnology, the study and design of materials at
the nanoscale (on the order of billionths of a meter) truly has the
potential to address untold challenges and market opportunities because
nanomaterials have fundamentally different chemical and physical
properties than bulk materials. Understanding and exploiting these
properties will allow scientists to tailor materials for specific uses
that will create new market opportunities and commercial success.
In its comprehensive publication, Societal Implications of
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, the National Science Foundation (2001)
suggested that among the expected breakthroughs [in nanoscience and
nanotechnology] are orders-of-magnitude increases in computer
efficiency, human organ restoration using engineered tissue,
``designer'' materials created from directed assembly of atoms and
molecules, and the emergence of entirely new phenomena in chemistry and
physics (p. iii). The authors added that the effect of nanotechnology
on the health, wealth, and standard of living for people in this
century could be at least as significant as the combined influences of
microelectronics, medical imaging, computer-aided engineering, and man-
made polymers developed in the past century (p. 2). This should not be
ignored in terms of the economic development policy and practice in the
U.S.
A report by Lux Research (2006) showed that the industries most
impacted by nanotechnology will be Aerospace and Defense, Chemicals,
Computer Peripherals, Computers, Office Equipment, Electronics, Energy,
Medical Products & Equipment, Metals, Pharmaceuticals, Scientific,
Photo, Control Equipment, Semiconductors and Other Electronic
Components.
While the U.S. is a dominant player in the nanotechnology sector,
Japan, Germany, and South Korea are also major players that are gaining
ground.
There are things to consider when discussing the commercialization
of nanotechnologies.
1. Nanoscience is an enabling, general purpose technology. It is a
key building block for multiple applications across many
sectors.
2. It represents a mixed bag of incremental improvements and
disruptive technology breakthroughs.
3. Processes and products in the sector are key to the innovation
process.
Things that affect the commercial potential include:
1. It is a new field and the average incubation time for a discovery
to make it through the patent and licensing process is 7 years.
Add to this the fact that the emphasis on nanoscience is
relatively new and scientific research is often a slow hard
road, especially in tight budget times.
2. We learned from microelectronics that the flip side of Moore's
law is that the smaller the feature size the larger the
machines that are often needed to make these features and the
larger the increase in cost. For example, the initial printed
circuits could be made with standard photographer's equipment
available at any photo hobby store. Whereas now the light
sources can cost up to a billion dollars and individual pieces
of optics can easily exceed a million dollars in cost. This
trend continues on the nano-scale.
3. As an enabling technology, nano often ``disappears'' from view as
it is integrated into a system. Just one example, photonic band
gap materials are nano devices that can enhance telecom but one
does not think of the telecom device as either a nano device or
a photonics device. Another specific example is photo-thermal-
refractive (PTR) glass, which, at its heart, is a nano
structure material. PTR glass is used to bend light at
different angles by using nanoparticles and Bragg gratings.
4. In summary, nanoscience has already `infiltrated' or enabled new
devices or improvement in older devices, but their identity as
nano enabled products disappears.
Commercialization Hurdles and Risks
The commercialization of nanotechnology has non trivial technical
and business issues. Key problem areas are Manufacturing and Scale-up,
FDA Issues, Business Investment Capital, and the decreasing Investments
in Research.
Manufacturing and Scale-up phenomena runs rampant in nanoscale
materials. For example, thin films/surface treatment deposition
techniques, traditionally require expensive, large vacuum chambers that
do not accommodate large scale production. Metallic and ceramic
nanoparticles become non-uniform in high volume manufacturing. In other
words, the physics of things change drastically at the nano-scale.
Things don't do what they do in bulk.
FDA hurdles for nanoparticles are also a key issue. Dendrimers is
the only FDA approved therapeutic in the market, and any non-dendrimer
nanoparticle is susceptible to poor uniformity in bulk production. FDA
scientists fear that sub-100 nm particles could interact with DNA or
cause cell damage. The environmental, health, and safety issues
associated with nanosocience must be examined and addressed in order to
proceed with the technology in this arena.
Business capital must flow into this venue to ensure success in the
market. Venture capitalists are investing in nanotech, but not
aggressively due to the long cycles it takes from discovery to
commercial viability. It should also be noted that U.S. investors are
now putting more new money into international stock funds than into
U.S. stock funds by a substantial margin. As recently as 6 years ago,
only 8 percent of the money newly invested in U.S. stock funds went
overseas; now the fraction has reached 77 percent. This hurts U.S.
investment in nanoscience.
Commercialization of NanoTechnologies
To increase the commercialization of nanotechnology innovations, I
submit for consideration the following:
1. Invest in research at a level that will make a difference.
2. Spur university and industry interactions.
3. Address the capital problem.
Investment in Research
Research results supply the raw materials for new emerging fields
such as nanotechnology. To increase the commercial throughput, increase
the supply of raw materials. Conversely, reducing the available
innovative technologies available for commercialization reduces the
amount of economic benefits available.
Norman Augustine in his National Academy of Science essay, ``Is
America Falling off the Flat Earth'' makes the point that while
``America remains extremely productive, ample warning signs are to be
found in considering the future. For example,''
In 2004, Federal funding of research in the physical
sciences as a fraction of GDP was 54 percent less than in 1970.
In engineering, it was 51 percent less.
By the end of 2007, China and India will account for
31percent of the global R&D staff, up from 19 percent as
recently as 2004.
The share of U.S. post-doctoral scientists and engineers
who are temporary residents has grown from 37 percent to 59
percent in two decades.
In 2005, only four American companies were among the top 10
in receiving U.S. patents.
The National Intelligence Council reports that in 2003
``foreigners contributed 37 percent of the research papers in
Science, 55 percent in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, and
71 percent in the journals of the American Physical Society.''
For the first time, the world's most powerful particle
accelerator does not reside in the United States; this
virtually ensures that the next round of breakthroughs in this
fundamental discipline will originate abroad.
In the recent ranking by the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD), the United States is in 22nd
place in the fraction of GDP devoted to nondefense research.
Federal annual investment in research in the physical
sciences, mathematics, and engineering combined is equal to the
increase in U.S. health care costs experienced every 6 weeks.
These statistics are included in this testimony not to insinuate
that the sky is falling but show a trend that needs to be reversed if
the U.S. is to maintain the current dominant position it enjoys now and
more. It is an undeniable fact that, in the foreseeable future, the
U.S. will have to have the best scientists and engineers in sufficient
supply. However, that alone will not ensure America's ability to
compete in the 21st century. Funds must be available to underwrite the
efforts of scientists and engineers who conduct the cutting edge
research that creates business opportunities that in turn creates new
jobs. The funds must provide for modern laboratories and
instrumentation as well as the research enterprise itself. It is
research that will keep the United States prosperous in the long term.
Recommendations
At a minimum, double the amount of Federal research expenditures
overall within the next 5 years and consider an even higher increase in
Nanotechnology. Simply put, we can't afford not to.
The Federal Government should also take steps to retain scientific
and engineering talent trained in the United States by developing a
program to provide U.S. Permanent Resident Cards for foreign
individuals who receive an advanced degree in science or engineering at
an accredited institution in the United States and for whom proof of
permanent employment in that scientific or engineering discipline
exists.
Spur University and Industry Interactions
Universities typically receive no funding for technology transfer
or commercialization activities. Most are funded from Facilities and
Administrative (F&A) cost (indirect cost) recovery. This is often
problematic in that there is limited funding to pursue patent
protection and even less resources to proactively commercialize
technology developments. That means that most technology transfer
offices protect a fraction of their technologies and then hope someone
will discover it and take a license. Also as state budgets decline,
universities must use the F&A cost recovery to fund facility
construction, provide bridge funding for faculty competing for Federal
grants, provide capitalization for labs, etc. This creates too much
pressure on too little money!
A few home run hits have also created the notion that tech transfer
activities are a source of income for universities. Truth is that less
than 10 percent of tech transfer offices break even, much less generate
income. The premise of income though often creates very adversarial
license negotiations and can jeopardize fruitful, long term
partnerships.
Lastly, resources for the commercialization activities are also
difficult to obtain. Incubators and entrepreneurship centers are on the
rise but often are office spaces, not suited for high tech ventures,
operated on shoestring budgets, and are often not woven into an overall
innovation ecosystem. Proof of Concept Centers that help move
technologies from ideas to viable commercial product are needed for
nanoscience as well as manufacturing centers that can help resolve the
scale up problems that thwart technology exploitation.
Create a University Entrepreneurship and Technology Commercialization
Initiative
It should be funded at a level comparable to the very successful
SBIR program (2 percent of Federal R&D budget). Tasks to be undertaken
include:
(1) Enhance the STTR Program to catalyze university and industry
collaboration
(a) Significantly increase the amount allocated
(b) Provide supplements to projects for:
(i) Translation grants
(ii) Gap funds to move technology or venture forward
(iii) Provide matching grants to universities to further
research efforts on company's behalf (company funding
required and possibly university match)
(c) Create open application deadline program option (SBIR and
STTR)
(i) Updated as needed
(ii) Ability to make awards for promising opportunities quickly
(weeks, not months)
(2) Create Proof of Concept and Manufacturing Centers
(a) Provide shared facilities to bring technology to commercial
viability
(b) Enable industry and university partnerships
(c) Access provided on a competitive basis
(d) Scale-up assistance and manufacturing expertise to move
technologies into production
(3) Enhance University Entrepreneurship Infrastructure
(a) Support for University Affiliated Incubators and Accelerators
(i) Facility development and enhancement
(ii) Operational and program support
(iii) Client support
(iv) Support for networking events between startups, university
personnel, investors
(v) Development of support infrastructure for second stage
companies (10 + employees)
(b) Student ventures and entrepreneurship support such as:
(i) Linking senior design classes to entrepreneurship and
business classes
(ii) Business plan competitions support and promotion
(iii) Entrepreneurship curriculum development
(iv) Internships with startups
(v) Technology based entrepreneurship for technical students
(c) Entrepreneur support
(i) Federal assistance for faculty/staff sabbaticals to start
companies
(ii) Assistance with conflict of interest management
(iii) Market research support
(iv) University Presidents, Provosts, other senior staff, and
faculty members should be rewarded in appropriate ways for
entrepreneurial activities.
(4) Regulatory Support
(a) Relax faculty ownership regulations for SBIR and STTR programs
(b) Conflicts of Interest
(i) Need to allow faculty to start companies without fear.
Current mechanisms create a mine field that is difficult to
navigate. Clear guidance documents should be created and
shared liberally. Assistance should be provided to help
people stay in compliance while spinning off companies.
(c) Provide incentives that spur investment in new companies and
relax rules and regulations that thwart it
Overall, a growing problem is increased `compliance' demands that
divert critical resources and destroys initiative (faculty are zapped
for working extra hours, perhaps on the commercialization part of their
work). It makes no sense to penalize a faculty member who put in their
40 hours and then some.
(5) Patent Reform
(a) Patents need to be issued quicker (months not years)
(b) Patent reform should not hurt small business
Entrepreneurs Should Be Celebrated
Universities and other government officials should recognize and
reward entrepreneurs. Faculty should be given credit towards tenure and
promotion, as well as help with compliance (COI). The system should
create openness that encourages these activities, and sabbaticals to
start companies should be accommodated. Take action to remove the
barriers and confusion. University Presidents, Provosts, senior staff,
and faculty should be rewarded in appropriate ways for entrepreneurial
activities.
Address the Capital Problem
The lack of access to capital is a huge problem. As pointed out
earlier, the time lag between discovery and commercialization in
nanoscience is long, typically 3--10 years. Patient money is required
and incentives should be considered to increase this investment.
Establish a Fund of Funds to increase the number venture
capital investments
Establish a National Nano Investment fund similar to the
CIA fund to move promising technologies firms forward.
Provide incentives for Angel investors
Conclusion
Advances in the field of nanoscience present a tremendous
opportunity to improve the quality of life and create economic wealth.
It represents a long term investment with large returns. We must
continue to press forward in nanotechnology development with a sense of
urgency. One could liken this to President Kennedy's call to land a man
on the moon by the end of the decade. A strong, concerted effort to
accelerate the potential of nanoscience and technology by the end of
this decade is warranted. It should be a prominent national agenda that
the country can rally around. It must be done by increasing the level
of discovery, creating strong partnerships between academia and
industry, and by filling the gaps in the commercialization ecosystem.
An entrepreneur-centric approach is needed even when large commercial
entities are involved.
The commercialization of nanoscience, as with many technology
companies, is a messy business. If you've met one entrepreneur with
their business needs, you've met one entrepreneur with their business
needs. The entrepreneur must be at the center of the innovation
ecosystem. Identifying them, engaging them, and supporting their needs
in real time are key to increasing their success rates and helping them
reach their full growth potential.
Universities are increasingly ``getting it'' in terms of
commercialization but have very limited resources and need their
rewards systems to align with commercialization. Faculty that start new
companies to commercialize their research should be helped and guided
through the process to make sure everything is done properly and
compliance becomes a service as opposed to a policing action. The
entrepreneurs (faculty or not) should be celebrated and given the time
they need to be successful. Faculty members have full time jobs when
they start a commercialization activity--teaching, conducting research,
and doing service tasks. They need to be relieved of some of these
responsibilities to increase chances of commercial success or, at a
minimum, not be penalized by time and effort reports if they chose to
work extra time on the commercialization activities!
Sincerely,
Thomas O'Neal.
______
Auxiliary Information on 2011 Testimony--July 12, 2011
Commercialization and Potential for NanoScience Technology
Prepared by: Dr. Thomas O'Neal, University of Central Florida, Office
of Research & Commercialization
NANOTECHNOLOGY IMPACT: Global, U.S., & Florida
Nanotech Workforce
-- The National Science Foundation estimates that up to one million
nanotechnology workers will be needed in the U.S. itself (Roco
and Bainbridge, 2001)
-- The referenced paper provides information on an interesting study
on nanotechnology training programs previously implemented in
NY, PA, CA and Mexico: ``Training California's New Workforce
for 21st Century Nanotechnology, MEMS, and Advanced
Manufacturing Jobs'' (Koehler, 2006)
Global Trends
-- Total worldwide sales revenues for nanotechnology were $11.6
billion in 2009, and are expected to increase to more than $26
billion in 2015, at a CAGR of 11.1 percent (``Nanotechnology: A
Realistic Market Assessment'', BCC Research, 2010)
-- The largest nanotechnology segments in 2009 were nanomaterials,
followed by nanotools (shows largest growth potential) and
nanodevices (``Nanotechnology: A Realistic Market Assessment'',
BCC Research, 2010)
-- Various governments have appropriated $40 billion in global
nanotechnology funding over the last decade and almost $10
billion more was added in 2010 (``Nanogeopolitics 2009: The
Second Survey'', ETC Group, 2009)
-- In 2009, the combined European Union member states spent 27 percent
of the global nanotechnology funding, Russia spent 23 percent,
U.S. spent 19 percent and Japan spent 12 percent
(``Nanogeopolitics 2009: The Second Survey'', ETC Group, 2009)
-- The International Association of Nanotechnology (IANT), is a non-
profit organization with the goals of fostering scientific
research and business development in the area of Nanoscience
and Nanotechnology http://www.ianano.org/
-- Countries with extensive nanotech programs, both in private and
government spending and research efforts include: Russia,
Japan, Korea, Singapore, and UK
Russia
Rusnano, the state-sponsored nanotech investment arm founded in
2007, provides funding for research and commercialization of
nanotechnology in an effort to revitalize the economy. As a direct
result of the formation of Rusnano, Russia drastically improved its
government funding, nanotech initiatives, nanotech R&D center scores,
and publication counts. Rusnano has received more than 2,000 proposals
for research products and centers, and approved 111 projects to date,
in the categories of medicine and pharmaceuticals, energy efficiency
and clean technologies, optics and electronics, coatings and surface
modification, and nanomaterials. Rusnano is investing $500 million into
Russian nanotechnology companies as well. (DiChristina, 2011)
Japan
Though not as well coordinated or as well-funded as its U.S.
counterpart, Japan has a healthy government program and network of
research centers for supporting nanotech, and its technology-oriented
private sector helps to make up the funding gap. Patents and
publication counts are healthy, and giant conglomerates like Toray and
Sumitomo are very active in nanotech research and commercialization.
Over 60 companies in nanotechnology are thriving throughout the
country. These companies currently dominate in three markets--
nanotubes, food, and semiconductors. The country and private sector
have invested over $1 billion in funding towards nanotech (Haxton &
Meade, 2009).
http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/aboutus/
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/Nanotechnology_Companies_in_
Japan.php
China
Nanotech is a recurring theme in many of China's technology
economic development plans, and both public and private funding has
grown quickly over the years. The number of publications grew as an
effort of Chinese scientists pursuing nanotechnology, but the patent
count has remained similar to previous years. The nanotech companies
that do exist in China are usually generic nanomaterial producers (such
as Shanghai Huzheng Nano Technology Co. or developer Tianjin
Tianhezhongxin Chemicals Co.), supporting the notion that China's
research has produced little proprietary, and therefore, hardly
commercial technology, to date.
India
India's Prime Minister has voiced concerns that India may be
missing the nanotechnology wave (The Economic Times, 2011)
(``Ranking the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and False
Threats'', LUX Research, 2010)
U.S. Trends
-- The U.S. market is responsible for more than 50 percent of the
nanoproducts currently sold throughout the world
(``Nanogeopolitics 2009: The Second Survey'', ETC Group, 2009)
-- President Obama's 2011 budget approved nearly $1.8 billion for the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (Sargent, 2011)
-- The U.S. Department of Energy is making the largest investment
among the various NNI agencies, with $424 million in 2011.
(Harvey, 2011)
-- U.S. companies spent a total $3.2 billion on nanotech-related
research and development in recent efforts. (Harvey, 2011)
-- From January 2008 to July 2010, U.S. venture capitalists invested
nearly $1.3 billion in nanotech-related startups (Harvey, 2011)
-- Corporations (i.e., 3M and IBM), researchers, and private equity
investors funded the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
funneling billions of dollars into nanotech and attributing to
thousands of patents filed on nanotechnology in 2009.
(``Ranking the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and False
Threats'', LUX Research, 2010)
-- The top 4 nanotechnology ``economy-established'' states, reported
on parameters established by the Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies, are: California, Massachusetts, New York, and
Texas. (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2011)
-- All 50 states and the District of Columbia have at least one
company, university, government laboratory, or organization
working in the field of nanotechnology. (Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies, 2011)
-- The top 6 Nano Metros (also based on criteria from the Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies) are: Boston; San Francisco; San
Jose, Calif.; Raleigh; Middlesex-Essex, Mass.; and Oakland,
Calif. (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2011)
-- The number of U.S. universities and government laboratories working
in nanotechnology is still substantial, with 182 identified as
of 2011. (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2011)
State-Specific Nanotech Programs
Oklahoma NanoInitiative
The Oklahoma Nanotech Initiative (ONI) is a project coordinated by
The State Chamber of Oklahoma and funded by the Oklahoma Center for the
Advancement of Science and Technology (OCAST). In 2006, Oklahoma had
over 50 scientists who were doing research in the nanotech field. The
program appears weaker than its inception in 2005. Nearly all of the 50
Oklahoma-based companies with product lines involving nanotechnology
are still in business since the initiative began. They cover a broad
range of applications including medicine, sporting goods, cosmetics,
textiles and optics.
In 2006, state legislation pushed the Oklahoma Nanotechnology
Sharing Incentive Act established the Oklahoma Nanotechnology
Applications Project (ONAP) which provides $2 million to state efforts
(Oklahoma Nanotech Initiative) to be used to promote and provide
incentives to further ``applications of nanotechnology''. The ONI
program has proved successful: ``for the last three years, the return
on the state's investment has been about 37 to one--for every dollar
the state spent, we brought $37 into the state.'' (Fairchild, 2010).
The state also created ``nano technician'' jobs and education, as
courses at universities and community colleges include: Nano
Instrumentation, Nanotechnology and MEMS. The Oklahoma State Dept. of
Career and Technology and OSU Okmulgee are partnered on an NSF grant to
create the Oklahoma Nanotechnology Education Initiative that is
currently being rolled out. Additionally, this nanotech initiative also
has some of the most comprehensive K-12 education tools/multimedia in
the country.
Notable, recently funded companies and research efforts include:
Southwest Technologies (high-volume CNT production); Charlesson
(improved eye disease drops); Amethyst Research (hydrogenation process
for fire fighting, thermal mapping and border security); Caltech Global
(hydrogen sulfide granular scavenging for oil/gas/landfill gas
filtration); NanoBioMagnetics (drug delivery); University of Tulsa
(nanobatteries); OK State U has $51 million nanotech center, 40
faculty/staff, and 100 grad students (nanofood/ag; nanowires, energy).
http://www.oknano.com/research.html
http://www.oknano.com/oklahoma_companies.html
http://www.ok.gov/ocast/Programs/
Oklahoma_Nanotechnology_Applications_
Project_%28ONAP%29/index.html
Texas NanoInitiative
Dallas/North Texas initiatives developed after donations to the
University of Texas at Dallas to create the Alan G. MacDiarmid NanoTech
Institute. The donor was the founder of Zyvex Labs, claimed the world's
first nanotech company. Several large corporations in the area have
since started nanotech programs in the area including: Texas
Instruments, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin. These companies have
initiated these programs in the local universities, rather than
internally, to reduce R&D financial risks.
VCs invested $57 million in Texas-based nanotech companies (Harvey,
2011). From April 2006 to October 2010, the state-run Texas Emerging
Technology Fund (ETF) funded about $22 million in grants for
nanotechnology-related research at Texas universities (Harvey, 2011).
During the same period, the ETF invested about $14.6 million in
companies (Harvey, 2011) looking to commercialize nanomedicine,
nanoelectronics, and nanomaterials products.
Major university players and associated projects/applications: U of
Texas-Dallas (CNT airplane paint, superconductive power cables, Solarno
PV spin-out, CNT artificial muscles); U of Texas--Arlignton (solar cell
coatings, medicine toxicity/reaction biosensors).
http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_CEO/2011/January_February/Technolo
gy_Issue/North_Texas_Research_Pushes_Future_of_Nanotechnology.aspx?p=1
Colorado Initiatives
The Colorado Nanotechnology Alliance is not-for-profit economic
development organization governed by a strong board of directors whose
core represents nanotechnology companies in the state. The Alliance has
more than 75 companies which employ 19,000 workers at an average salary
$55,720.
CU-Boulder has emerged as a significant academic nanotech player.
The Nanoscale Science and Technology for Integrated Micro/Nano-
Electromechanical Transducers (iMINT) was built on a DARPA grant and
now has more than $2.5 million in research funding from the govt,
Lockheed Martin, GE and Raytheon (Nanotechnology Now, 2008). More than
100 faculty in engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, dentistry,
pharmacy, and medicine from CU-Boulder and the Anschutz Medical Campus
in Denver are involved in micro/nano technology research in some way.
(Nanotechnology Now, 2008).
Major university players and associated projects/applications: CU
at Boulder (electronics thermal management, nanoscale characterization,
melanoma detection); ITN Energy (solar); Colorado State University
(extreme UV pulse lasers); CO School of Mines (works 100+ companies in
materials processing research).
http://www.coloradonanotechnology.org/home/index.php
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/OEDIT/OEDIT/1167928387048
http://ncf.colorado.edu/?p=news&sub=tinytech&id=63
California Initiatives
The state has fragmented nanotechnology efforts. One of the state's
main areas is in nanomaterial safety and hazards, under the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, which is partnering on these
efforts with the U.S. EPA. The Northern California Nanotechnology
Initiative, NCnano, is an economic development initiative focused on
developing the nanotechnology and the nano-bio-IT convergence
technology economy of Northern California. Started in 2003, the
Initiative's goals included bringing $6B in nanotechnology investment/
grant money to the areas and to create 150,000 new local jobs (North
California Nanotechnology Initiative).
The state's nanotech efforts are dominated by the universities.
Every major state university has nanotechnology centers, as do notable
private institutions. The California Institute of Nanotechnology offers
training and commits research entirely in the nanotechnology field. The
center works with the Cleantech Institute in the areas of renewable
energy and clean tech. The Institute is primarily working in energy
storage (novel batteries and fuel cells) as well as drug delivery
mechanisms.
The national labs of Sandia and Lawrence Berkeley both have
extensive nanotechnology programs in the particular areas of CNTs,
nanocomposite alloys, and nanoporosity, and a molecular foundry focused
on energy, respectively. Other university research efforts of note
include: University of South CA (nanowires, graphene thin films); UC of
Santa Barbara (NSF funded ``nanotech in society'' center which studies
politics, economics, etc.); $100 million funded UCLA's NanoSystems
Institute has $350 million in research and development grants from
industry (nanotoxicology, carbon dioxide capture, drug delivery) (The
New York Times, 2009); Librede (drug screening); NanoH2O
(reverse osmosis/filtration); QuantumSphere (battery material
enhancement); and CFX Battery Inc. (lithium ion batteries).
http://www.ncnano.org/
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/
nanoport.cfm
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/
nanopartners
.cfm
http://www.cinano.com/Training/index.html
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/californias-glimmer-of-hope-
nanotech
nology/
http://foundry.lbl.gov/
New York Initiatives
In 2010, the Empire State Development (ESD) and the New York State
Foundation for Science, Technology and Innovation (NYSTAR) today
announced the merger of two of New York State's Centers of Excellence-
Infotonics Technology Center (ITC) in Canandaigua and the Center of
Excellence in Nanoelectronics and Nanotechnology at the College of
Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) in Albany. Empire State
Development and NYSTAR will invest up to $10 million to the merged
operation, the Smart System Technology & Commercialization Center
(STC), which will be managed and supported by CNSE.
CNSE's Albany NanoTech Complex has $7 billion in investments and is
an 800,000-square-foot complex (College of Nano Science and
Engineering, University of Albany). The UAlbany NanoCollege houses the
only fully-integrated, 300mm wafer, computer chip pilot prototyping and
demonstration line within 80,000 square feet of Class 1 capable
cleanrooms (``New York State Announces . . .'', Nanowerk, 2010). More
than 2,500 staff the complex, from companies including IBM, AMD,
GlobalFoundries, SEMATECH, Toshiba, Applied Materials, Tokyo Electron,
ASML, Novellus Systems, Vistec Lithography and Atotech. A new goal is
to expand the complex to 1,250,000 square feet of next-generation
infrastructure housing over 105,000 square feet of Class 1 capable
cleanrooms and more than 3,750 staff. In a $10 million joint
development project, Apic Inc.'s photonics systems and devices will be
combined with the CNSE's nanoelectronics resources, to result in at
least 20 jobs over the next 18 months (College of Nano Science and
Engineering, University of Albany). Moser Baer Technologies is
investing more than $17 million at CNSE, acquiring state-of-the-art
equipment for the pilot production line, creating more than 50 high-
tech jobs by 2013 (Smart Systems Tech, 2011).
The Infotonics Technology Center of Excellence in Photonics &
Microsystems is a technology commercialization center that maintains
140,000 square-foot with over 25,000 square feet of cleanrooms for MEMS
fabrication and packaging (``New York State Announces . . .'',
Nanowerk, 2010). ITC works with industrial participants such as Corning
Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Xerox Corporation. Academic
participants include approximately twenty New York State colleges and
universities, including the Rochester Institute of Technology and the
University of Rochester.
Notable research/commercial entities include: CNSE U of Albany (PV
control/monitoring center, photonic integrated circuits, solid state
lighting); IBM of Yorktown Heights (CNT); Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute (thin films novel planarization and metallization); Auterra/
Applied Nanoworks (specialty inorganic compounds); NanoMas
(nanoparticles for printed electronics). Full database of NY research
in nanotechnology:
http://www.nystar.state.ny.us/rsch/nanotech.htm
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=18133.php
http://www.nylovesnano.com/industry/industry.php?m=5
http://www.nynanobusiness.org/
http://www.research.ibm.com/nanoscience/
http://cnse.albany.edu/WorldClassResources.aspx
http://cnse.albany.edu/LeadingEdgeResearchandDevelopment/
ResearchProfiles/
ProfilesArchive.aspx
http://dpwsa.electroiq.com/index/display/photovoltaics-article-
display/247846
2125/articles/Photovoltaics-World/industry-news/2011/6/cnse-nanotech-
complex-plans-pv-control-center.html
http://www.itcmems.com/news_June.html
Washington Initiatives
The Washington Technology Center, Avogadro Partners, LLC, the
University of Washington, Washington State University and Battelle's
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, with seed funding sponsored by
Senator Maria Cantwell, have come together to launch the Washington
Nanotechnology Initiative (WNI). The state has many expectations for a
nanotechnology economy that are complementary to its current
infrastructure. The graphs below show trends that exist or are
anticipated in the state.
Microfabrication Lab Revenues (Washington Technology Center,
2005)
(Washington Technology Center, 2005)
Notable research efforts: U of Washington (malaria testing,
biomaterials, jointly work with PNNL).
http://www.watechcenter.org/resources/washington-nanotechnology-
initiative
http://www.avogadro.us/news/2005/05/new-washington-state-
nanotechnology
.html
South US/Georgia/NC Initiatives
The National Science Foundation's National Nanotechnology
Infrastructure Network has two facilities in the South: the
Microelectronics Research Laboratory at Georgia Institute of
Technology, and the Microelectronics Research Center at the University
of Texas-Austin. The National Cancer Institute's Centers of Cancer
Nanotechnology Excellence include the Nanotechnology Center for
Personalized and Predictive Oncology, which is an Emory University-
Georgia Tech partnership, and the Carolina Center of Cancer
Nanotechnology Excellence at the University of North Carolina.
http://www.techjournalsouth.com/2010/11/coin-seeks-materials-from-
nc-nanotech
-firms-for-dc-conference/
Ohio Initiatives
The Center for Multifunctional Polymer Nanomaterials and Devices
(CMPND) was formed as a research and commercialization partnership in
polymer nanotechnology. Centered at The Ohio State University, CMPND
works with the University of Akron and the University of Dayton, three
additional Ohio universities, 50 large and small Ohio companies, the
National Composite Center, polymer organizations and national labs, all
situated in Ohio. CMPND was awarded $22.5M from the State of Ohio Third
Frontier Project and in return will contribute more than a total of
$78M toward nanotechnology research and commercialization. CMPND seeks
to have a statewide economic impact by expanding existing business and
creating and retaining more than 5,000 high-paying `white collar' jobs
and 20,000 to 25,000 skilled manufacturing jobs (Center for
Multifunctional Polymer Nanomaterials and Devices).
Over 50 small and large companies, serving the industries of
automotive, aerospace, biomedical, consumer products, electronics, and
materials engineering; have contributed nearly $49 million of support
to develop CMPND. The Universities (OSU, UD, UA, KSU, UT and WSU) have
added additional support of over $28 million, providing support to
CMPND totaling more than $77 million, over three years (Polymer Ohio,
2004). Along with names such as Honda, Delphi, Goodrich, Lockheed
Martin, Goodyear Tire, MeadWestvaco, Boeing, Ashland, AES/Exxon Mobile,
Milacron, Noveon, and Timken on the list, are the large companies of
Ohio 's future: Applied Sciences, Cornerstone Research (R&D services),
Nanosperse (design services), Maverick (hi-temp materials), Nanofilm
(thin films for glass coatings and stain proofing), Sajar Plastics
(injection micro-molding), Vector Composites (advanced composites), and
WebCore Technologies (core composites).
http://www.polymerohio.org/download/pdf/NanoVer2.pdf
http://cmpnd.org/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45:polymer-industry-is-
ohios-largest-at-49-billion&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50
Pennsylvania Initiatives
The Pennsylvania Initiative for Nanotechnology (PIN) is a statewide
strategy that currently combines the efforts of the Pennsylvania
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), the
Commonwealth's research universities, the Pennsylvania State System of
Higher Education, over 125 companies, and economic development
organizations. PIN is leveraging Pennsylvania's clusters of research,
industry, and workforce development assets to make Pennsylvania a
global leader in nanotechnology research, commercialization and
economic development activities. Using worldwide forecasts,
Pennsylvania is projected to produce at least $7.75 billion worth of
nanotechnology products by 2015 (Pennsylvania Commonwealth).
The Pennsylvania NanoMaterials Commercialization Center is making
available $700,000 in funds. The Center invites Pennsylvania university
researchers and companies to submit proposals for funding early-stage
commercialization of nanomaterial research for energy applications. The
Center is particularly interested in technology development focused on
renewable, clean and efficient energy solutions. The Center was founded
in 2006 under the auspices of the Pittsburgh Technology Council by a
consortium of four western Pennsylvania companies; Alcoa Technology,
Bayer MaterialScience, PPG Industries and U.S. Steel. Today, the Center
enjoys partnerships with Carnegie Mellon University, University of
Pittsburgh, Penn State University, Lehigh University, the Department of
Community and Economic Development for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Air Force Research Labs and approximately 300 companies,
organizations and individuals involved in nanotechnology.
Since 2007, the Pennsylvania NanoMaterials Commercialization Center
has provided seed grants to 15 companies to support 19 early stage
prototype development projects using nanotechnology and three pre-
commercialization projects with universities. The total public
investment has been $4,191,582, which has been matched by the recipient
companies in the amount of $2,994,388. Recipients reported the
following economic impact from this investment: 115 jobs created and
retained, $43,219,000 leveraged investment by companies due to the
Center's funding, and 17 new patents filed (NanoVIP, 2010).
Notable research projects include: U of Penn (monitoring molecular
motions, single molecule probes, biomolecular optoelectronics); Penn
State U (buckyballs, acoustic tweezers, nanodomes, strong in nano
education); Carnegie Mellon (atom transfer radical polymerization,
conductive organic materials, magnetic nanocrystals); Metalon Inc.
(molecular inks); Illuminex (Si nanowire solar equipment).
http://www.gonano.psu.edu/facts/
http://www.newpa.com/build-your-business/key-industries/high-
technology/nano
technology
http://www.pananocenter.org/nano-center-about.aspx
http://www.nanovip.com/pa-nanocenter-awards-250k-to-pa-based-
nanotechnology-companies-releases-industry-impact-data.html
Massachusetts Initiatives
Most data, groups and websites are available before 2005. Here is
what they started their initiative with. Massachusetts had over 100
self-identified nanotechnology firms and over $110 million in venture
capital was invested in nanotechnology firms in 2003. The existing
industries of bio/pharma, medical devices, semiconductor equipment, and
material innovations drove clusters within the nanotech start-ups. The
state also has major nanotechnology research centers at most university
campuses, and three of these are National Nanotechnology Initiative
Centers of Excellence: MIT Soldier Nanotechnology Center, Harvard
Center for the Science of Nanoscale Systems and their Device
Applications, and Northeastern University/UMass Lowell/University of
New Hampshire Nano Science & Engineering Center.
http://www.masstech.org/mni/
Florida Trends
Florida is also making strategic investments in the new and
promising field of nanotechnology. The nanotechnology cluster in
Florida includes at least three dozen companies. In addition, Florida
universities are also busy building the infrastructure needed to
conduct high-quality R&D in the field.
http://www.eflorida.com/ContentSubpage.aspx?id=316
Why the nanotechnology market is not necessarily worth $1.5
trillion now: An article by Nanowerk regarding whether the market
report numbers available on the industry thus far have been inflated.
Estimates of the global nanotechnology market in 2010 ranged from
about $15.7 billion to $1 trillion. By 2015, the market may be worth
more than $2.4 trillion, according to different analysts. These
differences reflect not only different analytical methods and
assumptions, but also different definitions of the nanotechnology
market (e.g., whether to include decades-old technologies such as
carbon black rubber reinforcers and photographic silver, or whether to
base the market value on nanotechnology inputs alone, as opposed to the
total value of products that incorporate nanotechnology).
In the latest Lux report, a trusted source amongst the
nanotechnology industry, a pragmatic decision was made to exclude
certain types of materials and devices from the report that technically
fit the definition of nanotechnology. These exceptions include carbon
black nanoparticles used to reinforce tires and other rubber products;
photographic silver and dye nanoparticles; and activated carbon used
for water filtration. These materials were excluded because they have
been used for decades, long before the concept of nanotechnology was
born, and their huge volumes (especially carbon black and activated
carbon) would tend to swamp the newer nanomaterials in the analysis.
Nanoscale semiconductors are also excluded from the study, although
the tools used to create them are included. Unlike carbon black and
activated carbon, nanoscale semiconductors are a relatively new
development. However, they have been analyzed comprehensively
elsewhere, and like carbon black and activated carbon, would tend to
overwhelm other nanotechnologies by their sheer volume in the out-years
towards 2015.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1792.php
Market Opportunities
Applications of Most Promise:
(1) Thin films in solid state devices (i.e., energy, lighting,
semiconductors)
(2) Surface treatments/functionalizations (i.e., wet/stain proofing,
improving cell/DNA/molecular particle adhesion)
(3) Drug delivery
(4) Semiconductors/memory devices
(5) Wireless sensor networks (i.e., dust nodes)
(6) Printed/flexible electronics
(7) Smart textiles
Other opinions--The following list provides applications of
nanotechnology the Oklahoma Nano Initiative anticipated to be of great
commercial success, by year ranges:
2004-7 burn and wound dressings, water filtration devices,
paints, cosmetics, coatings, lubricants, textiles, memory/
storage devices
2008-10--medical diagnostics, displays, sensors, drug
delivery, composite materials, solid state lighting, bio-
materials, nano arrays, more powerful computers, protective
armor, chem-bio suits, and chem-bio sensors
2011-15--nanobiomaterials, microprocessors, new catalysts,
portable energy cells, solar cells, tissue/organ regeneration,
smart implants
2016 and beyond--molecular circuitry, quantum computing,
new materials, fast chemical analyses
(Oklahoma Nano Initiative)
Big Players:
Almost every technology based Fortune 100 company has some
nanotechnology initiative. Several of these corporations have in-house
venture arms or other mechanisms that would seek out nanoscale
technology research from any source. Here are the larger players and
what domain their nanotechnology programs belong to. That is then
followed by specific profiles of companies with very specific, yet
unique nanotechnology product lines.
Defense/Security:
-- Lockheed Martin
-- Raytheon
Health/Food/Cosmetics:
-- Proctor & Gamble
-- Kraft
-- Nestle
-- GlaxoSmithKline
-- Johnson & Johnson
-- Unilever
-- Amgen
-- Baxter
Consumer Electronics:
-- NEC
-- Xerox
-- Microsoft
-- Nokia
-- Fujitsu
-- HP
-- Canon
-- Philips
-- Samsung
-- HItachi
Semiconductors/Mfg Equipment:
-- ST
-- Intel
-- Texas Instruments
-- Lucent Technologies
-- AMD
-- ASML
Chemicals:
-- Sumitomo
-- BASF
-- Dupont
-- Dow
-- Degussa
-- Cabot
-- Air Products
-- Praxair
Agriculture:
-- Monsanto
Energy:
-- ExxonMobil
-- ConocoPhillips
-- ChevronTexaco
-- Siemens
-- GE
-- Mitsubishi
Consumer Products:
-- Wilson
-- Easton
Transportation:
-- GM
-- DaimlerChrysler
-- BMW
-- Caterpillar
-- Boeing
Specific Corporate Nanotechnology Product Profiles
Raytheon--Along with partners, DuPont and Partners Healthcare,
Raytheon currently sponsors the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They act as liaison to the
Institute's Network Centric Systems group. The collective group is re-
designing body armor materials to mimic the iron sulfide rich, uniquely
structured shell of particular snails.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/rtn10_snail_armor/
index.html
ExxonMobil--Sarnoff Corporation entered a five-year strategic
agreement with ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (EMRE), in
2005, to commercialize EMRE's groundbreaking portfolio of mesoporous
materials. Sarnoff was tasked to market outside of the petrochemical
industry. The materials, which include novel high surface area silicas,
were among the first nanomaterials ever created and have been
commercialized by ExxonMobil for its own use.
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=12688
BMW--BMW established a group of a dozen plus materials scientists
to scan the field of nanotechnology and its applications in various
industries. The idea was to initiate projects which would lead to the
use of nanotechnology in BMW automobiles. That resulted in BMW
applyings applications of nanotechnology in some models. There are now
rear window systems in the 5 and 7 series cars which feature a
``nanolayer laminate.'' This ultra thin layer helps reflect the heat of
the sun while at the same time allowing in electromagnetic signals for
telephone and other applications.
Johnson & Johnson--J&J concentrates on the areas of kidneys,
diabetes, and cardiovascular systems and is looking towards
nanotechnology for personalized medicine applications. J&J's biopharma
interests include the areas of trophic, restore/replace, small
molecules, and biological organisms. J&J recently invested in nanotech
and in particular, start-up, Vesta Organano, though their partnership
is not fully disclosed on all details.
http://organano.com/
Kraft--In 2000, Kraft Foods began sponsoring the NanoteK
Consortium. The members of the Consortium include researchers from 15
universities, three national labs and three start-up companies. Harvard
University, the University of Nebraska, the University of Connecticut,
Los Alamos and Argonne National Laboratories, the Universities of
Seville and Malaga in Spain and Uppsala University in Sweden are some
of the institutions involved in this collaboration. Some of the
research areas identified by the consortium members are the development
of low cost sensors that detect the presence of foodborne pathogens,
filters for removing undesirable compounds from foods and beverages,
and nanoparticles to store flavors and nutrients inside food and
release them at designated organs in the body when they are needed.
Nestle--Nestle's research center in Switzerland assigned a group of
scientists to investigate the potential benefits of nanotechnology for
food systems. Nestle was exploring nutraceuticals--nano-capsules that
deliver nutrients and antioxidants to specific parts of the body at
specific times. The technology turns previously insoluble nutrients
into nano-sized particles that can be released into the body and
properly absorbed, with big potential benefits for a whole new kind of
health food.
Lockheed--Lockheed Martin has had a corporate focus on
nanotechnology for the past 7 years which has helped shape the
development of nanotechnology applications in all of its four Business
Areas. Nanotechnology is one of 15 strategic technology threads in
Lockheed Martin which focus on technologies that enable strategic
growth. There is an on-going corporate funded project to develop ultra
light weight structures. This project includes the development of
processes for growing carbon nanotubes and testing new substrates and
materials. The expected outcome is higher performance, lighter weight,
and lower cost materials for many of our subsystems. Furthermore, the
company is hiring the best and the brightest in this space, creating
job titles with ``nanotechnology'' in the name and job expectations.
Caterpillar/Firefly Energy--In 2006, in a hushed deal between
Caterpillar and Firefly Energy, a joint venture was struck to develop a
battery comprised of an electrical current collector constructed of
carbon or lightweight graphite foam. This foam exhibited a sizeable
increase in surface area for chemical reactions to take place and
eliminated the need for heavy lead plates found in traditional
batteries. The graphite material resists corrosion and sulfation build-
up, thus contributing to longer battery life and is lighter in weight
than today's lead acid batteries. The nanotechnology application at
Firefly Energy pertains to the battery's grid coating process, which
refers to the nanoscale nature of the coating.
Technology Background
Nanotechnology `Formats' Basics
While each format of nanotechnology harbors different mechanical,
optical and electrical properties, their cost to produce and
feasibility of scale-up varies just as much. These unique formats with
different process procedures include:
(1) Nanotubes (i.e., Carbon Nanotubes [CNT])
(2) Nanoparticles
(3) Thin films
(4) Self-assembled monolayers
(5) Sol-gels
http://www.nanomagazine.co.uk/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&
id=824&Itemid=139
(6) Nanocomposites
(8) Nanotools (i.e., nanolithography tools and scanning probe
microscopes)
(9) Nanodevices (i.e., nanosensors and nanoelectronics)
Commercialization Hurdles and Risks
-- Manufacturing/scale-up is a challenge for nanotechnologies--Thin
films/surface treatment deposition techniques are often
expensive because they require large vacuum chambers and/or
complex chemical/gas vapor management systems. In high volume,
large surface area applications, the scale up of chambers and
vapor systems can increase costs by at least one order of
magnitude. Furthermore, such geometrically limited systems with
low vacuum pressure requirements, cannot accommodate the cost-
effective manufacturing that is afforded by roll-to-roll
production. Other production complications are due to the sheer
scale-up of producing nanoscale products. Lastly, metallic and
ceramic nanoparticles are very difficult to produce in
uniformity, and are especially difficult to uniformly produce
in high volume manufacturing.
-- Nanoscale devices operate in a new realm of physics. Known as
``scaling phenomena'', scientists cannot predict how these
devices will operate when compared to macroscale systems.
Simulations and modeling techniques are still under
investigation as researchers delve further into
nanotechnologies.
-- There are a number of FDA hurdles for nanoparticles, as the only
nanoparticles approved by the FDA for commercial use are
Dendrimers, a particular type of polymer-based nanoparticle
with a limited scope of attributes. The main reason by the FDA
for slow approval of all nanoparticles refers to the first
complication of unreliable uniform production. Any metallic or
ceramic nanoparticle is susceptible to poor uniformity in bulk
production, and if these particles should be less than 100
nanometers in diameter, FDA staff are not sure of the
consequences of live cells/tissue. The FDA fears that sub-100
nm particles could interact with DNA and/or cause cell damage.
-- Because of many of the above hurdles regarding unknown
information on the technology, nanotechnology product
development cycles are very long.
-- Venture capitalists, who typically invest in early stage start-
ups, especially from university resources, are investing in
nanotech, but not aggressively, due to the long cycles it takes
from discovery to commercial viability.
-- The U.S. stronghold on R&D talent across all science and
technology fields is diminishing. Compared to other developed
countries, students in the areas of science and technology are
not performing as well in their subjects are their peers in
other nations. Also, the number of graduates with tertiary
science and engineering degrees per capita in the U.S. is among
the lowest of the developed countries--less than half of that
of Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore, and less than one-third
the amount in Russia--which is a grave concern for the US's
technology development strength in the long-term. (``Ranking
the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and False Threats'', LUX
Research, 2010)
Additional Resources/Sites
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/
documents/hear
ings/Tour%20Testimony.pdf
http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/map/
http://www.nanotechproject.org/news/archive/
putting_nanotechnology_on_
map/
http://2020science.org/2011/01/04/us-national-nanotechnology-
initiative-draft-ehs-strategy-good-in-part/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1413
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/02/nanotechnology.html
*** http://www.electroiq.com/articles/stm/2010/08/ranking-the-
nations.html
http://www.austrade.gov.au/Invest/Opportunities-by-Sector/Advanced-
Manufac
turing/Nanotechnology/default.aspx
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/nano/initiatives.htm
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/13533/
Bibliography
BCC Research. ``Nanotechnology: A Realistic Market Assessment''.
Available from: http://www.bccresearch.com/report/NAN031D.html
[Accessed: 08/07/2011]. July, 2010.
California Institute of Nanotechnology. http://www.cinano.com/
index.html [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2009.
Center for Multifunctional Polymer Nanomaterials and Devices.
``Polymer Industry is Ohio's Largest, at $49 Billion''. http://
cmpnd.org/index.php?option=com_con
tent&view=article&id=45:polymer-industry-is-ohios-largest-at-49-
billion&catid=1:late
st-news&Itemid=50 [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2011.
College of Nanoscale Science & Engineering University of Albany.
http://cnse
.albany.edu/WorldClassResources.aspx [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2011.
Colorado Nanotechnology Alliance. ``Doing Business in Colorado''.
CO Nano Roadmap. Available from: http://www.coloradonanotechnology.org/
home/index.php?opt
ion=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=28 [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2011.
Colorado Official State Web Portal. ``Nanotechnology''. Office of
Economic Development and International Trade. http://www.colorado.gov/
cs/Satellite/OEDIT/OEDIT/1167928387048 [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2011.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ``Pennsylvania Initiative for
Nanotechnology''. http://www.newpa.com/build-your-business/key-
industries/high-technology/nano
technology [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2011.
DiChristina, M. ``Big Plans for Nanotechnology in Russia''.
Scientific American. Available from http://www.scientificamerican.com/
blog/post.cfm?id=big-plans-for-nanotechnology-in-rus-2011-05-30
[Accessed: 08/07/2011]. May 30, 2011.
Enterprise Florida. ``Nanotechnology''. http://www.eflorida.com/
ContentSubpage
.aspx?id=316 [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2011.
ETC Group. ``Nanogeopolitics 2009: The Second Survey''. Available
from: http://www.lawbc.com/other_pdfs/00048599.PDF [Accessed: 08/07/
2011]. July, 2009.
Fairchild, P. ``Nanotechnology: The Art and Science of Manipulating
Matter''. Distinctly Oklahoma. Available from: http://
distinctlyoklahoma.com/science/nanotech
nology-the-art-and-science-of-manipulating-matter/ [Accessed: 08/07/
2011]. August 1, 2010.
Flanagan, J. ``Collaborating for Profits in Nanotechnology''. The
New York Times. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/
business/smallbusiness/
16edge.html?dbk [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. July, 15, 2009.
Harvey, P. ``Why Small is the New Big North Texas research is
pushing the future of nanotechnology''. Special Report: DFW Technology
2011. Available from: http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_CEO/2011/
January_February/Technology
_Issue/North_Texas_Research_Pushes_Future_of_Nanotechnology.aspx
[Accessed: 08/07/2011]. January 4, 2011.
Haxton, B.M. & F. Meade. ``21st Century Vision: Developing a Global
Sustainable Science and Technology Park Strategy and Creating Economic
Development Worldwide''. Available from: http://www.i2sl.org/elibrary/
documents/haxton_meade.pdf [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2009.
IBM Nanoscale Science Department. http://www.research.ibm.com/
nanoscience/ [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2006.
John Adams Innovation Institute. ``Massachusetts Nanotechnology
Initiative''. http://www.masstech.org/mni/ [Accessed: 08/07/2011].
2008.
Koehler, G. ``Training California's New Workforce for 21st Century
Nanotechnology, MEMS, and Advanced Manufacturing Jobs'', Workforce
Learning Initiative, Economic and Workforce Development Program,
California Community Colleges. 2006.
LUX Research. ``Ranking the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and
False Threats''. Available from: https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/
research/document_
excerpt/6806 [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. August 17, 2010.
Nanotechnology Now. ``CU-Boulder Wins $1.5 Million Contract To Aid
In Cooling Of Electronic Devices''. Available from: http://
www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?
story_id=29236 [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. May 7, 2008.
Nanotechnology Now. ``Sarnoff To Commercialize ExxonMobil's Nano
Materials In Non-Petrochemical Markets''. Available from: http://
www.nanotech-now.com/news
.cgi?story_id=12688 [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. November 28, 2005.
NanoVIP. ``PA NanoCenter Awards $250K to PA-Based Nanotechnology
Companies; Releases Industry Impact Data''. Available from: http://
www.nanovip.com/pa-nanocenter-awards-250k-to-pa-based-nanotechnology-
companies-releases-industry-impact-data.html [Accessed: 08/07/2011].
December 7, 2010.
Nanowerk News. ``New York State Announces Unprecedented High-tech/
nanotechnology Initiative''. Available from: http://www.nanowerk.com/
news/newsid=18133
.php [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. September 20, 2010.
Nanowerk Spotlight. ``Debunking the trillion dollar nanotechnology
market size hype''. Available from: http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/
spotid=1792.php [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. April 18, 2007.
New York Loves Nano. http://www.nylovesnano.com/index.php
[Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2011.
Northern California Nanotechnology Initiative. http://
www.ncnano.org/ [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2003.
NYSTAR. ``New York State Research Centers by Discipline:
Nanotechnology/Microelectronics''. http://www.nystar.state.ny.us/rsch/
nanotech.htm [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2011.
Oklahoma Nanotechnology Initiative. http://www.oknano.com/
index.html [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2005.
Pennsylvania NanoMaterials Commercialization Center. ``About the
Pennsylvania NanoMaterials Commercialization Center''. http://
www.pananocenter.org/nano-center-about.aspx Accessed: 08/07/2011].
2011.
Pennsylvania State University. ``Nano @ Penn State Fast Facts''.
Nano@Penn State. http://www.gonano.psu.edu/facts/ [Accessed: 08/07/
2011]. 2011.
Photovoltaics World. ``CNSE nanotech complex plans PV control
center''. Available from: http://dpwsa.electroiq.com/index/display/
article-display/2478462125/articles/Photovoltaics-World/industry-news/
2011/6/cnse-nanotech-complex-plans-pv-co
ntrol-center.html [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. June 7, 2011.
Polymer Ohio. ``Center for Multifunctional Polymer Nanomaterials
and Devices (CMPND)''. http://www.polymerohio.org/download/pdf/
NanoVer2.pdf [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2004.
Ray, D. ``Smallest Science Becoming Big Industry''. University of
Colorado-Boulder. Available from: http://ncf.colorado.edu/
?p=news&sub=tinytech&id=63 [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. January 4, 2009.
Raytheon. ``NCS Engineer Studies Snail's Shell for Soldier Body
Armor''. Available from: http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/
rtn10_snail_armor/index
.html [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. March 16, 2010.
Roco, M.C. & W. Bainbridge eds., ``Societal implications of
nanoscience and nanotechnology''. National Science Foundation Report.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. 2001.
Sargent, J. ``The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues''. Congressional Research
Service Report for Congress. Available from: http://www.fas.org/sgp/
crs/misc/RL34401.pdf [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. January 19, 2011.
Smart System Technology & Commercialization Center of Excellence.
``Moser Baer Technologies wins $2.9M U.S. Department of Energy Award to
Enable Green Energy Research and Pilot Production at CNSE's Smart
System Technology & Commercialization Center of Excellence''. College
of Nanoscale Science & Engineering University of Albany. Available
from: http://www.itcmems.com/news_June.html [Accessed: 08/07/2011].
June 9, 2011.
State of California. ``Welcome to the Portal for the California
Nanotechnology Initiative''. California Department of Toxic Substances
Control. Available from: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/
Nanotechnology/nanoport.cfm [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2007.
State of Oklahoma. ``Oklahoma Nanotechnology Applications Project
(ONAP)''. Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and
Technology. Available from: http://www.ok.gov/ocast/Programs/
Oklahoma_Nanotechnology_Applications_
Project_%28ONAP%29/index.html [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. March 28, 2011.
The Economic Times. ``India in danger of missing 'nano bus': PM's
scientific advisor''. Available from: http://
articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-07-06/ne
ws/29743451_1_nanotechnology-science-fiction-rao [Accessed: 08/07/
2011]. July 6, 2011.
Washington Technology Center. ``Washington Nanotechnology
Initiative.'' Available from: http://www.watechcenter.org/sites/
default/files/docs/nanotech_report
fnl_011005.pdf [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. January, 2005.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew
Charitable Trusts. ``US NanoMetro Map''. The Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies. Available from: http://www.nanotechproject.org/
inventories/map/ [Accessed: 08/07/2011]. 2011.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Dr. O'Neal.
Dr. McLendon?
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE McLENDON, HOWARD H. HUGHES PROVOST AND
PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, RICE UNIVERSITY
Dr. McLendon. Thank you, Chairman Nelson and distinguished
Senators and guests and my distinguished colleagues here. I
certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today.
In my career, I've taught thousands of students. I've
published a number of scientific papers and books and,
importantly, for what we're talking about today, a number of
patents that supported the creation of new successful
businesses. So that's the background that I'm bringing to
discuss today--how Federally-funded nanotechnology research has
been leveraged by private investment to produce new
technologies and new commercial enterprises with
transformational advances in energy, environment, and medical
sciences, leading to the creation of new high-quality jobs.
I'm going to give three examples. I've been at Rice for a
year, and so my three examples are going to be drawn from one
university over one year. And then you can do the math to scale
that. These are Rice technologies, which was spawned by Federal
funding, each of which led to new commercial enterprises.
Let me start with energy. Both current and future energy
technologies depend on the quality of the electric grid. One of
my Rice colleagues, Matleo Pasquali, at the Smalley Institute
and in the Department of Chemical Engineering, has partnered
with private industry to improve the efficiency of the carbon
nanotubes that some of you spoke of earlier to create much
higher quality electricity conduction for both local and broad
grid applications. Those kinds of materials, when fully
developed, can accelerate and transform development of a smart
grid. Similar stories could be told for battery technology, for
solar power, for safe oil and gas recovery, all based on the
foundation of these materials in nanotechnology.
Let me turn to an environmental example. Professors Vicki
Colvin and Pedro Alvarez have developed a nanorust which
cheaply and safely removes toxic arsenic from water. This has
been field tested in Guanajuato. It's being used to create safe
drinking water where none was available previously to those
folks. Similar approaches will be applicable in water
remediation in many other contexts.
As a third example, my colleagues, Jennifer West and Naomi
Halas, have created nanoparticles which can bind to tumors and
use light to selectively heat and destroy the tumor while
minimally affecting surrounding tissue. This breakthrough
depended on fundamental studies of the optical properties of
those nanocrystals and resulted in a new venture-funded company
that has clinical trials currently in progress and is helping
people right now.
So my point is that I hope you can see that nanotechnology
really is remarkable, as Chad said, in its ability to translate
fundamental discoveries on relatively short time scales into
commercial practice, which improve lives worldwide and create
new, high-technology, high-quality jobs right here in America.
In supporting such research through the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, we create opportunities to leverage that Federal
investment. We're creating transformational technologies and
associated jobs while we're educating the workforce to sustain
and build on the U.S. lead in this rapidly developing field.
I might note in passing, for example, that one way in which
my Texas senator helped was to help create a way of sharing
equipment across many institutions. The kind of equipment
that's necessary to do these very difficult experiments would
be difficult to recreate in many, many places or in many, many
labs. By sharing that, you leverage that investment. And all
three examples that I gave you used that kind of shared
equipment that came out of SPRING funding.
So at Rice, we've found that these public-private
partnerships are a dynamic and growing opportunity to create
new national wealth and global improvements in energy,
healthcare, and the environment. So as we're all struggling to
figure out how do we deal with the budgetary issues, one way
that I would suggest is let's grow the pie rather than figure
out how to slice it differently. And I hope that the kind of
examples that I and my colleagues have given show ways in which
we can grow that pie.
I'm grateful to acknowledge the fruits of this public
investment. I thank the citizens who created that public
investment and thank you for this opportunity to share these
small stories and for your service to the Nation that we all
love. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McLendon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. George McLendon, Howard H. Hughes Provost and
Professor of Chemistry, Rice University
Chairman Nelson, Arkansas Senator Boozman, and Members of the
Committee,
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the developing
impact of nanotechnology and the role of Federal support in maintaining
U.S. leadership in this field. While my brief remarks will focus on
research, education, and commercialization at Rice University, when
combined with the testimony of colleagues, I hope you will see a
picture of the vibrancy and future impact of this critical field.
My name is George McLendon. I am the Howard H. Hughes Provost and
Professor of Chemistry at Rice University in Houston, Texas. I have
published hundreds of articles and hold a number of commercialized
patents in areas ranging from nanotechnology to oncology. I am
committed to insuring that the fruits of federally funded research
translate into commercial products that create jobs at home, and
improve lives in the U.S. and worldwide.
In my brief remarks, I will highlight three examples of work from
Rice University Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Research.
The Smalley Institute is named in honor of the late Richard Smalley,
who received the Nobel Prize for the discovery (at Rice) of the
buckminsterfullerene (a.k.a. C60, a.k.a. ``buckyball''). The
Smalley Institute was the first university research institute devoted
to nanoscience and nanotechnology, and is ranked among the world's
best. We draw together colleagues independently from (15) different
departments at Rice, alongside scientists from industries both large
and small. The Institute also spawned CBEN, which pioneered
investigation of biological and environmental implications of
nanotechnology bringing state of the art research to stakeholders from
industry to the Environmental Defense Fund. We are also deeply
committed to translation of basic research to sustainable commercial
practice, which allows such research to benefit the citizens who have
supported it.
Nanotechnology is a foundational technology that can create
hundreds of thousands of new jobs to make new products and my
colleagues help create . . . According to a presentation by Clayton
Teague, former Director of the Federal National Nanotechnology
Initiative, the nanotechnology industry currently employs over 150,000
Americans and that number is expected to grow significantly. It is
estimated that there could be as many as 800,000 jobs in nanotechnology
by 2015. Nanotechnology can be the major driver of economic growth over
the next two decades. The U.S. needs to make important decisions now to
ensure that this growth occurs in the United States where it can be of
greatest benefit to U.S. citizens who provided the resources to fund
this technology.
Rice does this in several ways. First, we have formed direct
partnerships with major corporations (e.g., Lockheed Advanced
Nanotechnology Center at Rice--LANCER), which performs basic research
in support of the technology challenges posed by the state of the art
(defense) technologies needed by Lockheed Martin. In the course of such
research partnership, we have also educated over 200 Lockheed
scientists in the basics of nanotechnology via targeted courses.
This highlights a critical role of universities in sustaining U.S.
leadership in nanotechnology: the education of the next generation of
leaders.
A second example addresses the U.S. need for energy independence.
The Advanced Energy Consortium (AEC) includes ten major energy
companies who support work on nanotechnology which helps increase
domestic production of hydrocarbon resources, with decreased
environmental impact: ``greener carbon,'' which ranges from ``down
hole'' sensing, to advanced drilling technologies to mitigate
environmental impacts of hydrocarbon production, to remediation of
water which may be affected by energy production.
Two specific examples may be germane. Professor Andrew Barron has
developed ``green muds'' which enhance efficiency of oil by combining
nano particles into drilling fluids. This technology has spun out into
an independent company, which is currently producing and selling these
advanced materials for conventional and unconventional enhanced
recovery.
A personal favorite example lies at the interface of chemistry and
environmental science. Two of my colleagues, chemist Vicki Colvin and
engineer Pedro Alvarez, are developing nanotechnologies to cheaply and
safely remediate water pollution. For example in Guanajuato, Mexico
much well water is hazardous, because of high local arsenic levels.
Colvin and Alvarez showed how ``rust'' nanoparticles could cheaply,
safely and effectively remove the arsenic to safe levels, making safe
local drinking water available for the first time for many people.
Similar approaches can remediate water, which has come in contact with
other pollutants.
Similar stories emerge in health care. My colleague on this panel
Professor Mirkin, pioneered nanodiagnostics. Similar approaches have
been further developed and engineered by my Rice colleague, John
McDevitt, to produce ``labs on a chip.'' Technologies which allow point
of care diagnostics from AIDS tests to drug screening at a fraction of
current costs, and in ways that fully integrate health care with IT
with huge potential. These novel technologies are being commercialized
by a privately funded start-up, Force Diagnostics. The next generation
of such technologies will depend on Federal private partnerships to
reach their full potential.
A second example draws from my own interest in oncology. Rice
colleagues Jennifer West and Naomi Halas have used nanochemistry to
engineer nanoparticles, which absorb light to which our bodies are
transparent. This absorbed light heats the particles and destroys
nearby tumors. These inventions have also spurred venture funding of a
novel start up, and clinical trials are underway.
Rice has worked diligently in these areas to develop an
``innovation ecosystem,'' combining state, Federal and private funding
for entrepreneurship. For example, in the life sciences, we are
creating, in partnership with the state and private investors, a
``think tank'' accelerator which combines venture funding, successful
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs in training, CRO support and
foundational and applied science and engineering to serve the Texas
Medical Center, the world's largest research medical center.
Federal support for fundamental science is the critical first step
in such partnerships, which, as noted, can translate these fundamental
discoveries to commercial practice to provide sustainable social
benefits.
I have given only a few examples of many extraordinary advances in
science and technology developed at Rice. These illustrate an approach
in which initial government funding is highly leveraged again and again
by private sector investment to produce new products and services that
transform lives, whether in creating new energy resources or safer
drinking water.
To achieve such goals, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
should be reauthorized to help guide the translation of basic research
to commercial practice. Currently, the NNI budget supports nanoscale
science, engineering, and technology research and development (R&D) at
15 agencies with 10 additional participating agencies. NNI helps to
align these agencies so that they can work in a coordinated way to move
this technology from discovery to commercialization. A new
reauthorization will allow the Federal Government, universities, and
the private sector to work to find creative ways to bring these
promising technologies to the market more quickly and economically. In
the absence of reauthorization, these agencies will be focused in
different directions and the industry will struggle to transition into
the next stage while other countries continue to close the existing
gap.
Senator Nelson. As I turn to my colleagues for their
questions, let's get you to--as we want to grow this pie, as
you say, Dr. McLendon, realizing that we're in a budget crunch
and realizing that the U.S. got the jump on everybody else 10
years ago, and we put $14 billion into this over that decade,
but now we've got a whole bunch of other countries that are
investing in nanotechnology research--so as we try to grow this
pie, give us some of your blockbuster examples--so that we can
disseminate it to the public--of the most important
technological or market successes in this past decade on
nanotechnology. Let's just start with you and just go down and
quickly do it, and then I want to turn to my colleagues for
their questions.
Dr. Mirkin. OK. I'll talk about some of the ones that I'm
very familiar with. So you mentioned at the start diagnostic
tools, tools that now are commercialized, FDA cleared. Some are
produced by a company called NanoSphere that I started 10 years
ago. It's now traded on the NASDAQ. It's a public company, an
example of roughly $20 million of investment in terms of
Federal investment. This is a great example of basic research
at the university level getting translated into hundreds of
millions of dollars of investment in terms of venture capital--
--
Senator Nelson. What's an example of a diagnostic tool?
Dr. Mirkin. A diagnostic tool would be a medical diagnostic
that would screen you for a disease marker so that we could
diagnose disease much earlier, catch cancer at its earliest
stages when you have a chance to treat it and ultimately cure
it, or to catch the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. So you
actually have a real diagnostic as opposed to one that is
subjective or a subjective analysis of how you're behaving. We
don't have a real diagnostic yet. The nanotech routes are
actually leading to a real diagnostic, which is exciting. And,
in fact, there are platforms that are commercialized and ready
to go now.
You mentioned prostate cancer. Being able to detect markers
years earlier than we can with conventional tools is not only
important for screening, but for looking at recurrence. When
men have their prostates removed, PSA levels drop to below
detectable. With these new tools, they're detectable and you
can now look and see whether somebody's flat-lining and tell
them they're cured. They don't have to wait 7 years to find
that out. That takes the weight of the world off their
shoulders.
And then the other 52 percent of the people will be slow
risers, and if you can catch them early, you can say now you
can try experimental therapeutics, many of which are nano-
based, and you can use the diagnostic to validate those
therapies. So it's not only going to be new ways of tracking,
but it's going to lead to new ways of finding really important
therapeutics that will lead to cures for many types of
diseases.
Senator Nelson. OK. Others?
Dr. Romine. I can give you one significant example in the
CNST, the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology. We were
approached by IBM to gain access to our systems in order for
them to devise the prototype electronics for their new
supercomputing capabilities. And so I've actually referenced
that in the testimony that I have.
In talking with them, they certainly had the resources that
they could have used to procure some of the capabilities that
we had already available at the CNST. But the fact that they
could gain ready access to our facilities and to the unique
capabilities that we provided there in terms of collections of
capabilities, they tell us, cut at least 6 months off their
development time. And six months, as you know, in the
development of supercomputing technologies, is a lifetime. And
so that kind of competitive advantage is something that I think
the CNST was able to provide.
Senator Nelson. Dr. Leslie-Pelecky?
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. One of my favorite ones I like to talk
about is because people are hoarding 100-watt incandescent
light bulbs right now. They're doing that because they don't
like the way the compact fluorescents make you look. They make
you look blue and sort of sickly. There's a company, QDVision,
that's using nanotechnology--quantum dots--to make something
that you put over the compact flourescent light bulbs that
would change the spectrum of the light so it would more closely
mimic natural light. And that's an incredible advantage,
because if we could get rid of the incandescent light bulbs,
the energy savings would be enormous.
Senator Nelson. And to do that cheaply, and it saves a lot
of electricity. Or are you talking about just something that
goes over a regular incandescent bulb?
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. No. This would actually go over a
compact fluorescent bulb or even an LED. And so you'd be able
to use the energy saving technology and you basically wouldn't
know that it was any different than an incandescent light bulb.
Senator Nelson. I see.
Dr. O'Neal?
Dr. O'Neal. A couple of examples from UCF. There's a
company we just spun off called Speckle Dot. Speckle Dot--one
of our faculty members uses nanoscale particles to detect the
coagulability of blood in real time and non-invasively. So that
can actually go into the emergency room or in places where you
can see--when someone has a stroke, and you can see if they
need to have their blood thinned or thickened or whatever. So
that really helps save lives. You can do it--bring it into
operating rooms and really help--really just establish if the
blood is, how coagulable it is.
There's another thing called PTR glass, or photothermal-
refractive glass, and it's used to bend light. So it has got a
lot of communications and things. So you can take lasers and
you can split the frequencies out and you can broadcast them
over and put them back together again in kind of a really neat
way that's a passive device. Really, it's a piece of glass, and
you can actually put holograms in there and store data. A lot
of different things you can do. These are all the nanoscale
particles and glass that make that happen.
And there are interesting things being done with cerium
oxide, everything from help with Alzheimer's to, actually,
increasing the fuel efficiency in diesel. So there are very
neat applications coming out of a broad range of nanoscale
particles.
Senator Nelson. Dr. McLendon?
Dr. McLendon. I already gave a brief example----
Senator Nelson. You did. Give us an example before you got
to Rice. You gave us the ones----
Dr. McLendon. Right. I'll give you a wonderfully Texas
example that has to do with creating drilling mud. It turns out
that to optimize the production of oil and gas, it matters--and
to do that as safely and effectively and environmentally
appropriately as possible, it matters enormously what your
drilling materials are. And building in engineered
nanoparticles, it turns out, can help you find out what's going
on in real time and improve the efficiency of that. There's a
company from Rice that is doing exactly that right now. It has
huge implications for our energy security.
One before I got to Rice--I was involved in helping start a
company in California that uses extremely small amounts of
picoliters of liquid to move around materials with exceedingly
high precision. That turns out to be critical to the
pharmaceutical industry when they need to create libraries of
compounds that they use to test for new drugs and allows you to
make copies of those libraries far more cheaply and efficiently
than was ever possible before. That company now does about $40
million in business a year, and it's been increasing at 30 to
40 percent a year. That's a good example of something that came
from very basic research, turned into something commercial, and
is growing at a rate that exceeds the rate of growth of the
U.S. economy by a substantial margin.
Senator Nelson. Well, thank you for these examples. I
assume that things like lightweight aircraft of the future is
another example?
Dr. McLendon. Absolutely.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Senator Rockefeller?
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask three
questions if I can get away with it.
The first will be to you, Dr. Mirkin, and you, Dr. Leslie-
Pelecky. You both talked about cancer and you both talked about
Alzheimer's. I've paid a lot of attention to both. One of the
extraordinary things is that the great teaching universities,
including Rockefeller University, I have to say, and Howard
Hughes Institute, and all these giant research people who have
been putting hundreds of millions of dollars of research into
Alzheimer's for years and years have basically hit a brick
wall. Nothing has really happened. No cure--diagnostics are
being worked on, but no cure is in sight.
The same for cancer. And there's an incredible book,
incidentally--wasting your time--called The Emperor of All
Maladies, which you ought to read. It just won the Pulitzer
Prize. It's the best book on cancer that, I think, has ever
been written.
But with cancer, let's say you've discovered a little spot
in the liver. And, traditionally, what you'd do to make sure of
the whole situation--you do chemotherapy. Then you do
radiation. Radiation is what I have in mind, because radiation
goes directly to the spot, wherever that may be, and you may
pay a hellacious price for that radiation.
Now, can nanotechnology, through--because you've said it
can--these gold-plated little tiny particles--can you focus
that in two ways, one, on the spot in the liver? You talked
about magnetizing it and then holding it over a certain place.
Is that like radiation, or is that just identifying it? Is that
just saying this is a marker?
Also, in Alzheimer's, one of the big problems is getting
through the blood brain barrier so that you can put a curative
medicine, if we had one, on a particular synapses or plaque or
whatever within the brain. Otherwise, you have to wait until
the person is dead, really, and then do an autopsy and find out
what happened, which is not a fast way of doing things.
So how does nanotechnology apply in each of those two
examples, potentially?
Dr. Mirkin. OK. I'll take a crack at that. So those are
great questions. First of all, you have to recognize these are
big problems. And so it's, I think, wrong to oversimplify the
solutions, from our perspective. But the bottom line is much of
what you're saying is correct. I mean, these are enormous
challenges. Nanomaterials offer, though, the ability to
overcome a lot of those challenges.
We have, for example, the first types of particle
constructs that will cross the brain blood barrier and affect
gene regulation in glioblastoma type tumors. That's really
exciting. That's very, very exciting, because----
The Chairman. How?
Dr. Mirkin. Because they're small, and they've been
chemically modified in such a way that they can pass the brain
blood barrier by virtue of size and then target the cancer
cells based upon sticky groups that we've put on them that go
exclusively for those cells. And the other thing they have is
the ability to penetrate tissues better than anything that's
ever been studied before. And that's really exciting, because
that means if you get things close, they can diffuse to the
disease site.
And, for example, for a brain tumor, that's one of the
problems. One of the reasons the prognosis is so bad is that
the surgeon can remove the tumor in certain cases, but they
leave a few cells behind, and it's those few cells that are
left behind that kills the patient. And so having particles
that can get in and then diffuse and then selectively target
those cells and cause them to die and not touch the healthy
cells is the trick. And there are a lot of promising results,
in fact, this year that suggest that that is going to happen
and going to happen soon.
The problem is even worse, though, than what you say in
terms of, you know, detecting a little speck. I had a
colleague--I won't mention her name, but she had a tumor
growing in her the size of a softball. This is a 34-year-old
lady. It is amazing that we don't have technologies that can
tell us that's growing in her--you know, when it's the size of
a golf ball or a pea, let alone a softball. When she went to
try to get screened, the only thing they could do was an
imaging technique, which then, of course, told her that she had
a softball--there was nothing about the regular checkup that
would allow you to diagnose that she has something radically
different from a healthy person and something that big growing
inside of her.
We need technologies that allow us to catch these things at
early stages and therapeutic interventions that allow us to
ultimately treat them and stop the damage they cause. And
that's where nanotech is really going to play a role, because
these materials do things that conventional materials can't do,
and I mentioned a couple of those in the start of the
statement.
The Chairman. Dr. Leslie-Pelecky, my time has run out. So
can you do this in about 30 seconds?
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. Certainly. You talked about radiation,
for example. There's a number of people who are attaching
radioactive materials to nanoparticles and then delivering
those nanoparticles to the places where the tumors are. So
instead of going through the body, you're actually going in and
getting to exactly where you need to go. I think about a tumor
as sort of like a puzzle piece, and each type of cancer has
different types of puzzle pieces. Our job is is to take our
nanoparticles and find a way to make them fit into that
particular type of puzzle piece.
So as Dr. Mirkin mentioned, specificity is really the
issue. Chemotherapy drugs work by basically killing the fastest
dividing cells, which include hair follicles. That's why your
hair falls out. The more specific we can make these drugs and
the more accurately we can deliver them, the more effective
they're going to be with fewer side effects.
The Chairman. Thank you both very much.
Senator Nelson. I leaned over to Senator Boozman and said,
``This is really exciting.'' All right.
Senator Hutchison?
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you. It really is exciting.
And I think that you have all identified specifics that we
can understand where nanotechnology has done wonderful things
in the past. And I want to mention also that the idea that both
Dr. Pelecky and Dr. McLendon have both mentioned is that we
really do need to have the collaboration in the funding area.
And if we can get this bill through, what you have suggested
will be part of this bill; that if there is not a clear agency
function there would be some discretion in giving worthy
research to something that's a little bit out of the box. So we
will handle that.
But the other thing that Dr. McLendon mentioned that I
think we need to also prioritize is the sharing of information
and equipment, because putting the same piece of equipment in
two places is not efficient, especially when you can
collaborate either through the technology or communications. I
think that sharing is something that we should also promote in
the reauthorization.
So here are the questions that I want to throw out to all
of you. Number one, has the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office ever assisted in commercialization efforts
that any of you would be making at your respective
institutions, and, if so, was it effective in helping
transition your research to the marketplace? And, if not, what
can we do to ensure that is a part of our efforts? If we are
going to put Federal funding into this research, we certainly
need to take it to the next step, with some reward going back
to the researcher and the institution, but also some sort of
reward that would spur other Federal investments. In other
words, some reward back to the government funding agency and
some to the research institution that would be a win for both
when you commercialize the project.
So I would throw it open to any of you on those questions.
Dr. O'Neal. I can start. We have not worked with the
institute to commercializing currently. But certainly one of
the things I like to talk about--when you've got research
rewards or commercialization, you know, most tech transfer
offices really--never really break even, much less make a lot
of money. And so I think you need to keep that in mind. It's an
investment in something where sometimes the return on
investment doesn't come back directly to the university or a
tech transfer office. But we need to make a way so it really
becomes an incentive for folks to continue that behavior
regardless. And how we do that needs to be understood better.
But, again, we'd love to work more with them, and I would like
to talk with someone about how to do it.
Senator Hutchison. Well, what's the right entity? Where
should we be focusing? Is it the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office? Is that the right entity that would be
able to be helpful, or is there something else?
Perhaps, Dr. Romine, you might have a view?
Dr. Romine. Yes. I can certainly say that the NNCO is, I
think, indirectly extremely helpful in terms of coordination
across the Federal Government programs in nanotechnology. And
so, indirectly, it provides kind of support for emphasizing and
sharing best practices with respect to technology transfer, and
I think the agencies do that. We have different ways of going
about it.
Senator Hutchison. What about helping on commercialization
and establishing a reward?
Dr. Romine. Right. I'd have to think some more about that.
It's not obvious how a coordinating function like that
represented by the NNCO would take on the added responsibility
of commercialization except through, again, the coordination of
the Federal agencies involved.
Senator Hutchison. Are there any other thoughts on that?
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. I would echo something that was said
about the STTR and SBIR programs. Those are outstanding ways of
bringing together the academicians and the people who want to
do commercialization. I'd also echo something that Dr. O'Neal
said about the problems of just getting through starting a
business and compliance. There need to be some guides. Faculty
members are all busy. They're doing a thousand things. Having a
way to help them into that entirely new world would be very
useful.
Senator Hutchison. I hear complaints from all sectors about
how long it takes to take an idea or a research project or a
product through the systems at the FDA. Is there anything there
that you have experience with or suggestions on how we could
help shorten those wait times?
Dr. McLendon. Yes, but not in minus 30 seconds.
Senator Hutchison. And that's exactly where I am. Well, why
don't I just ask you to submit for the record----
Dr. McLendon. I would be delighted.
Senator Hutchison.--suggestions as we are writing this
reauthorization? That's why we're having the hearing; so we can
do the right thing with the Federal dollars. So I would----
Dr. McLendon. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison.--invite all of you to submit
suggestions.
Dr. McLendon. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Boozman?
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to follow up a little bit with Dr. Mirkin, you and
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky talked about the tremendous advances--and
potential that we have for as medical health, but there are
also some concerns that it could go the other way. That perhaps
we don't understand quite enough yet.
The FDA has not yet identified particular safety issues
related to nanotechnology applications and FDA-related
products. But, nevertheless, they recently released draft
guides with criteria to determine whether nanotechnology is
used in an FDA-regulated product. So I would like for you two
to comment on that. And what effect has that had? Is that a
chilling effect? How do we sort that out and go forward?
Dr. Mirkin. OK. I'll take a stab at that. You know, this is
an issue with any technology. Any new technology can have
positive impact and it can have negative impact. There is
nothing to fear here in terms of size. That doesn't make things
special in this regard. It's a combination of the size of the
particles, the shape of the particles, and, as I said, the
chemical attachments that we add to the particles that make
them ultimately effective.
I think the FDA is actually thinking about this fairly
proactively, not perfectly, but proactively. A lot of the
agencies have been thinking about this proactively and have
been taking a pretty healthy view toward developing methods for
screening new constructs and determining whether they have
potential negative consequences that you're alluding to.
You can't do that at the start, in terms of taking all of
these materials and running them through screens, because it'll
just bankrupt the system and it doesn't make sense, because
many of them will be made and then never be used. They're just
an entry into the encyclopedia of knowledge.
But the ones that you take down paths that ultimately lead
to real products that are either disseminated in the
environment or used by people--you have to raise the bar and
apply many of the tools that we've developed for other types of
chemical constructs with an understanding of what makes
nanomaterials different to figure out whether or not they are
safe, and those types of methods are being developed. There are
a variety of centers around the country at universities that
focus exclusively on developing those types of tools. And I
think it's still very early. Those types of centers are going
to become more important and the knowledge that they're
producing is going to become more important as we get closer
and closer to primetime in terms of using these as, for
example, therapeutics.
On the diagnostic front, though, you know, we have our
diagnostic systems. We've got, I think, five different FDA-
cleared systems. So we've been able to work with the FDA and
they've been able to--sometimes gives a lot of push-back, but
ultimately get to systems that can do a lot of good.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. The folks we work with at the National
Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health are really working
toward developing predictive capability. How do you correlate
the physical and chemical properties of a nanomaterial with its
bioactivity? And I think that's part of--one approach is what
Dr. Mirkin said--looking at the products that are headed out
for commercialization. I think the folks that we work with are
really looking at it more as a function of how can we develop
some basic rules that will help us predict the bioactivity of
materials in the future.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Dr. McLendon, do you think there's enough venture capital
investment available to the nanotechnology companies, and, if
so, why? Or if not, why?
Dr. McLendon. Since I largely work with venture funded
companies, I don't think there's enough venture investment
available for anything. But----
Senator Boozman. What factors?
Dr. McLendon.--specifically, in nanotechnology, you know,
it's a very tough investment climate right now. And in the
absence of some sort of differential reason to put capital at
risk--some of you alluded in your opening remarks to incentive
structures and their advantages and disadvantages. I think
that's a place where you, as senators, could do a lot in
helping us think through what the best investment incentives
and structures are. I can tell you right now that it's a very
tight investment climate, not just for nanotechnology, but for
many cutting-edge areas in science and technology.
Senator Boozman. Good.
Dr. McLendon. And that's a personal experience.
Senator Boozman. Well, that's very helpful. And if you
would give us some of the hurdles that you feel are out there
and how we can help overcome them.
Dr. McLendon. Absolutely, sir. Thank you.
Senator Boozman Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Senator Ayotte, would you mind--Senator
Rockefeller has to leave, and he has one additional question.
Senator Rockefeller?
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
This is interesting--shortage of venture capital, all the
rest of it. But given good times, given bad times, we tend to
invest our dollars--a classically American thing to do--in
basic research, in other words, go find something. But we only
invest a very small fraction of that, 2 percent, in
translational research.
The Japanese and the Germans, for example, they're
basically taking our basic research, and they're applying it in
their countries through developmental applications. And I want
to know if you think this is true. If we're going to do--it's
just like doing anything. You can't sort of throw money out
there and let people have at it. I mean, you've got to focus--
you want to take a shot?
Dr. Mirkin. Yes, I will take it. I think what you're saying
is in part true, and it was probably worse 20 years ago. With
the patenting system that's in place and people honoring
patents more now, it has become less of an issue. And it's
important to remember that most of the patenting occurs at the
early basic science and discovery portion of the research
phase, and that gets you the protection that you want. And,
oftentimes, it's not clear--why do you invest in basic research
as opposed to just bet it all on one thing? Well, basic
research has led to a lot of things that we didn't anticipate
in terms of technology.
Northwestern is sitting on the biggest technology transfer
deals in the history of technology transfer. It's called the
drug, Lyrica. It was developed 20 years ago by a guy named Rick
Silverman. And he had some ideas of how it was ultimately going
to be used. But it was protected and then developed by a
company--Pfizer in this case--and it's now a blockbuster drug
that's out there. And it's producing a lot of revenue that's
coming ultimately back to Northwestern and going into research
and building buildings and things like that that will keep
pushing things forward.
I think it's important now in this area of nanotechnology
to have a balance. But I think it's really critical that we
don't ignore the basic research side of things. We have to have
it. That's really the engine that creates a lot of the ideas
that lead to translation.
The Chairman. I don't think I suggested ignoring it. But
you have to admit if 2 percent goes into translational
research, that's not very much.
Dr. Mirkin. Oh, I know. That's why my recommendation was to
expand the translational component and keep the basic research
at a reasonable level so that we're constantly planting the
seeds for the next stage. No, I agree there's an imbalance.
Dr. McLendon. Can I add to that? I think there are multiple
ways that I was alluding to in my answer to Senator Boozman to
do that. You can do that by directing funding, and perhaps
that's one way to do it. I think Chad would argue that if you
use up all the seed corn, that may be a flawed strategy.
Another way to do that is to create incentives for private
industry to co-invest or for individual investors to co-invest.
That's another way to build these public-private partnerships.
There's no question in my mind, at least, that you need a
public-private partnership to commercialize the nascent
technologies that are invented in our national laboratories, in
our universities, and elsewhere that the Federal Government has
supported. We haven't done as good a job in translating those
to commercial practice as I personally would like to see.
Dr. O'Neal. I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, we
really need to get excited about the commercialization part.
Every time I hear a pitch by one of our scientists to a venture
capitalist, they spend 25 minutes of a 27-minute presentation
on the science. They get so excited, and it really is fun
stuff. But they've really got to get excited about the business
opportunity. We need to kind of complete the process here or
the life cycle of the stuff and get it out. And efforts and a
sense of urgency to get this stuff commercialized--we all need
to kind of prepare ways to do it and get as excited about
translation and commercialization as we do about the science.
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. I've actually just come from reviewing
SBIR grants, and I can tell you that one of the things that we
saw there is that because of the interdisciplinarity of these
applications, you have materials companies trying to do
biological things and biology-based companies trying to do
materials things. You need that joint expertise. We have a lot
of companies that really want to go in that direction, but
they're heavy on one side or the other, and they need to expand
before they can really move forward.
The Chairman. I want to thank Senator Ayotte and you, Mr.
Chairman, for your courtesy.
And I apologize to the panel. You've more than lived up to
your billing.
Senator Nelson. Indeed.
Senator Ayotte?
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to follow up, Dr. Pelecky. You said you review
SBIR grants. Can you help me understand how the Nanotechnology
Initiative is interfacing with the SBIR grants? I'm a strong
supporter of this program, and I think it provides what we're
hearing about today. How does that all get coordinated? And can
you help me understand--maybe Dr. Romine could jump in as
well--how we are making sure that we're interfacing together
here?
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. Well, for example, the programs that I
normally review for are programs that are targeted calls for
the use of nanotechnology to address diagnosis and treatment of
cancer. They are specifically focused on nanotechnology, and I
believe that's all done through the NNI.
Senator Ayotte. This was one of the issues that arose in my
mind when I was preparing for this hearing--because when you
examine the National Nanotechnology Initiative, it's basically
coordinating the activities of 25 agencies, 15 of which have
specific budgets for R&D. And one of the issues that just came
to my mind immediately, and I would love to hear from those who
are applying for grants. When you're dealing with multiple
agencies like that, how has your experience been, number one?
And how has the coordination been? What can we do better to
make sure that the money is in the right place? Should we be
centralizing more? Are we making it too difficult for you? How
can we make it easier?
I'd start with Dr. Mirkin.
Dr. Mirkin. Well, I mean, I think, in general, it's been
pretty good. I mean, there has been a learning process. I think
that the centers have been examples of Federal agencies cross-
coordinating with one another and learning from what worked
with one group and imparting that into the next call with the
other. I think the CCNE efforts that I alluded to from the NCI
were based in part on some of the experience that the NSF had
with the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers.
This is a really tough thing to do, because in many
respects, the NNI is kind of an influence that's making--not
making, but incentivizing or telling agencies to invest in this
particular area, and then it's left up to them to figure out
how they are going to do it. And I think what's happened over
the last decade is we've gotten a tremendous amount done, but
we've lost some focus. And that's why I really think this
signature initiative issue is really quite important in getting
the agencies to come together and figure out what it is that
we're going to go after, what bets we're going to make, and to
create a theme of excellence in a few areas and really develop
them extremely well.
Senator Ayotte. I appreciate that. And as a follow-up, I
certainly want to hear the rest of the panelists' comments on
this issue, because I can see when we have 25 agencies involved
with 15 different R&D budgets, we put a little bit in a lot of
places, but not enough focus to make results the top priority.
Dr. Mirkin. Right.
Senator Ayotte. And that's one of the things I would like
to see us address, certainly in this committee, as we look at
the reauthorization.
Dr. Romine. So if I could make a comment a little bit on
this, one of the values and, in fact, one of the essential
characteristics of an office like the Nanotechnology
Coordination Office is precisely that issue that the
investments that the Federal Government is making are
distributed over quite a number of agencies. And left to their
own devices, they would do exactly what they need to do in
their mission space.
By coming together and coordinating and acquainting each
other with the kinds of investments that are made, two things
happen. One is you get the kind of synergy that you would like
to see with respect to optimizing the investments, that is,
agencies will recognize when there are things that are going on
that are relevant. But, more importantly, they can meet in a
forum that allows this sort of development of the kind of
strategic vision for the overall national program that's
needed. And so the strategic initiatives is a tangible
representation of that.
Senator Ayotte. I really appreciate that initiative and
what you're doing. But I'd also like to have us consider as the
fundamental question, should all this money be in 25
different--or 15 different R&D budgets? I think this issue is
something that needs to be looked, because one of the concerns
I have is that sometimes it's not so easy to deal with the
Federal Government. Furthermore, when you're dealing with
multiple agencies and different requirements, it can be quite
challenging. Those of you who are applying for grants to try to
develop these incredibly innovative ideas and research that we
hope will lead to the great development of the economy as well
as lifesaving devices and products will have to deal with this.
If anyone has any insight on this, I'd appreciate that as well.
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. I really like the idea of the targeted
calls for proposals that are between, say, NSF and NIH. It's
much easier for me to deal with a request for proposals and let
the two agencies coordinate, or the NNCO coordinate, than it is
for me to try to figure out how I split my research and get
this part of it funded by NSF and this part of it funded by
NIH.
Dr. O'Neal. I concur with that. These are all topic-driven,
you know. When folks go scanning the periodicals for what they
want to do, they go by agency and they look for very specific
topics, and they try to match what they're doing with a problem
someone wants solved in an agency. If you can solve a bigger
picture problem by bringing agencies together and having
multidisciplinary calls, that would probably be a really
interesting way to fund some of this stuff.
Dr. McLendon. Yes. I agree.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you very much. And if I have just one
more minute, I wanted to ask something of Dr. Mirkin who just
talked to us about his experience of bringing in $20 million of
research that was then translated into a successful company
that produces diagnostic tools which venture capitalists
invested in.
I know Dr. McLendon talked about this in his testimony and
is going to provide a supplementation for the record on some of
the barriers for venture capital investment that don't just
apply to this area but probably would apply across the board.
However, you've had the experience of getting venture
capitalists investing in research-based companies and how that
is translated into success. Could you share that experience
with us, what insight you might have on how we could help with
that, and what would be best for how we're addressing these
issues?
Dr. Mirkin. It's an interesting question, and I guess I'll
go back to--I think Professor McLendon answered Senator
Rockefeller's question maybe better than I did, in the sense
that my experience has been that nanotech was this incredible
opportunity in terms of science. But if we really were to see
the impact that everybody wanted out of it, you're going to
have to create a way of not only making discoveries but
translating those discoveries into technologies that could
impact the masses.
And early on, I realized that we'd have to build a
structure that would allow us to get venture capital and begin
to see these ideas in the form of startup companies. And so
that's one of the reasons I started the institute at
Northwestern. It's now grown to a half a billion dollar
institute and brings the best and the brightest all over the
world there to develop these types of ideas. It also brings
venture capitalists in. It builds a structure that has enough
critical mass that allows you to get people that are interested
and that have the ability to invest to pitch ideas to. And so I
used three examples for mine. We actually have 16 out of the
institute and over $600 million now in terms of venture capital
and related investment, which, to me, is extraordinary. If you
look at that pre-nanotech, that just didn't happen at
Northwestern.
And so I think there's a model there, and the model
probably isn't moving the dollars from basic research to
translational research. It's using mechanisms that take what we
discover on the basic science side and lowering the barriers to
getting those investments in place. And the barriers exist
because of interactions, so you have to have an ecosystem. You
have to have good ideas, good technology, wealthy folks who
want to invest and take risks--and then you have to have
talent, and you have to have ways of bringing talent to a
location that might ordinarily not have talent, for example, on
the business side. And that comes from building a critical
mass.
So that's why I'm a believer. You alluded to--I think the
U.S. has to have major arteries in these areas. And I think--
and that doesn't mean you have to put everything in one spot.
But we have to have a few bets that we make where we have
international presence and people know this is the best place
in the world to do this, because that then satisfies a lot of
the requirements that I just articulated in terms of what's
required to take basic science and translate it into
commercializable technology and startup companies.
Senator Ayotte. Dr. O'Neal?
Dr. O'Neal. Just a simple answer from the VCs I talk to
when we try to introduce nanotechnology companies to them --the
ones that are technology agnostic, if you will, view
nanoscience as really a very high risk, you know, not a well
understood area, and with long lead times, sometimes, before
they can get their money back. They just want to know how
they're going to get their money back--it really is that
simple--in a reasonable amount of time. And the time lags on
nanotechnology--usually three to 10 years, which is longer than
a lot of appetites for VCs. And it's a little higher risk, and
there are a lot of unknowns. So they go to something safer, and
a lot of times, they go to stuff further downstream.
Senator Ayotte. But it sounds like given the successful
model at Northwestern, the venture capitalists were also well
aware of some of the risk. They're getting a great return on
their investment, based on some of the things you discussed,
even though it is a longer amount of time to invest. Hopefully,
we can encourage venture capitalists to engage in what is, I
believe, a very exciting field. And I'm also looking forward to
hearing Dr. McLendon's more detailed answer, and I hope you'll
all feel free to supplement the record on this, in terms of
what's impeding venture capital. We know it's obviously well
beyond the issues we're talking about in this hearing, having
to do with the regulatory context and the economic issues that
are impacting our country right now. But I know I would
certainly like to know your views on this.
Thank you very much for being here today.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
The senior senator from Arkansas.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I want to follow up on the Senator's questions and comments
there as she concluded, and that is--I actually filed a bill
earlier this year. It's S. 256, The American Opportunity Act.
And what it would do is provide a 25 percent Federal tax credit
to angel investors and venture funds that invest in early stage
technology companies. And, really, I think the goal of that
would be to help folks in this area, and other areas, but help
folks in this area try to get that necessary capital to try to
get these ideas out into the marketplace. And so while I have a
captive audience here, I would like to just get a comment or
two. I don't know if you all are aware of that bill--but
certainly that concept. How does that strike you?
Dr. McLendon. Let me start with that one. Like Dr. Mirkin,
I've been involved in starting several companies that were
funded by venture. And I think NanoSphere was started around
2001. Isn't that right? Yes. So in 2000, it was easier to raise
money than it was in 2007--trust me, 2007.
Dr. Mirkin. That was the implosion of the bubble. It was
not easy.
Dr. McLendon. But I think it's a--you know, it's a very
creative approach, and I think people look at total return. And
total return includes things like investment credits. So it
would certainly affect my own decisions, because I also
reinvest now through some venture funds.
Senator Pryor. Anybody--yes, sir.
Dr. Mirkin. Actually, I think it's a very good idea.
Professor McLendon really, I think, articulated the problem
well in the sense that, ironically, in bad times, we're talking
about cuts that might, you know, affect the research. But also
the bar has been raised in terms of investment at the same
time. So you've got two things that are not helping the
translation of basic research into commercializable technology.
So anything you can do to lower the bar to get investment
either from individuals, venture capitalists, or partner
companies into these small startup entities is a major bonus
and something that will lead to more productivity in terms of
startups and, I think, a greater success in terms of startup
enterprises.
And that's really the challenge, because if you can get up
partners, obviously, you can get a significant investment, and
you have a chance to really vet the idea and see if it has a
shot of going primetime.
Senator Pryor. Yes. The other thing that I've heard today
is the panel and others have used the term, nanomanufacturing.
And my working definition of that is just taking these ideas
that you all come up with and just getting them out into the
marketplace so they can help, as one of you said, the masses--
but make them available and, you know, to be able to actually
manufacture them to scale in a way that they can actually get
out and do all the things that they do.
And so from my standpoint, I think the venture capital
idea--what we're trying to do is try to incentivize that. I
think that helps. But also these public-private partnerships
help. And I would like to ask you all about public-private
partnerships.
Let me start with Dr. Romine.
Dr. Romine. Yes.
Senator Pryor. Start with Dr. Romine about that, because I
know that NIST and others have been involved in public-private
partnerships, and I'd just like to get your sense of the track
record. Are we utilizing those enough? And is that something
that makes sense down the road? So go ahead and talk to us.
Dr. Romine. I think the track record is good. I talked in
my testimony a little bit about the NRI, the Nanoelectronics
Research Initiative, and I think that's been a very successful
model in bringing together the various stakeholders and
leveraging investments across the public and private sectors in
a very effective way. Following up on your nanomanufacturing
remark, we have a fairly robust nanomanufacturing activity at
NIST, where we're investing in the development of
nanomanufacturing technologies. Our proposal is to double that
in the 2012 timeframe. So the president's request for 2012 for
NIST in nanomanufacturing roughly doubles that amount.
From NIST's point of view, one of the things that we do on
behalf of industry for the U.S. is we provide sort of a
coordinating role for the development of standards in this
space. We produce standard reference materials. Our Technology
Innovation Program has invested a substantial amount in
nanomanufacturing as well. So I think those kinds of funding
opportunities that do engage the private sector can be very,
very effective.
Dr. McLendon. Can I give one parochial example?
Senator Pryor. Yes.
Dr. McLendon. At Rice, we have something called LANCER.
It's the Lockheed Advanced Nanotechnology Center at Rice. And
that basically matches Federal dollars with Lockheed-Martin
dollars so that they essentially look at the fundamental work
that we're doing and say, ``Ah, there's something that we could
use. Can we put one of our scientists and engineers alongside
of one of your scientists and figure out how to take that
material, integrate it into a much more complicated system in
which that material will be useful?'' So by itself, it might or
might not have been able to attain its full utility. In their
hands, they can see how it will be extraordinarily useful. And
in the process, we've helped educate a couple of hundred
Lockheed-Martin scientists and engineers in nanotechnology. So
that's been an extremely productive partnership on both sides.
And I'm certain there are many opportunities to do things like
that at Northwestern or UCF or other places across the country.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have several more questions for the record.
But, if possible, I would like to ask one of Dr. Leslie-
Pelecky if you would grant me a little extra time.
And that would be--I appreciate your testimony and what you
did in your written testimony about research on bioactivity and
toxicology of nanomaterials. And I'm just curious why you think
it's important that we have a robust R&D program in
nanotoxicology. Why is that so significant?
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. Well, if I'm going to start a company
and I want to make a product that involves nanomaterials, I
want to know that it's going to be safe. I want to know when
people are working in my factory that they are working in a
safe environment. And you can't do that without that basic
knowledge.
Senator Pryor. Yes. That's kind of where I am on that too.
And I just want to make sure that we, as the government--and
probably in this case, it would be FDA--would have the
capability of doing the testing and the necessary analysis to
make sure that these great, wonderful, amazing new products
that are coming out are safe, not just for human consumption or
what-not, but also for the environment. So I just think that we
need to really make sure that FDA and others, whoever that may
be, would have that capability to do that testing and assure
the public that what we're doing is safe.
Dr. Leslie-Pelecky. Well, if I may, there's actually a huge
opportunity there for companies, because a company that can
come up with ways of doing this testing quickly and in real
time--there's a lot of need for that right now.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator Pryor.
Dr. McLendon, give us an example on that Lockheed case
where there's a Lockheed scientist with one of your scientists.
What are they developing?
Dr. McLendon. Let me just be----
Senator Nelson. Is it a secret?
Dr. McLendon. No, no. It's not a secret, actually. I've got
a picture in my mind and it's going to take me a minute to get
at it. So if I can use that as a question for the record, I
will get you----
Senator Nelson. OK.
Dr. McLendon.--exactly the information that you want in the
way that will be most useful for you.
Senator Nelson. Sure.
Dr. McLendon. Is the OK?
Senator Nelson. Sure.
Senator Boozman?
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Romine, has NIST and NSF moved forward with
implementing the President's signature initiatives? Does NIST
have a plan for ensuring that R&D participation--participation
with the EPSCoR universities?
Dr. Romine. Senator, I'll have to double check. I don't
have a specific recollection of EPSCoR universities being
spelled out in the planning that we have. But I can certainly
go back and take a look to make sure. I'd prefer to get back to
you with an accurate answer rather than trying to wing it.
Senator Boozman. Good. I would appreciate that, and I
really do think that's very important.
Dr. Romine. OK.
[Dr. Romine provided the following information in
response.]
The NNI is moving forward with implementing the three
nanotechnology signature initiatives on sustainable nanomanufacturing,
nanotechnology for solar energy collection and conversion, and
nanoelectronics for 2020 and beyond. Descriptions of these initiatives
can be found in the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan, and agency-specific
investments were reported in the NNI Supplement to the President's
Fiscal Year Budget. Each of the initiatives has participation from a
number of agencies in addition to NIST and NSF; NIST is an active
participant in each of these groups, which are continuing to refine
implementation plans. These plans identify research thrust areas and
desired outcomes, including the formation of industry and academic
partnerships. Though not explicitly stated in the initiative
descriptions, the inclusion of EPSCoR universities as appropriate would
be consistent with the spirit of the education and outreach goals
expressed in the NNI Strategic Plan.
Senator Boozman. With regards to nanotechnology, could you
further clarify the difference between the strategy and goals
for the administration's new proposed program, AMTech, and the
work being done currently at NIST through the Technology
Innovation Program?
Dr. Romine. Certainly. The Technology Innovation Program is
a funding program for small businesses through a cost-sharing
environment to tackle some very challenging and difficult
problems. With respect to the way that we envision the AMTech
program, it's patterned much more along the lines of the NRI
that I talked about earlier, it's a consortium model that
involves bringing together collections of businesses in a
particular sector of manufacturing to tackle some of the
precompetitive challenges that are associated with specific
technological barriers in manufacturing. And so I think, based
on the experience that we've had with the NRI and our ability
to play that kind of convening role with respect to industry
representatives, this, in this case, would involve not just
small businesses the way that the Technology Innovation Program
does, but broad sector representation. And I think we'll have
some dramatic successes in that area in driving manufacturing
forward.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Dr. Mirkin, I understand that you were an NSF post-doctoral
fellow prior to becoming a professor. Could you share with the
Committee the impact your federally funded fellowship had on
your current success as a researcher and innovator?
Dr. Mirkin. It had an incredible impact, because it gave me
the opportunity to start my career post-Ph.D. at MIT, to get
interested in how things are different when they're
miniaturized, which led to then the development of the modern
field of nanoscience and nanotechnology, and is in large part
the reason I'm here today talking to you.
Senator Boozman. That's really a great story. How do you
think we should use scientific curriculum to better prepare
students that want to go into nanotechnology?
Dr. Mirkin. The good news is that a lot of kids do want to
go into nanotechnology. I would say that right now, when I talk
to young scientists and engineers, they want to either do
nanotech or something environmentally related. They feel like
there's something really special here and a way they can change
the world and impact the world for the better.
And what that means is that we need to rethink the way we
teach a lot of the old disciplines, not that you get rid of
them, but you teach them in the context of these new fields.
And we were talking before this testimony started that at
Northwestern, I've done that in courses as early as general
chemistry, where you begin to talk about how nanotechnology
pertains to chemistry and vice versa. And the kids absolutely
love that. They begin to feel like they're learning something
that's really part of the next 100 years, not the last 200
years. And I think we're going to see a lot more of that over
the next decade. A lot of the discoveries that we've made over
the last decade are going to mandate that we begin to build new
curricula that get incorporated into universities. And the good
news is that that's happening, and the NSF has played a very
big role in helping to make that happen.
Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you. I think that myself and
Senator Nelson also feel like there's something very special in
this field, and we'll be very supportive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Nelson. Dr. O'Neal, you talked about the private-
public partnerships, especially with regard to our state. What
states are doing a particularly good job of sustaining
nanotechnology industries?
Dr. O'Neal. I'd have to look that up and give you an
intelligent answer. I could put that on the record. Certainly,
I think about the common things in--California and the
Northeast are the ones that come to mind. I think there's some
good work going on in Texas and--a lot of people doing good
work, but we really need to concentrate on, you know, the whole
spectrum of basic to applied to translational research.
Senator Nelson. And so the best practices that you think
that other states ought to consider would be a lot of this
bringing together of private partner--public partnerships?
Standards--what do you think about the standards?
Dr. O'Neal. I think that--yes, I think there needs to be
some. Certainly, people need to be able to have a common
vocabulary and know how they're going to work with each other.
Senator Nelson. And, Dr. Romine, this is in your bailiwick.
Do you think the current Federal efforts to support these
standards are adequate?
Dr. Romine. Adequacy is a tough question. I will say
there's a substantial effort. NIST, under the authority in the
NTTAA, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act,
provides a coordinating role for the development of standards
across this space, internationally and across the Federal
Government. And I think that collection of activities at NIST
that involves the coordination function but also the
development of standard reference materials, of data that we
make available, of testing methodologies and so on, I think is
working well.
Senator Nelson. Are other countries improving on the
standards so that they're getting the jump on us to
commercialize?
Dr. Romine. I wouldn't characterize it that way. I would
say other countries are certainly becoming more aware of the
importance of participation in the international arena of
standards. And so we are still engaging with, I'd say, more
countries who are becoming more knowledgeable in this space. So
that, obviously, represents some change in the landscape. But I
think, overall, I wouldn't characterize it as being a threat.
Dr. McLendon. I'm not sure about standards, but I do know--
I just got back from China and Brazil, where I spent a good bit
of time talking to leading researchers there about
nanotechnology. And each of those countries have their own
functional equivalent to the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, and they are pushing these initiatives really hard.
And so I'm thrilled to be a citizen of the country that's the
leader in this field, but it's not a God-given right that we
will always be that leader.
Senator Nelson. Amen to that. And isn't that typical of the
U.S., that we get something started and then others pick it up?
And we just don't--in this promising field, we do not want that
to happen here.
Dr. McLendon. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Would you all--just my curiosity--since a
lot of you are physicists--the two of us are scientists, but
we're political scientists. By the way, I was the first and
only lawyer to go into space, and NASA has still not publicized
that fact.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. So our curiosity is what is it about these
microparticles that will actually change composition? For
example, I understand that color can be different in a
nanoparticle. A particle may be hard or soft, and in a
nanoparticle, it's the opposite.
Dr. Mirkin?
Dr. Mirkin. As I said, I think that's really one of the
interesting things about the field and the real opportunities,
and that is that everything old becomes new and miniaturized.
If you take gold and shrink it down to a 10 nanometer particle,
it's no longer gold in color. It's red. If you turn that 10
nanometer spherical particle into a triangular prism--it's a
little nanoDorito--it's now blue in color. And so the beauty of
nanotech is you don't have to take what nature gave you in
terms of bulk form. You can begin to take the raw materials and
shape them, if you're a good nanoarchitect, and get the
properties you want for a given application. And that's why
it's so powerful, because whether you're talking about
nanomedicine, energy, developing tools to study the
environment, all of those require new types of materials, and
the fastest way to new materials is through this
miniaturization effort. And I think that's what we have to
capitalize upon.
Dr. McLendon. You're at that unique interface between
single molecules, which behave according to quantum mechanics,
and bulk systems that behave according to Newtonian mechanics.
And you're in that funny space where things are starting to
transition.
When Professor Mirkin was talking about some of the
nanogold shells in response to Senator Rockefeller's question,
it turns out that another way--this is the way that I alluded
to from my research colleagues--by creating--whether they're
nanospheres or nanoDoritos or whatever your favorite snack food
is--that you can tune the color to a place where only the
nanoparticle absorbs and the body doesn't absorb. And that
allows you, instead of using ionizing radiation, to use
infrared lights. And infrared lights are basically pretty
benign things. But they'll heat up the particles which have
been directed to the tumors in ways that Dr. Pelecky talked
about. So you only heat up the tumor. You don't heat up the
body, and that allows you to destroy things without using any
of the ionizing radiation at all.
So there are really extraordinary things that can be done,
but only if you've invested in the fundamental research which
allows you to understand all those optical properties which was
all done without thinking about, ``Ah, we're going to use this
knowledge to create a unique tumor destroying missile.'' It was
done to understand the fundamental properties, and once you
understood that, then a next generation of people could come in
and say, ``That is so cool. Now we can destroy tumors
selectively.'' So that's why it's so important to do that basic
investment.
Senator Nelson. Does the nanoparticle get to the
submolecule level, or is it at the molecule level?
Dr. Mirkin. No. A nanoparticle is actually in between a
molecule and a bulk material. And it's this in-between scale
that is so interesting.
Senator Nelson. Is it a combination of molecules?
Dr. Mirkin. Yes. It can be a combination of molecules. It
can be a collection of atoms. That's what is often confused, I
think, in the popular press. The size is not the issue. We've
been working with molecules for a long time. They're smaller
than the nanostructures that we're talking about. It's this in-
between region that is so fascinating, where the properties are
different from molecules and different from the bulk materials,
where you can find these fantastic ways of tailoring those
properties to get what you want in terms of a given
application.
Senator Nelson. Does the research into the subatomic
particles ever spill over into nanotechnology?
Dr. Mirkin. Not really. That's nuclear chemistry, nuclear
physics.
Dr. McLendon. Some of the high-energy technologies, like
synchotron-based radiation, turn out to be incredibly useful
tools for investigating these unusual materials, however.
Senator Nelson. Senator, any more?
Senator Boozman. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to thank the panel for being here and your
hard work. You can be very proud of pushing forward in such an
important field. Thank you all.
Senator Nelson. Indeed, this has been most illuminating.
Thank you. Have a great day. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator from Arkansas
Chairman Nelson and Ranking Member Boozman:
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is at an important
crossroad. The future holds exciting opportunities to apply
nanotechnology to medicine, defense, energy, and the environment. To
date, our focus has been on scientific discovery. I believe in the next
five years we need to make it a priority to move nanotechnology from
the laboratory to the marketplace.
In December 2003, President Bush signed into law the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. This law authorized $809
million in Fiscal Year 2005 for nanotechnology research by five Federal
agencies. Since then, the NNI program has grown to include 25 Federal
agencies with a requested research budget of $2.13 billion in Fiscal
Year 2012.
The United States remains the world leader in nanotechnology
research and development. Our universities and companies are producing
the most significant scientific discovery, our technical papers are the
most widely cited, and our patents are the most valuable.
However, the world nanotechnology pie is evenly divided among the
United States, Europe, Asia (Japan, China, South Korea, and Singapore),
and the rest of the world. It is not clear which countries will be the
fastest to commercialize the research being conducted.
Many people in the United States believe the Federal Government
should only fund research and development and that it is the
responsibility of companies to commercialize the technology.
Unfortunately, there is a gap, the so called ``valley of death'', where
the research needs to mature before companies are willing to invest
capital.
The second large challenge facing nanotechnology is the
environmental, health and safety (EHS) implications of nanomaterials.
Many consumer products are already being sold that contain
nanomaterials. That is why last Congress I introduced the FDA
Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act to give the FDA the resources
necessary to make sure that over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics, food
additives, biologics, and medical devices can be proved to be safe.
The Federal Government does a good job funding research in
nanotechnology and, of course, the private sector is responsible for
commercializing the R&D. What role the Federal Government should play
in the space between R&D and product development remains the subject of
debate.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing and I
look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Chad A. Mirkin
Manufacturing
Question 1. Nanomanufacturing is the bridge that connects
nanoscience with nanotechnology products and is essential if we are to
realize the economic returns on this technology. However,
nanomanufacturing infrastructure and techniques are in their infancy.
How significant a barrier to nanotechnology commercialization is the
absence of nanomanufacturing infrastructure, such as equipment, tools,
processes, and systems?
Answer. The absence of a nanomanufacturing infrastructure is very
significant. A large challenge in transitioning the ideas and
technologies created from basic research into a commercial market is
the cost of developing new infrastructure for mass production. Even if
the new technologies generated via basic research are an improvement
over current methods, they may not be readily adopted unless the
improvement is significant enough to warrant the capital investment.
This barrier depends greatly on the field, and is governed by how
technological improvements are weighed against resistance to change.
Question 2. To make sure the United States is the global leader in
nanomanufacturing, what should the Federal investment be in
infrastructure development? And in what areas should we invest?
Answer. In order to lead in nanomanufacturing, it is crucial to
make sure novel technology is transferred from the laboratory to
industry. In addition to funding basic research to ensure a constant
stream of new ideas, funding should support start-up companies and
public-private partnerships (e.g., STTR and SBIR), and incentivize
adoption of new techniques. In addition, centers of excellence with
equipment infrastructure that can be used by many are very important.
Finally, we should challenge U.S. professors and students to translate
their advances in nanotechnology into systems that can define our new
economy. Reducing regulation and compliance burdens that create a
disincentive to get involved in such activities should be considered
(we are sending mixed messages). We need an American renaissance with
respect to technological innovation, and we should embrace and
encourage entrepreneurial activities at universities and government
labs where many key discoveries and advances are made.
Workforce training and education
Question 3. Dr. McLendon's testimony indicated that the
nanotechnology workforce should reach 800,000 by 2015. This sort of job
growth would go a long way toward economic improvements. How can the
United States make sure we have an adequate supply of engineers and
technicians to support nanomanufacturing and the overall job growth
projected for the field?
Answer. First, it is important to state that nanotechnology is not
a single discipline but rather a collective way of thinking about and
developing materials whose sole unifying characteristic is their size,
and that these materials are common in all areas of scientific
research. Therefore, any effort to increase the nanotechnology
workforce should have facets in all disciplines. Additionally, securing
our future nanotechnology workforce will require initiatives in at
least three areas: (1) programs to retrain adult workers to be
competitive as engineers and technicians for nanomanufacturing, (2)
strong support for young researchers at the undergraduate and graduate
levels, and (3) public outreach and education to capture the
imagination of the younger generation. Finally, we must acknowledge
that not all of the most talented candidates are here in the United
States, so we must continue to attract international talent as well
through our immigration policies. This is best done through centers of
excellence, which act as international hubs for specific subareas of
nanotechnology that are nationally important.
Question 4. What approaches will help ensure that both
nanomanufacturing capacity and a trained workforce grow in tandem?
Answer. Investment in basic nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing
educational goals will provide the raw human capital while simultaneous
efforts to strengthen academic and industry ties to build
infrastructure will attract these students to join the workforce.
Creating hubs of specific areas of science and industry analogous to
Silicon Valley or the research triangle would facilitate this. This
would enable the smooth transition of technology from the academic
research laboratory to industry and provide and act as centers for
training and job opportunities in specific fields of nanotechnology.
Financing
Question 5. Financing is extremely challenging for those attempting
to bring nanotechnology to market, because the path from invention to
commercial production is often particularly expensive, risky, and
lengthy. Dr. O'Neal, you mention in your testimony that a three to 10
year delay is typical in this area of technology. To what extent have
capital issues hampered nanotechnology commercialization?
Answer. The bar for venture capital has been raised, which has
widened the so-called ``valley of death.'' Universities and government
labs have replaced the role of the industrial research lab, which means
technologies must be further developed before they can be licensed to
an existing company or attract venture capital. We need efforts and
policies that help move such technologies over these ``bars'' so they
can attract private investment and have a legitimate shot at
commercialization.
Question 6. If the venture capital community is focused primarily
on short-term funding, what class of institutional investors do you
think is most likely to support nanotechnology companies?
Answer. There will be a mix of venture capital and strategic
partnerships with corporations. Many American corporations are
establishing corporate VC arms to facilitate such investments.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Chad A. Mirkin
Technology Transfer
Question 1. A large share of NNI funding supports research at
universities and Federal laboratories. Last year's review of the NNI
cited the need to increase the focus on the transfer of technology from
the research community to the private sector. How effectively is the
knowledge generated by NNI investments being transferred from
universities and Federal labs to the private sector?
Answer. See testimony.
Question 2. What mechanisms are Universities using today to
facilitate this transfer and which are the most effective?
Answer. The universities I have worked with deal with this through
technology transfer offices and licensing. Start-up companies are
playing much larger roles, and in many respects are filling the void
created by large companies shutting down their corporate R and D
efforts.
Question 3. Dr. Mirkin, some feel that the National Science
Foundation should do more than basic research. Since a key to realizing
the economic potential of nanotechnology is the technology transfer and
commercialization of basic research, should we expand their role in
these areas? Why or why not?
Answer. The NSF should be focused on basic research; it is
essential that we maintain a strong commitment to building the
knowledge base from which commercialization and product development can
arise. Partnerships between the NSF and the mission-oriented agencies,
might be a way to capitalize upon the translational aspects of
nanotechnology. The CCNE program at the NCI is an outstanding model for
the effective use of funds for translational efforts.
Public Outreach
Question 4. Public understanding of nanotechnology will affect both
the level of government investments in nanotechnology R&D and the
consumer willingness to accept nanotechnology products. In many cases
the American public may be unaware that basic products like sunscreen
can contain nanoparticles. Is the American public sufficiently familiar
with nanotechnology to judge its potential benefits and risks
appropriately?
Answer. In general, the American public seems to embrace
nanotechnology and understand that although it has risks, like any new
technology, its benefits outweigh such risks.
Question 5. Are you concerned that a campaign to improve public
understanding might, in fact, result in a backlash against
nanotechnology R&D due to the potential safety implications?
Answer. Improving the public understanding can be extremely
helpful, so long as the safety concerns are properly elucidated.
Presenting examples of nanotechnology with familiar analogies, such as
silica nanoparticles as fine sand or iron oxide nanoparticles as tiny
bar magnets, can make the technology less foreign. It would also be
beneficial to discuss naturally occurring nanostructures, like high-
density lipoprotein (HDL), a biological entity necessary for regulating
cholesterol levels in the human body. The most important benefit to be
gained from educating the public is that nanomaterials are as diverse
as regular materials, and that, while new methods and procedures will
be needed to properly examine, monitor and regulate them, these
procedures can and will be developed just as they have been for non-
nanotechnology based materials.
Maximizing Return on Investment from the NNI
Question 6. Since the original authorization for the NNI expired in
2008, numerous attempts have been made to authorize the program. What
do you think is needed in a reauthorization to improve the program
overall and increase its return on investment?
Answer. See my testimony.
Question 7. Dr. Mirkin, one criticism of the NNI is that there is
no central funding source for nanotechnology investments, but that
instead funding is determined through each agency's internal budget
development process. Have you found this process encourages the
development of ``funding silos'' where certain research areas become
captive to single agencies and their funding levels?
Answer. No.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Dr. Chad A. Mirkin
Question 1. You recommend that the NNI have a focus on signature
initiatives such as the development of nanomaterials to enable the
development of nanomedicine, advanced nanomanufacturing, and
nanomaterials for environmental monitoring and remediation. These
initiatives have also been called Grand Challenges and Research Needs
of National Importance. What other Grand Challenges should the Federal
Government consider? Should the lead agencies be left to self-fund
these signature initiatives or should Congress authorize specific
multi-year funding for each?
Answer. These change with time and discoveries. The Federal
Government should have initiatives in the aforementioned areas, but
should also give the agencies the flexibility to identify new
opportunities as the field progresses.
Question 2. You are a member of the President' Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology (PCAST) which also is designated by Executive
Order to serve as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel or NNAP.
Some people believe the NNAP should be separate from PCAST. What do you
think of this idea? What are the pros and cons of PCAST also serving as
the NNAP? Is there still a Nanotechnology Technology Advisory Group
and, if so, how it is used by the NNAP?
Answer. PCAST as the NNAP is appropriate, as long as PCAST has
reasonable representation from the Nanotechnology community. Since
nanotechnology does not have a singular research focus, the breadth of
PCAST is a strength in the NNAP role.
Question 3. You recommend strengthening the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office (NNCO). Presently the NNCO is funded by
contributions from the NNI participating agencies. In Fiscal Year 2011,
NNCO funding totaled $2.9 million. Should the NNCO be given a line item
budget? If yes, how much annual funding do you recommend?
Answer. Yes. Autonomy is essential. $3.0 million is appropriate.
Perhaps having a line item budget would give the NNCO greater autonomy
to direct and focus the mission of NNI participants.
Question 4. The States perform a vital role in fostering economic
development through business assistance programs, tax incentives, and
other means. Some state and local nanotechnology-based economic
development initiatives that were begun in the last decade have now
disappeared? Why do you think this has happened? How can Federal-State
coordination be improved to increase the commercialization of NNI
funded research and improve workforce development?
Answer. The breadth of the field is both a blessing and a curse
from an economic development standpoint. Unless very organized, the
breadth can dilute out recognized nanotech-specific activities. For
example, does nanomedicine get classified as nano or lumped in with
other pharmaceutical and medical diagnostic development activities? I
only have familiarity with Illinois, where the state has been
reasonably organized and proactive in terms of supporting nanotech-
related translational efforts. Each state needs a go-to person
coordinating activities at the state level and working with appropriate
individuals at the Federal agencies to maximize effectiveness.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Dr. Chad A. Mirkin
Question 1. Nano-medicine and nano-biology hold significant promise
to improve human health. How is the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) supporting this critical area?
Answer. The fundamental research, novel nanoparticle synthesis, and
nanomanufacturing capabilities being pursued by many of the Federal
agencies, including the NIH, are all necessary components of
nanomedicine research and essential in order to enable the widespread
use of nanomaterials for health applications. The CCNE program from the
NCI is one of the best examples of translational efforts that have
brought together researchers from the sciences, engineering, and
medicine to make strides in the development of powerful new diagnostic
systems and therapeutics for many forms of cancer.
Question 2. Public-private partnerships between universities,
government, and industry are key methods to ensure that promising
research is developed into useful new technologies and products. One
example of such a partnership is the new Virginia Nanoelectronics
Center, a partnership of several Virginia Universities, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and Micron Technologies. How does the NNI
plan to incentivize, facilitate, and further leverage these kinds of
public-private partnerships?
Answer. The NNI offers development services for technology transfer
and government infrastructure for R&D.
Question 3. I have heard some concern from nanotechnology
researchers regarding the current state of technology transfer for
nanotech research. Given that nanotech requires sophisticated
manufacturing processes, for instance, to what extent is NNI focused on
potential barriers to widespread use of nanotechnology-based products?
Do we know, for instance, if printing and imaging technologies used in
consumer electronics can be transferred to nanotechnology?
Answer. Yes, for example the integrated circuits in consumer
electronics products are currently being made with nanotechnology.
Other technologies such as organic LED's are now permeating the market.
Not all technologies are this mature, but since they offer
unprecedented advantages they can be worth the capital investment.
Question 4. Some scholars have raised ethical concerns about
nanotechnology research and its applications. What are the dual use
implications of nanotechnology? Should we be paying more attention to
the ethical implications of this field and its products? If so, what
should we be doing to prevent the possible erosion of public trust in
nanotechnology research?
Answer. The dual use implications are as diverse as the
nanotechnology itself. For example, a nanotechnology based diagnostic
could be used for diagnosing diseases or for detecting biological
weapons. Alternatively, a nanotechnology-based antibiotic can be used
to treat disease or develop treatment-resistant bacteria. These
implications need to be considered aggressively and on a case-by-case
basis in order to maintain public trust.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Charles H. Romine
Manufacturing
Question 1. Nanomanufacturing is the bridge that connects
nanoscience with nanotechnology products and is essential if we are to
realize the economic returns on this technology. However,
nanomanufacturing infrastructure and techniques are in their infancy.
How significant a barrier to nanotechnology commercialization is the
absence of nanomanufacturing infrastructure, such as equipment, tools,
processes, and systems?
Answer. As described in the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) 2011 Strategic Plan (available at http://nano.gov),
infrastructure such as national user facilities, cooperative research
centers, and regional initiatives are needed in order to achieve the
NNI goal to ``foster the transfer of new technologies into products for
commercial and public benefit.'' Physical R&D infrastructure for
nanoscale fabrication, synthesis, characterization, modeling, design,
and training supports another NNI goal to ``develop and sustain
educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the supporting
infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnology.'' The NIST Center
for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) national user facility
provides infrastructure as the Nation's only nanocenter established
with a focus on commerce. The NanoFab, a critical component of the
CNST, provides streamlined, rapid access to a suite of world-class
nanoscale measurement and fabrication methods and technology.
Question 2. To make sure the United States is the global leader in
nanomanufacturing, what should the Federal investment be in
infrastructure development? And in what areas should we invest?
Answer. Four National Nanotechnology Initiative goals outline a
strategic approach to maintaining U.S. leadership in nanotechnology
research and development. The second goal, ``Foster the transfer of new
technologies into products for commercial and public benefit,'' is at
the heart of Federal investment in infrastructure and nanomanufacturing
capabilities. The 2011 NNI Strategic Plan (available at http://
nano.gov) outlines a number of objectives to achieve progress toward
this goal, including a doubling in the share of the NNI investment in
nanomanufacturing research over the next five years. Along with
establishing new facilities and/or centers to provide infrastructure,
the NNI Strategic Plan also identifies the need to sustain existing
federally funded physical infrastructure. User facilities such as the
NIST NanoFab have the ability to co-locate a broad suite of
nanotechnology tools, providing access to expert staff and hands-on
training of nanotechnology researchers. The three Nanotechnology
Signature Initiatives, described in the NNI Supplement to the
President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget (available at http://nano.gov),
focus on areas that NNI member agencies have identified as ripe for
significant advances through close and targeted program-level
interagency collaboration. NIST plays leadership roles in and supports
the NNI Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives on Sustainable
Nanomanufacturing and on Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and
Conversion. NIST also participates in and supports Nanoelectronics for
2020 and Beyond.
Workforce training and education
Question 3. Dr. McLendon's testimony indicated that the
nanotechnology workforce should reach 800,000 by 2015. This sort of job
growth would go a long way toward economic improvements. How can the
United States make sure we have an adequate supply of engineers and
technicians to support nanomanufacturing and the overall job growth
projected for the field?
Answer. The realization of the promise of nanotechnology to enhance
and improve applications from energy to healthcare is reliant on the
cultivation of a skilled nanotechnology workforce that will include
scientists, engineers, technicians, manufacturers, and laboratory
personnel including trainees and students.
There are many proposed strategies to help the U.S. meet the demand
for this trained workforce, including those being discussed within
Congress to help develop a skilled workforce, the Administration
proposals for strengthening STEM education in the U.S., and a number of
recent reports from the National Science Board, the National Academies,
and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.\1\
Strategies recommended in these reports and discussions include
important issues such as the need to cultivate an interest in STEM
education with students at an early age, and outreach to the public as
well as schools regarding the promise of future careers in science and
technology sectors, including nanotechnology. Other essential factors
described in these reports include minority representation in STEM and
the need to better recognize high-potential STEM innovators from every
demographic of our country. As noted in the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan,
nanotechnology can help to foster students' interest in STEM because of
the unique nature of properties and behaviors at the nanoscale can
inspire students by creating a ``wow'' factor. Support and mentoring of
students at all stages of education through undergraduate, graduate,
and postgraduate programs, as well as early interactions with industry
through internships and other programs, are important aspects in the
development of a nanotechnology workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information on NSB report, see http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/
stem/innovators.jsp; National Academies Report, see http://
www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?
RecordID=12984; PCAST, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/
files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf and http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-nano-
report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST's strong partnerships with educational institutions encourage
student interest and participation in STEM. Through a variety of
programs, we bring students, post-doctoral fellows, and middle school
teachers to our campuses for unique programs that have a direct impact
on the creation of a STEM-educated workforce. NIST also supports
faculty researchers and students through a variety of competitive
grants programs.
Programs include:
NIST's Postdoctoral Program supports a nationwide
competitive postdoctoral program administered in cooperation
with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council
( 50 per year)
Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships ( 150 per year)
The NIST Summer Institute for Middle School Science Teachers
( 20 per year)
In the past couple of years, nearly 200 scientists have completed
postdoctoral research at NIST. These individuals are now employed
across a variety of sectors. Based on the most recent data, former NIST
postdoctoral researchers can be found in academia (nearly one-third of
those reported); industry (in at least 20 different companies ranging
from large corporations to small businesses); national laboratories
across the U.S.; and government (nearly one-third are now employed at
agencies throughout the Federal Government).
Question 4. What approaches will help ensure that both
nanomanufacturing capacity and a trained workforce grow in tandem?
Answer. A key mechanism to train the next generation of
nanotechnologists at NIST is the extensive postdoctoral research
program, conducted through multiple programs and agreements with the
National Research Council and a variety of research universities. For
example, the NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST)
operates by design with a 2-to-1 ratio of postdoctoral researchers to
technical staff, ensuring a steady flow of new knowledge, experience,
and ideas into the CNST, and the steady ``graduation'' of scientists or
engineers who are fully trained in nanotechnology into the workforce.
The operation of the CNST national user facility contributes in
multiple ways to building and sustaining a trained workforce to support
nanomanufacturing capacity. Within the CNST, comprehensive training is
available on the NanoFab's state-of-the-art commercial tool set for
nanofabrication and measurement. The training is designed to prepare
users with a range of skills and technical abilities to competently
operate the tools they need to use. Because many users will depend on
the NanoFab for extensive consultation and help, it is staffed with
highly experienced process engineers drawn largely from the
semiconductor industry. As a shared national resource open to all, the
NanoFab brings NIST scientists together with industry, government, and
academic researchers from across the spectrum of nanotechnology
applications, fostering the rapid exchange of ideas and best practices
related to nanomanufacturing. Researchers from outside NIST can access
a host of advanced, beyond-state-of-the-art tools under development
through collaboration: either to collaborate in their development or to
make early measurements using a tool or method not yet available
elsewhere. In addition to the two user facilities on the NIST campus
(CNST and the NIST Center for Neutron Research), the NIST laboratories
are also a source for educating and training a technology-savvy
workforce. Collaborators at NIST include visiting professors,
industrial researchers, postdoctoral researchers, graduate students,
and undergraduates, with tenures ranging from several days to several
years. Local high school students regularly participate in NIST campus
events, and the other programs in the NIST laboratories mentioned above
(i.e., fellowships for undergraduate students and summer institutes for
teachers) are helping to strengthen the pipeline for developing the
next generation of scientists and engineers.
Business and Job Creation Within Nanotechnology Environment, Health,
and Safety
Question 5. Because nanotechnology is still emerging, the United
States is in a position to lead the way in creating international
standards for nanotechnology safety and manufacturing. Dr. Romine, to
what extent has the lack of nanotechnology-related standards affected
the commercialization of nanotechnology products? What are the biggest
problem areas?
Answer. The foundational nature of standards means that the
availability of the appropriate standards at right times within the
technology life cycle can accelerate the commercialization of any new
technology, and can further spur innovation within that technology
space. The same is true for nanotechnology. Standards addressing
nanotechnology-related environment, health and safety (NanoEHS) will
bring greater confidence in testing, measuring and evaluating the
safety of nanotechnology and nanotechnology-enabled products.
Addressing this aspect is an important element in accelerating the
responsible commercialization of nanotechnology, which can help both
increase the confidence and acceptance of consumers, manufacturers and
regulators, and enhance the benefits of nanotechnology along product
value chains and life cycles.
The most significant challenges currently lie in thoroughly
understanding and accurately predicting the response of nanomaterials
in different environments that directly impact the EHS aspects of those
materials. The size scale and attributes of these materials is
requiring the scientific community to develop new testing methodologies
and techniques, new instruments to study these materials and the
interactions with the surrounding media. In numerous instances, due to
existing fundamental knowledge gaps scientific theories have to be
developed, tested and/or refined to better understand and explain the
materials and their behavior.
To address these various challenges, work is underway around the
world in standards setting organizations such as ASTM International and
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which will
inform the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) as it evaluates guidelines for testing
nanomaterials. This work in turn leverages the scientific knowledge
being generated through research and development efforts in academic
institutions, Federal Government laboratories (including NIST) and the
laboratories of small, medium and large enterprises.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Charles H. Romine
Nano-Infrastructure
Question 1. The cost and complexity of the infrastructure required
for nanotechnology research and commercialization can be a significant
barrier to expansion of the industry. What opportunities are available
to researchers looking for Federal dollars for infrastructure
development and equipment?
Answer. Researchers looking for funding to support infrastructure
development and equipment can also look to programs such as the
National Science Foundation's Major Research Instrumentation Program
(http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/mri/) and opportunities within the
Department of Energy, including DOE's five Nanoscale Science Research
Centers (http://science.energy.gov/bes/suf/user-facilities/nanoscale-
science-research-centers/) providing user access to facilities
supporting interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale. The NIST Center
for Nanoscale Science and Technology user facility supports the U.S.
nanotechnology enterprise from discovery to production by providing
industry, academia, NIST, and other government agencies with access to
world-class nanoscale measurement and fabrication methods and
technology. Furthermore, the NIST Technology Innovation Program (TIP)
provides cost-shared funding to speed the development of high-risk,
high-reward, transformative research. This research is targeted to key
societal challenges that are not being addressed elsewhere. The 2010
TIP competition focused on manufacturing technologies, resulting in
awards to small and medium-sized companies producing a range of
nanotechnology-enabled products in areas including flexible liquid
crystal displays, organic photovoltaics, and lithium-ion batteries.
Question 2. What role do you see for the Federal Government in
encouraging regional investment strategies for equipment sharing
between university and industry clusters?
Answer. As described in the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011
Strategic Plan, infrastructure such as national user facilities,
cooperative research centers, and regional initiatives will help enable
the NNI goal to ``foster the transfer of new technologies into products
for commercial and public benefit.'' A number of nanocenters are
supported by NNI member agencies, including DOE and NSF, and in many
cases these are co-located to draw on regional synergies such as
technical expertise and manufacturing facilities. The NIST Center for
Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) national user facility stands
out in this regard. The NanoFab, a critical component of the CNST,
promotes research by providing streamlined, rapid access to a suite of
world-class nanoscale measurement and fabrication methods and
technology.
Proposed in Fiscal Year 2012, the NIST Advanced Manufacturing
Technology (AMTech) program is intended to support industry-led
consortia to develop industry roadmaps and support precompetitive
research at universities, following on the successful model of the
public-private Nanoelectronics Research Initiative. The AMTech program
aims to fill a critical gap for early-stage technology development by
supporting precompetitive R&D and enabling technology development, and
creating the infrastructure necessary for more efficient promotion of
knowledge and technology. This strategy has the potential to drive
economic growth, enhance competitiveness and spur the creation of jobs
in high-value sectors of the U.S. economy. AMTech is modeled on NIST's
successful interactions with the semiconductor industry via a
partnership with the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative.
Public Outreach
Question 3. Public understanding of nanotechnology will affect both
the level of government investments in nanotechnology R&D and the
consumer willingness to accept nanotechnology products. In many cases
the American public may be unaware that basic products like sunscreen
can contain nanoparticles. Is the American public sufficiently familiar
with nanotechnology to judge its potential benefits and risks
appropriately?
Answer. Public outreach is a cornerstone of the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office, which performs public outreach and
engagement on behalf of the NNI as well as serving as a central point
of contact for Federal nanotechnology R&D activities. Outreach and
informal education programs to foster a public that is well informed
about nanotechnology are highlighted in the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan as
a path to NNI goal 3, ``Develop and sustain educational resources, a
skilled workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools to
advance nanotechnology.'' Furthermore, the Nanotechnology Public
Engagement and Communications (NPEC) Working Group provides a forum to
bring together agency representatives to identify opportunities for
public outreach. NIST's measurement and standards efforts for
nanotechnology environmental health and safety (NanoEHS) are providing
necessary information and data for researchers, regulators, the public,
and industry, helping to assure the responsible development of
nanotechnology. NIST's mission-centric work in the area of NanoEHS
advances measurement science, standards, and technology to provide
critical measurement science, tools, and information that enable
science-based assessment and management of NanoEHS risk.
Question 4. Are you concerned that a campaign to improve public
understanding might, in fact, result in a backlash against
nanotechnology R&D due to the potential safety implications?
Answer. Coordination and communication of clear information that
identifies potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology among Federal
agencies, the public, and other stakeholders is part of the foundation
for Federal oversight of nanotechnology and nanomaterials described in
the June 9, 2011 memorandum ``Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision-
Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Applications of
Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials'' (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/nanotechnology-regulation-and-
oversight-principles
.pdf). This memorandum also recognizes that consumer trust and
confidence in a sound regulatory regime is integral to fostering
innovation and promoting the responsible development of nanotechnology
applications. NIST's NanoEHS research program is developing the
necessary measurement methods and standards to underpin informed
assessments of nanomaterial risks and benefits.
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office continues to
explore best practices for public engagement on nanotechnology issues.
As described in the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan, the NNCO will continue to
solicit diverse public input and is planning outreach activities
including activities such as interactive webinars, workshops, and other
educational events.
Maximizing Return on Investment from the NNI
Question 5. Since the original authorization for the NNI expired in
2008, numerous attempts have been made to authorize the program. What
do you think is needed in a reauthorization to improve the program
overall and increase its return on investment?
Answer. The collaboration, coordination, and communication
engendered by the NNI has created a fruitful forum for NIST to
interface with other agencies across the Federal Government, enabling
NIST to prioritize and coordinate research in numerous areas, most
notably in nanolectronics; nanomanufacturing; energy; and
environmental, health and safety aspects of nanomaterials. For example,
activities within NNI groups such as the Nanotechnology Environmental
and Health Implications Working Group help NIST to gather input from a
broad range of stakeholders on the critical measurement science and
measurement tools that are needed for the responsible development of
nanotechnology.
A reauthorization should continue to provide support for the
efforts of the NNI. Achievement of the objectives identified in the NNI
Strategic Plan would serve NIST and the other NNI member agencies well
as they work toward the NNI vision of a future in which the ability to
understand and control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in
technology and industry that benefits society.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Dr. Charles H. Romine
Question 1. What does ``nanomanufacturing'' mean to you?
Answer. NIST reports its investments in nanomanufacturing using the
NNI Program Component Area 5--Nanomanufacturing. In this context,
nanomanufacturing is research and development aimed at enabling scaled-
up, reliable, and cost-effective manufacturing of nanoscale materials,
structures, devices, and systems. This includes R&D and integration of
ultra-miniaturized top-down processes and increasingly complex bottom-
up or self-assembly processes (2011 NNI Strategic Plan, available at
http://nano.gov).
Question 2. You mentioned that NIST is working with the
Nanoelectronics Research Initiative as part of a public-private
partnership and that NIST is also engaged with industry consortia
working on flexible electronics and neutron-based measurement for the
manufacture of soft materials. How did NIST get involved in these
public-private partnerships?
Answer. In carrying out its mission, NIST is charged by statute to
work in partnership with industry to develop measurement solutions and
standards and promote technologies that address innovation and
facilitate trade and commerce. The broad authorities given to NIST by
Congress provide the agency with a high level of agility in working
with industry, standards organizations, academia, and other
stakeholders. Exploiting our status as a technical, non-regulatory
agency, NIST convenes communities around common measurement science and
standards needs and provides funding and technical assistance to firms
and institutions using a wide variety of formal arrangements.
There are many scenarios in which NIST interfaces with industry to
accelerate outcomes, including: rapid transfer of technical expertise;
in response to a call from industry; or to develop unique measurement
capabilities in partnership with industry. NIST continues to engage
with the flexible electronics industry through discussions with
industry consortia in order to identify strategic measurement and
standards needs for the success of the electronic display and printed
electronics industry. As another example, NIST is underway in launching
a new consortium, nSoft, to develop neutron-based measurement solutions
for manufacturers of soft materials (e.g., plastics, pharamaceuticals,
solar cells, and battery membranes). nSoft is planned as a NIST-led
consortium of industrial, government, and academic members designed to
advance measurement science and reduce barriers for industrial research
programs at peer-review based user facilities such as the NIST Center
for Neutron Research (NCNR) by developing rapid and reliable facility
access and training. A workshop in June of this year brought together
key industry representatives and academic researchers to determine key
research and measurement areas of
impact on soft materials manufacturers and researchers (http://
www.nist.gov/nsoft/).
In 2007, as part of a competitive process NIST selected the
Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) as partner with which NIST
could accelerate research in electronics that goes beyond today's
technology to meet future demands. Achievements of this program to
date, as noted in my written testimony, include:
NIST funding of research ($2.75M/year) has been leveraged by
$5M/year from industry partners and $15M/year from states to
support projects at over 30 universities to work in 4 regional
centers.
The NIST/NRI partnership has attracted over $110M over five
years in state and private funding to support business
development and commercialization NIST/NRI interactions are
currently supporting over 100 graduate students and dozens of
post-docs through the four regional centers
Outputs of the NIST/NRI partnership include dissemination of
research in scientific publications and filed patents based on
work sponsored by the NIST/NRI.
Question 3. What other Federal Agencies are involved?
Answer. The NRI has teamed up with the National Science Foundation
(NSF) to fund research projects at existing NSF Nanoscience centers and
networks at universities across the country (for example, see http://
www.src.org/program/nri/nri-nsf/).
Question 4. Why should the Federal Government want public-private
partnerships in nanotechnology?
Answer. Public-private partnerships provide a framework to
accelerate industry outcomes. As described above, NIST has a rich
history of partnering with industry across a range of sectors to
leverage resources and meet technical industry needs in measurement
science and technology development. Public-private partnerships in
nanotechnology hold much promise, in part due to the inherently
interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology and the anticipated breadth
of future nanotechnology-based applications. Public private
partnerships such as the NRI and NIST's proposed AMTech program can
help position industry for success by filling a critical gap by
providing resources to conduct directed basic research and measurement
research that is generally seen as outside the scope for large
industry.
In their March 2010 review of the NNI, the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology noted the NRI's success, stating
``It [NRI] all looks straightforward in hindsight: companies pooling
resources to encourage pre-competitive university research in the hope
of revitalizing their industry, state governments promoting regional
development of R&D talent and infrastructure, and Federal funding
agencies investing in forward looking research that is in the national
interest.'' (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/
ostp/pcast-nano-report
.pdf).
Question 5. What other industries or technology sectors have, or
could, develop nanotechnology roadmaps that could become the basis for
additional public-private partnerships?
Answer. This very question is currently being asked as part of a
Request for Information in the Federal Register on the topic of NIST's
proposed AMTech Program (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-22/
pdf/2011-18580.pdf). First described in the President's Fiscal Year
2012 budget request for NIST, the AMTech Program is a proposed public-
private partnership initiative that would provide Federal grants to
leverage existing consortia or establish new ones focused on long-term
industrial research needs. The grants would fund development of
research road maps and enhance research productivity through improved
coordination and efficiencies. The program's goal is to accelerate the
innovation process--discovery to invention to development of new
manufacturing process technologies. Successful innovation as you are
aware is what--creates skilled, high-wage manufacturing jobs. In the
Request for Information, NIST seeks input on a variety of programmatic
questions surrounding the development of this program, including
whether AMTech consortia should focus on developments within a single
existing or prospective industry, or should focus on broader system
developments that must be supplied by multiple industries.
The importance of public-private partnerships and technology
roadmaps is noted in the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan as a pathway toward
NNI Goal 2, ``Foster the transfer of new technologies for commercial
and public benefit.'' Specifically, the plan calls for the NNI to
increase its focus on nanotechnology-based commercialization and
related support for partnerships, through activities such as working
with U.S. industry across sectors to develop technology roadmaps in
support of nanotechnology signature initiatives or new public-private
partnerships.
Question 6. What do users pay to access the Nanofabrication
Facility in Gaithersburg?
Answer. There are three types of hourly rates charged to every
NanoFab user to recover the costs of performing the work: Specific Tool
Use, Cleanroom Use, and Process Assistance (when applicable). Each rate
is computed for full cost recovery, including the cost of the NanoFab
staff time required plus the operating costs, and reviewed and approved
by the NIST Budget Office. The operating costs include the costs of any
maintenance contracts, routine maintenance and repairs (both scheduled
and unscheduled), and accessories and consumable supplies. After a full
cost recovery rate is computed, for projects that hold the promise of
furthering the development of nanotechnology, a reduced cost percentage
is applied to compute the reduced rates charged to those projects. As a
matter of NIST policy, proprietary projects are not eligible for the
lower rates and must pay the full cost for work performed in the
NanoFab. The charges for every NanoFab project are based on the same
rates, including projects led by NIST employees (CNST research staff
included) and are available on the NanoFab website (http://
www.cnst.nist.gov/nanofab/nanofab.html).
Question 7. What percentage of the operating cost of the NanoFab is
covered by user fees?
Answer. As stated above, 100 percent of the operating cost of
proprietary projects is paid by the users. Non-proprietary projects are
eligible for reduced rates (discounted by 60 percent), with the balance
of the full cost paid by the CNST from its appropriated research
budget. All applicants, including those from NIST, can request
consideration during the application process, and each project is rated
on the extent that it will contribute to the development and/or
application of nanoscale measurement and fabrication methods to further
the development of nanotechnology. All such requests are decided on a
case by case basis, typically within 10 days of an application being
submitted, following review by a CNST committee and final approval by
the CNST Director. This cost-sharing approach is similar that used for
academic researchers using NSF-supported nanofabrication facilities
within the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network.
Question 8. What is NIST's policy on intellectual property when the
NanoFab is accessed by a private company?
Answer. NIST does not claim any inherent rights to inventions made
solely by employees of a private company in the course of a NanoFab
project. The rights will be determined by any intellectual property
agreements the inventors may have with their employer(s) or other
parties. If an employee of a private company co-invents something with
a NIST employee in the NanoFab, NIST will jointly own that invention,
and the sharing of those rights will need to be negotiated between all
the rights holders.
Question 9. There are several international standards setting
organizations and committees on nanotechnology. Often the best people
are not able to participate in the standards development process
because of lack of travel funds. How is the United States represented
on these committees?
Answer. The various international standards setting organizations
currently engaged in developing nanotechnology standards have different
models of participation. Some rely on a direct participation model
where an individual participates in standards setting through an
individual or institutional membership and pays a nominal participation
fee. In such a model, each individual (or organization) has one vote.
Other international standards setting organizations rely on national
body representation. In these instances, U.S. experts are convened in a
U.S. technical advisory group (or mirror committee) to develop
consensus positions, which representatives then take to the
international organization and use as the basis for discussion with
their counterparts from other countries. In such models, each
individual/organization has one vote at the U.S. committee level, and
the United States has one vote at the international level.
In general there is good participation by U.S. experts in
international standards setting organizations that are developing
nanotechnology standards. Such participation is important in that it
helps ensure that U.S. perspectives are represented in the increasing
number of nanotechnology related standards setting activities, and that
U.S. leadership in contributing to the development of nanotechnology
standards can be maintained.
Question 10. Should the Federal Government reimburse academics and
NGOs for travel so that they can more fully participate in these
committees?
Answer. Academics and NGO representatives provide an important
perspective in standards setting, and are already playing an important
role in international standards setting for nanotechnology. With the
various grants and funded projects that academics in particular,
receive from Federal agencies, academics could potentially include
participation in standards setting as part of their project/grant
proposal to enable technology transfer and commercialization of their
findings. Thus approval of project/grant proposals from Federal
agencies would permit academics to use these funds to support their
participation in international standards setting in a manner that is
analogous to the current practice of academics traveling to domestic
and international technical conferences to present the results of their
projects. Federal agencies such as NIST can conduct outreach to funding
agencies to convey the strategic importance of standards setting, and
help funding agencies with defining milestones and metrics that can be
used to judge the effectiveness of standards participation activities
that may be supported by such grants.
Any Federal Government program to support participation of private
sector U.S. technical experts in standards setting activities should be
need-based, fair, open, transparent, designed to address specific
national priorities and structured in a manner that is consistent with
the private-sector led model of the U.S. standards system, where the
public-private partnership is a key aspect of the system.
Question 11. Are these committees creating international standards
that in some cases are not acceptable to the U.S.?
Answer. The open nature of standards setting activities provides
everyone an equal opportunity to propose new standards development
activities. Through their extensive participation in these activities,
U.S. technical experts are able to monitor and participate in these
activities. Working with like-minded experts from other countries, U.S.
experts have been successful in ensuring that new standards proposals
and resulting international standards are based upon and reflect broad
technical merit, rather than individual narrow interests or regional
policy or political considerations. In select areas, such as
nanotechnology related labeling, where work is underway in a European
regional standards organization, and non-European members have limited
participatory rights, U.S. experts are utilizing all existing tools and
mechanisms of engagement and dialog to ensure that the resulting
specifications or standards do not unfairly disadvantage U.S and non-
European exporters.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Dr. Charles H. Romine
Question 1. Nano-medicine and nano-biology hold significant promise
to improve human health. How is the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) supporting this critical area?
Answer. There are many current and planned activities in support of
nanotechnology for human health. Some agency priorities and programs
are described in the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan and the annual NNI
supplements to the President's budget (available at http://nano.gov).
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office can provide additional
details and insights into work to address this critical area.
Question 2. Public-private partnerships between universities,
government, and industry are key methods to ensure that promising
research is developed into useful new technologies and products. One
example of such a partnership is the new Virginia Nanoelectronics
Center, a partnership of several Virginia Universities, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and Micron Technologies. How does the NNI
plan to incentivize, facilitate, and further leverage these kinds of
public-private partnerships?
Answer. The importance of public-private partnerships and
technology roadmaps is well understood by NIST and is consistent with
NIST's mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness. Partnerships are noted in the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan
as a pathway toward NNI Goal 2, ``Foster the transfer of new
technologies for commercial and public benefit.'' Specifically, the
plan calls for the NNI to increase its focus on nanotechnology-based
commercialization and related support for partnerships, through
activities such as working with U.S. industry across sectors to develop
technology roadmaps in support of nanotechnology signature initiatives
or new public-private partnerships.
First described in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request
for NIST, the AMTech Program is a new public-private partnership
initiative that would provide Federal grants to leverage existing
consortia or establish new ones focused on long-term industrial
research needs. The grants would fund development of research road maps
and projects in advanced manufacturing and enhance the research
productivity of consortia members through improved coordination and
efficiencies. The program's goal is to accelerate the innovation
process--discovery to invention to development of new manufacturing
process technologies--that creates skilled, high-wage manufacturing
jobs. NIST is currently soliciting public input into the development of
AMTech through a notice in the Federal Register (http://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-22/pdf/2011-18580.pdf).
Question 3. I have heard some concern from nanotechnology
researchers regarding the current state of technology transfer for
nanotech research. Given that nanotech requires sophisticated
manufacturing processes, for instance, to what extent is NNI focused on
potential barriers to widespread use of nanotechnology-based products?
Do we know, for instance, if printing and imaging technologies used in
consumer electronics can be transferred to nanotechnology?
Answer. The promise of high-value nanotechnology-based industries
requires suitable technologies that can economically and reliably
manufacture products on a commercial scale. The NNI nanotechnology
signature initiative ``Sustainable Nanomanufacturing'' establishes a
path for the development of cost-effective nanomanufacturing such as
high-throughput, inline metrology to enable process control and quality
assurance of nanomaterials. Researchers are working on adapting
traditional roll-to-roll manufacturing processes, the workhorse of
flexible electronic printing and imaging technologies today, to produce
new lightweight, high-strength materials for a wide range of
applications including personal body armor and solar energy harvesting.
User facilities such as the NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and
Technology provide needed access to technology developers for rapid
prototyping and experimentation of various nanomanufacturing protocols.
Question 4. Some scholars have raised ethical concerns about
nanotechnology research and its applications. What are the dual use
implications of nanotechnology?
Answer. The NNI has openly engaged with leading ethicists and
social scientists, most recently as key participants in a number of
recent workshops held in support of the development of the NNI
Strategic Plan and the NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety Research
Strategy. For example, an ethicist from the University of Virginia
School of Engineering and Applied Science described some of the ethical
issues surrounding nanotechnology during her plenary presentation at
the July 2010 NNI Strategic Planning Stakeholder Workshop (http://
nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nni_strategic_plan_stakeholder_rpt.pdf). Research activities to inform
the assessment of potential implications of nanotechnology, such as
NIST's NanoEHS research program, provide the scientific basis to
support the safe and responsible deployment of nanotechnology. The
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office performs public outreach,
regularly engaging with stakeholders, and can provide more details on
the dual use implications of nanotechnology.
Question 5. Should we be paying more attention to the ethical
implications of this field and its products? If so, what should we be
doing to prevent the possible erosion of public trust in nanotechnology
research?
Answer. Paying attention to the ethical implications of
nanotechnology and its product is important as nanotechnology products
will impact the public both directly through the products that contain
nanotechnology, and also through products that are made possible due to
nanotechnology (but may not contain any nanomaterials, in turn). The
2011 NNI Strategic Plan calls for agencies to identify and manage the
ethical, legal, and societal implications of research leading to
nanotechnology-enabled products and processes. An appreciation of the
ethical implications of this technology will also help us be better
stewards of this technology.
Our still early, but evolving understanding of the benefits and
risks of nanotechnology and nanomaterials reiterates the importance of
communication, education and outreach to policy makers and the public.
Such outreach highlighting benefits, risks, safe use, technology
limitations etc., can help the public better understand the technology
and make their own decisions regarding how they choose to use the
technology (or the products dependent on this technology), while also
judging for themselves the hyperbole or fear that may be associated
with the technology.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Dr. Charles H. Romine
Question 1. Currently, NIST supports efforts to accelerate
development of transformational technologies through small companies
and joint ventures to support high-risk transformational R&D. Recent
awards produced a range of nanotechnology-enabled products in areas
including flexible liquid crystal displays, organic photovoltaics, and
lithium-ion batteries. How does research on nanostructured materials
for the development and improved performance of organic photovoltaics
complement the efforts that NIST supports?
Answer. The NIST Technology Innovation Program (TIP) has a number
of active awards, one of which is to Polyera Corporation for the area
of ``Novel Nanomaterial Synthesis Processes to Enable Large-Scale,
High-Performance, Flexible Solar Module Manufacturing in the U.S.''
Research on nanostructured materials in this technical area (e.g.,
conducted at NIST laboratories, other Federal laboratories,
universities, or within industry) helps to advance the state of
technology.
Question 2. Are the efforts at academic institutions to leverage
expertise in polymer science and engineering consistent with NIST's
goals to accelerate transformational technology?
Answer. Academic institutions certainly may play a role in the
acceleration of transformational technologies such as nanotechnology.
Expertise in polymer science and engineering is needed for advances in
a variety of application areas, including advanced photovoltaic cells
for solar energy and flexible display technologies. Public-private
partnerships with academic institutions, industry, and government, such
as the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, can be a powerful tool to
accelerate new technology developments.
Question 3. How does NIST support and promote the development of
research that combines contribution to the NIST Solar Energy Collection
Initiative with the larger energy goal of improved conversion
efficiency for solar cell materials and applications?
Answer. NIST efforts in the area of solar energy have largely been
focused on the development of measurement tools, methods, and models to
evaluate Photovoltaic performance. NIST is also looking to develop new
metrology tools to support the development and manufacture of third
generation photovoltaics. In 2010, NIST hosted an externally-led
workshop to identify photovoltaic measurement grand challenges in four
major third generation photovoltaic technology areas: crystalline
silicon devices, thin film devices, III-V multijunction devices, and
excitonic devices. (A full report can be found at: http://
events.energetics.com/NISTGrandChallenges 2010/pdfs/
Opps_Solar_PV_web.pdf). This workshop identified a number of strategic
opportunities and measurement challenges in the following areas:
Enabling Science and Engineering
Three-dimensional (3-D) analysis from nanoscale
through macroscale
Multi-scale modeling for simulating materials growth,
structure, optical and electronic properties, and device
performance
Reliability
Measuring and predicting the degradation of materials
Accelerated lifetime and reliability testing for thin
films, concentrating PV, and quantum-scale technology
Sustainable markets
Application of fundamental knowledge to increase
efficiency in excitonic and quantum-structured cells
NIST is developing efforts to apply its current suite of optical,
electrical, chemical and physical measurements to deliver advanced
measurement and modeling tools that will enable researchers to
understand optimize the intrinsic electronic and optoelectronic
processes that govern the efficiencies of third-generation
photovoltaics.
Question 4. NIST has external partnership programs designed to meet
manufacturing challenges and the Administration's goal of advancing a
world-class nanotechnology research and development program. How are
partnerships with universities, particularly those in Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) jurisdictions such
as Mississippi, leveraged to carry out this goal?
Answer. As noted throughout the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) Strategic Plan, partnerships area critical component to achieving
the NNI vision of a future in which the ability to understand and
control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and
industry that benefits society. The three Nanotechnology Signature
Initiatives, described in the NNI Strategic Plan and the NNI Supplement
to the President's FY 2012 Budget (both available at www.nano.gov)
identify research thrust areas and desired outcomes, including the
formation of industry and academic partnerships. Though not explicitly
stated in the initiative descriptions, the inclusion of Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) universities as
appropriate would be consistent with the spirit of the education and
outreach goals expressed in the NNI Strategic Plan.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Diandra L. Leslie-Pelecky, Ph.D.
Manufacturing
Question 1. Nanomanufacturing is the bridge that connects
nanoscience with nanotechnology products and is essential if we are to
realize the economic returns on this technology. However,
nanomanufacturing infrastructure and techniques are in their infancy.
How significant a barrier to nanotechnology commercialization is the
absence of nanomanufacturing infrastructure, such as equipment, tools,
processes, and systems?
Answer. The lack of nanomanufacturing infrastructure represents the
loss of researchers dedicated to the `development' part of R&D.
Developing a technique for making a specific material or device is the
research part of R&D. The issues involved in learning how to scale up a
technique and improving process efficiency used to be done in
industrial research labs, few of which still exist.
We need programs that bring researchers in academia together with
industry to identify and overcome specific barriers to progress. The
Industry/University Cooperative Research Center (I/UCRC) program at NSF
makes direct links between industries and universities--but they
receive more high-quality proposals than they can fund. On a smaller
scale, SBIR/STTR programs provide excellent opportunities for
researchers, in collaboration with industry, to extend their work and
solve some of the development problems that would otherwise remain
barriers to adaptation.
Question 2. To make sure the United States is the global leader in
nanomanufacturing, what should the Federal investment be in
infrastructure development? And in what areas should we invest?
Answer. The amount of work being done in nanotechnology is
enormous. Coordinating the vast numbers of researchers, facilities and
amount of information is critical to ensure efficient progress. These
networks also help bring together experts to identify and develop
solutions to overcome the most significant barriers.
For example, the National Nanomanufacturing Network (http://
www.inter
nano.org/) unites academic, government and industry partners, including
four NSF-funded nanomanufacturing NSECS (Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Centers) and nanocenters at Sandia National Laboratories
and NIST. These types of cooperative efforts require funding to
develop, but the investment can produce a great payoff by concentrating
resources and ideas.
Workforce training and education
Question 3. Dr. McLendon's testimony indicated that the
nanotechnology workforce should reach 800,000 by 2015. This sort of job
growth would go a long way toward economic improvements. How can the
United States make sure we have an adequate supply of engineers and
technicians to support nanomanufacturing and the overall job growth
projected for the field?
Answer. Improving STEM education is a huge issue for the Nation in
general. The question of whether we have ``enough'' scientists and
engineers is debated (as is the numerical meaning of ``enough'');
however, the changing demographics of the country demand we find better
ways to inspire a larger cross-section of Americans to pursue STEM
study. The growth of women, minorities and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering has been embarrassingly slow.
Microsoft recently released survey results supporting the
importance of getting students interested in STEM as early as possible.
Seventy-eight percent of STEM college students said they decided to
study STEM in high school or earlier. One in five made that decision in
middle school or earlier. More than half of the students surveyed
attributed their STEM interest to an inspiring teacher or class--
including 68 percent of the female students surveyed.
We need to revamp our approach toward teaching math and science at
the K-12 level. Instead of focusing on disjoint disciplines, we need to
prepare students to think more holistically. Interdisciplinary thinking
can't start in college. We need to focus STEM education on essential
themes that impact people's everyday lives, like energy and the
environment. We need to show students that science and engineering have
profound effects on the world and that they have an opportunity to
shape the future by choosing these occupations.
At the college level, we need incentives for more students to
pursue math and science degrees. In exchange for scholarships, students
might be required to spend two or three years researching an area of
need in a national laboratory or university research program.
Equally important are producing people who may not be scientists or
engineers, but who are facile with scientific and engineering concepts
and techniques. We need knowledgeable people to become technicians,
marketing and advertising people, managers, politicians and regulators
for the emerging nanotechnology industry.
We need to develop more partnerships with two-year colleges to
prepare technicians to work in nanomanufacturing. The ``green energy''
technical degrees that are growing at two-year colleges can be a
template. Some such programs in nanotechnology already exist, such as
Penn State's NSF-funded National Center for Nanotechnology Applications
and Career Knowledge. This program is part of the NSF ATE (Advanced
Technological Education), which supports development of a very broad
range of technical preparation. Nanotechnology-focused ATEs could be
encouraged to accelerate the development of these programs. There also
needs to be funding available for institutions to adapt educational
materials that have be proven successful. The traditional emphasis
tends to be more on novelty than adaptation of proven methods.
The needs of nanotechnology businesses will be very disparate given
that the field ranges from food packaging to security sensors to
biomedical devices. Two-year institutions can develop new programs
quickly and have a history of adapting to and respecting local needs.
Educators need input from local industry as to what skills are desired
and feedback from people who work in these new and growing industries
as to whether the programs are succeeding.
An important caveat--as the next question points out--is that we
need to know that there will be jobs for these people after they
graduate.
Question 4. What approaches will help ensure that both
nanomanufacturing capacity and a trained workforce grow in tandem?
Answer. This is the canonical chicken and egg problem: We should
not train people for jobs that don't exist, but industry won't develop
if there aren't qualified workers. At some point, we have to decide to
make one happen and then closely follow with the other.
I am less disturbed by industries having jobs they can't fill than
I am by people without jobs, so I would prefer an initiative that
focuses first on additional aid to businesses overcoming the
development gap I referred to earlier. A second string of programs
could link industries with educational institutions to jointly develop
training programs--which might focus initially on on-the-job training
so that industry doesn't have to wait two years for qualified workers.
Business and Job Creation Within Nanotechnology Environment, Health,
and Safety
Question 5. Dr. Leslie-Pelecky, in your statement you describe
nanomaterials bioactivity as not just a research area but as a
potential business opportunity. This seems like an opportunity to
enhance public safety while also creating jobs--really, having your
cake and eating it too. What role can WVNano play in the development of
such businesses in West Virginia? And what can the Federal Government
do to incentivize public-private partnerships for business development
in this area?
Answer. West Virginia, like many states, made a strategic decision
to support nanomaterials as a priority area. Significant resources have
been invested in developing the infrastructure to pursue research that
will translate into useful products. In low-population states like West
Virginia, high-tech businesses are most likely to be initiated by
people working at or with a university (including its graduates).
Creating more industry requires developing intellectual property and
finding dynamic, motivated people to take the lead in the very
challenging task of starting a new business.
The university does a good job with creating knowledge, but we
could improve our involvement in inspiring people to start businesses
and utilize that knowledge. We can develop courses that focus on
business issues. We can help them develop the ability to communicate
orally and verbally with people of all types, given them an
appreciation for the global nature of business, the ability to work as
part of team in leadership and membership roles, and a basic
understanding of how business works. STEM students at the university
represent a pool with very high potential for innovation.
This isn't traditionally part of the way we prepare STEM students.
NSF recognized that there need to be resources to initiate these types
of programs and created the GOALI (Graduate Opportunities for Academic
Liaison with Industry) program. The GOALI at Texas Tech allows students
to earn a Masters Degree targeted specifically toward working in the
semiconductor industry. The internships that are a required part of the
degree have helped many students find employment in the industry--often
with their host companies. Similar programs focused on nanotechnology
would help develop the workforce and build links between universities
and industries.
One of the challenges to programs like GOALI is that they require a
critical mass of industry, faculty research interests, and graduate
students. Given the diversity of nanotechnology, a graduate research
fellowship program that selects participants based on individual
applications would provide greater ability for startups--which may only
need one person--to participate. Such a model might also help
universities without high concentrations of local business build
relationships with industries.
We're in a unique situation in terms of nanomaterials bioactivity
due to the confluence of having medical, scientific and engineering
schools that work well together, plus the collaboration with NIOSH.
These projects are simply too complex for one institution to do it all
themselves. NIH, FDA and DARPA just announced a $190M program to
develop a chip that will allow high-throughput drug testing to identify
promising candidates and screen out toxic ones at early stages. If it
works, this should significantly decrease the number of failed drug
trials due to toxicity. That type of a platform is exactly what we're
trying to do to evaluate nanomaterials and their impacts so that we can
screen out potentially hazardous materials. There is still a lot of
fundamental knowledge that has to be learned before we can think about
developing businesses, but we're on that track.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Diandra Leslie-Pelecky
Nano-Infrastructure
Question 1. The cost and complexity of the infrastructure required
for nanotechnology research and commercialization can be a significant
barrier to expansion of the industry. What opportunities are available
to researchers looking for Federal dollars for infrastructure
development and equipment?
Answer. There is more demand than supply for programs funding
nanomaterials research and development infrastructure. The Major
Research Instrumentation (MRI) program at NSF is my primary source of
funding for nanomaterials fabrication and characterization equipment
like deposition systems, X-ray diffractometers and electron
microscopes. NIH has an instrumentation program to which groups of
already-NIH-funded investigators can apply. Most of these programs
require groups of investigators to work together to ensure that
instruments are maximally utilized.
Few universities in this economic climate have funding for new
buildings, especially since nanomaterials research buildings have
special requirements, such as low vibration, climate control, and
cleanrooms. Opportunities for Federal funding for new buildings or
renovation are rare. The ARRA funds that supported scientific research
facilities were very important to many institutions. Due to the nature
of those funds, the time frame for submission was so short that only
universities with plans already completed had a chance at being
competitive.
People are an important part of the research infrastructure.
Programs like the NSF-Research Experiences for Undergraduates, the NSF-
IGERT (Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training) and NIH
T32 training grants fund are very important to us for funding students.
These programs not only further research, but also prepare the future
leaders in the field.
Question 2. What role do you see for the Federal Government in
encouraging regional investment strategies for equipment sharing
between university and industry clusters?
Answer. Equipment covers a broad range of categories. The highest
quality, most specialized instruments (like very high resolution
transmission electron microscopes) are not only expensive to purchase,
but require one or more dedicated, knowledgeable technicians and
expensive yearly maintenance contracts. There is a history of offering
these types of resources through national laboratories--for example,
the electron microscopy facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
These facilities do a great service in making these one- (or few-) of-
a-kind instruments available to researchers from industry as well as
academia and national labs. The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure
Network supported by NSF has been very successful in providing unique
opportunities to university and industry users for the cost of
transportation and lodging. Federal support of these user facilities
has been a very good investment.
It may be possible to develop a second tier of mid-level
instrumentation made available regionally, but it is important to
remember that establishing these types of facilities are long-term
commitments. In addition to buying the instrument, you have to support
people to ensure it runs correctly and to teach people how to use it
correctly, and the ongoing costs for utilities, maintenance, repair and
updating.
Another consideration is that some essential (but expensive) pieces
of equipment really have to be local. A standard transmission electron
microscope for routine examination of samples (which is in the $0.5-1M
range), is a tool I utilize weekly. Often, the next step of a process
has to wait for microscopy results. There is a limit to how much
equipment sharing can be done without unreasonably slowing down
research progress.
On the scale of these medium- and small-cost instruments, most
universities already operate these instruments within user facilities
that are open to internal and external users, including industrial
researchers. User fees are charged on a cost recovery basis; however,
most universities have to subsidize the fees in order to make them
affordable to internal users. Universities have the same challenges in
terms of supporting people and maintenance and only larger universities
can really afford to operate user facilities.
Public Outreach
Question 3. Public understanding of nanotechnology will affect both
the level of government investments in nanotechnology R&D and the
consumer willingness to accept nanotechnology products. In many cases
the American public may be unaware that basic products like sunscreen
can contain nanoparticles. Is the American public sufficiently familiar
with nanotechnology to judge its potential benefits and risks
appropriately?
Answer. The average person's familiarity with nanomaterials is
probably more influenced by Michael Creighton and Prince Charles than
by any scientist, engineer or science writer. In some ways,
nanotechnologists are at a disadvantage because our field is so
fantastic that science fiction writers employ it as a plot device.
People are likely to know the term ``nanotechnology'', but much
less likely to know what it means. Unfortunately, most people don't
come away from their K-12 (or even college) education with enough
numerical and scientific literacy to accurately judge the potential
benefits and risks of any new technology. That won't happen until we
move math and science education away from memorization and toward skill
development: critical thinking, the rules of scientific evidence,
understanding graphs and tables, and understanding the process of how
we try to understand the world. It must be noted, of course, that the
scientific and engineering communities aren't always good at
communicating outside our own boundaries, either.
A major part of the problem is terminology. Talking about
``nanotechnology'' is like talking about ``sports''. Baseball or
cycling? Soccer or tennis? They share very little in common and you
would be hard pressed to make very many meaningful statements that are
accurate for all sports. Similarly, ``nanotechnology'' isn't one thing:
it covers drug-impregnated stents, cancer treatments, golf clubs, bike
frames, lights, chewing gum, and face cream--and lots more. We do
ourselves a disservice by not focusing on specific instances of
nanotechnology--and preferably on products that exist and the average
person might encounter.
Just as drugs are approved individually--even if they are very
similar to already approved drugs--the benefits and risks of each
nanotechnology-related product have to be examined and communicated
individually. The fact that there are many, many types of
nanotechnology might be more important for the public to understand
than to have them be in favor of ``nanotechnology'' per se.
Question 4. Are you concerned that a campaign to improve public
understanding might, in fact, result in a backlash against
nanotechnology R&D due to the potential safety implications?
Answer. The nature of such a campaign would determine the
likelihood of a backlash. A well considered informational campaign that
carefully frames the issues could do much to help people's eventual
acceptance of nanotechnology in their lives.
The first element of such a campaign is helping people understand
that `nanotechnology' covers a vast array of products from health care
to food to sports equipment that are so different they cannot be
discussed as a single unit. Convincing people of this point would be a
major accomplishment that could help prevent a knee-jerk negative
reaction to the entire field based on one problem product.
The second element would be focusing attention on applications of
nanotechnology that already exist. With over a thousand products that
contain nanomaterials or were made using nanotechnology, already on the
market, there is a lot of educating to be done. A Swedish study
recently showed that people were most antagonistic to nanotechnology
when they believe it is used without them knowing. Informing people
about the specific benefits and risks of existing products is a much
more productive approach.
We cannot deny that some nanomaterials may pose risks to people,
animals or the environment, just as we cannot guarantee that a
promising new drug won't eventually prove to pose more risks than its
benefits justify. Consider DES, which pregnant women were given from
about 1940 to 1970 because all the evidence we had at that time
suggested that DES could decrease pregnancy risks. Instead, we found
that the daughters of women who took the drug experienced a rare
vaginal tumor that often left them unable to have children of their
own. We have a history of drugs (Celebrex, Fen-Phen) that we thought
were safe and only later found out were not. It is absolutely critical
that we not make the same mistakes with nanotechnology--and why
research into the environmental health and safety effects of
nanomaterials must be accelerated.
Maximizing Return on Investment from the NNI
Question 5. Since the original authorization for the NNI expired in
2008, numerous attempts have been made to authorize the program. What
do you think is needed in a reauthorization to improve the program
overall and increase its return on investment?
Answer. Nanotechnology requires collaboration across scientific and
engineering disciplines: It also requires collaboration across funding
agencies. There have been some admirable efforts between NSF and NIH,
but we need more programs that recognize the need for interdisciplinary
and sometimes interagency cooperation. It is important that good
ideas--especially in the biomedical applications area--don't fall into
gaps between funding agencies. Centralizing funding within one agency
would be a mistake: each funding agency has its own area of expertise
that is critical to evaluating proposal merits. Fostering collaborative
efforts among Federal funding agencies in a way that recognizes their
individual expertise is critical.
Our lack of knowledge of nanomaterials bioactivity is a major
barrier to making nanotechnology the economic driving force it was
promised to be. Economic development and public acceptance of
nanotechnologies hinge on improved understanding of nanomaterials
bioactivity. Groups of investigators from different disciplines must
work together to fully understand how nanomaterials interact with
biological systems. Most of the current funding in this area, however,
are individual investigator grants. We won't be able to make the
necessary progress critical to moving forward this way.
The government has taken the initiative to prioritize research
topics by shifting from primarily curiosity-driven, individual
investigator research to problem-driven interdisciplinary team-based
research. Curiosity-driven research is absolutely critical to continue
generating the new ideas that have made us the world leader in
nanotechnology; however, we need to expand the funding portfolio to
include more targeted proposals that focus on specific barriers to
moving forward with nanotechnology. We have seen an increase in
directed programs, like NSF's emphases in sustainability and
nanomanufacturing, and NIH's focus on translational medicine. There is
tremendous power in directing the research focus via the funding
opportunities--although which topics are the highest priority must be
decided with input from the research community and industry.
The NSF Engineering Research Center (ERC) program supports
university-industry partnerships in research across all engineering
topics; however, they released in April a focused call for Nanosystems
ERCs. NSF Programs like the Centers for Excellence in Materials
Research and Innovation (CEMRI) and Materials Research
Interdisciplinary Teams (MIRT) are valuable, team-based programs that
include nanotechnology. These programs receive many more good proposals
than they have the funding to support. The ten-plus-year history of the
CEMRI (formerly MRSEC) program has demonstrated that it is a very good
investment in terms of creating basic knowledge and applications, and
in training graduate students skilled at interdisciplinary research.
We are very appreciative of the resources we've been provided over
the last ten years of the NNI. We've made enormous progress in
understanding the fundamental properties of nanomaterials and how they
can be harnessed to improve the quality of life for Americans. There is
much more to do and we appreciate your commitment to making it possible
for us to do it.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Dr. Diandra Leslie-Pelecky
Question 1. You testified that there is a need to make scientific
instruments available on a regional basis. Right now it is difficult
for universities to acquire multi-million dollar equipment for
nanoscale imaging. The NIST Nanofabrication Facility is an example of a
national user facility. Should the Federal Government consider
establishing regional nanoscale imaging and characterization centers in
each State? If yes, how would it be setup and how would manufacturers
use it? Is it better to locate these instruments at a university or at
a regional manufacturing center such as an MEP center?
Answer. The equipment necessary for nanomaterials research,
development and commercialization varies in scale, complexity and cost
(of operation and of continuing support). National user facilities are
generally one-of-a-kind (or few-of-a-kind) instruments that require
significant infrastructure. The national labs have done an outstanding
job with these facilities. They are exceptionally valuable resources
for the community.
On the other end of the scale, there is equipment that is expensive
($.5-2M), but so integral to research that it really must be on-site. A
lot of our work requires answers from one piece of equipment before we
can proceed with the next step of the experiment. Not having this type
of equipment on campus makes it very difficult to be competitive
researchers.
In the middle are intermediate pieces of equipment that might be
appropriate for regional centers based on researcher density. The needs
and number of researchers in different states varies widely. Going
strictly by state would likely result in redundancy and excess
capacity. Once a particular regional need was identified, an open
competition to host the facility would be the best way of deciding
where it should be located. Some facilities might make more sense at a
regional manufacturing center, while others might be easier to host at
a national laboratory or university.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Thomas O'Neal
Workforce training and education
Question 1. Dr. McLendon's testimony indicated that the
nanotechnology workforce should reach 800,000 by 2015. This sort of job
growth would go a long way toward economic improvements. How can the
United States make sure we have an adequate supply of engineers and
technicians to support nanomanufacturing and the overall job growth
projected for the field?
Answer. We need to create more scholarships for domestic students,
at the same time we should have a free flowing of talented students
outside of USA, which has declined after 911 due to visa restrictions.
Question 2. What approaches will help ensure that both
nanomanufacturing capacity and a trained workforce grow in tandem?
Answer. We are lacking in nanotechnology education programs in this
country. We need more resources to create such programs and we need
them integrated into existing programs in Science Technology,
Engineering, and Math (STEM).
Financing
Question 3. Financing is extremely challenging for those attempting
to bring nanotechnology to market, because the path from invention to
commercial production is often particularly expensive, risky, and
lengthy. Dr. O'Neal, you mention in your testimony that a three to 10
year delay is typical in this area of technology. To what extent have
capital issues hampered nanotechnology commercialization?
Answer. Start-ups and spin-offs are an important path for
commercializing research. New companies require finance to allow them
to develop and grow their operations, which should be the point at
which venture capital become involved. The best venture capitalists add
value to investee companies beyond funding. They provide industrial
experience, contacts, and coaching and mentoring. This is especially so
in nanotechnology, which often has longer development times and higher
costs than an equivalent IT business.
Venture capitalists are investing in nanotech, but not
aggressively, due to the long cycles it takes from discovery to
commercial viability. Lux Research has identified investments in
nanotechnology valued at $792 Million in 2009, 42 percent off their
2008 figure. The largest share of funding (51 percent) went to
Healthcare and life sciences, followed by energy and environment (23
percent) and electronics and IT (17 percent). This funding was spread
across 91 deals, with an average investment size of $8.6 million.
Question 4. If the venture capital community is focused primarily
on short-term funding, what class of institutional investors do you
think is most likely to support nanotechnology companies?
Answer. A new breed of Angel investors would need to be developed.
It would need to be one that has access to larger amounts of funding
that would be more patient for a return. A more feasible approach would
be for large corporate investors to step in and fill this gap. They
would need to develop a culture of investing in earlier and earlier
stage companies and risk losing money of apportion of these
investments. We should investigate matching programs with investors and
National funding agencies like the German and Japan model.
The SBIR program should increase resources that target
nanotechnology. Nanoscience innovation centers should be developed that
function as testbeds, proof of concepts centers and business
incubators. They should include collaboration areas that provide for
shared equipment and facilities.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Thomas O'Neal
Technology Transfer
Question 1. A large share of NNI funding supports research at
universities and Federal laboratories. Last year's review of the NNI
cited the need to increase the focus on the transfer of technology from
the research community to the private sector. How effectively is the
knowledge generated by NNI investments being transferred from
universities and Federal labs to the private sector?
Answer. My opinion is that it could be much hasn't happened at a
level that is making a significant difference. NNI has created great
academic papers, but the commercial exploitation is still lagging.
Research into the innovation process is merited
Question 2. What mechanisms are Universities using today to
facilitate this transfer and which are the most effective?
Answer. Better partnerships and collaboration with industry is the
most effective tech transfer. The SBIR is a great example. The Florida
High Tech Corridor Matching grants program is another. Universities and
industry working together to solve problems that matter to industry
promote effective technology transfer. Deals that extend beyond a
license are most effective. Faculty startups are effective when
combined with business coaching, mentoring, management team
development.
Question 3. Dr. O'Neal, as nanotechnology products progress toward
the manufacturing stage, what do we need to do to make sure the U.S.
captures the production work rather than another country with a strong
manufacturing base like China?
Answer. U.S. companies need to be able to compete with companies
based in China. The U.S. needs to consider investments in this industry
that will return a sufficient return on investment. U.S. companies,
Universities, and the government leaders need to work together to
address this issue. Research into the innovation process is merited.
Nano-Infrastructure
Question 4. Dr. O'Neal, how is UCF making their equipment available
to nanotechnology startups to promote commercialization of the
technology?
Answer. We are sharing our facilities on a fee basis. Companies
schedule time on the equipment and pay predetermined rates by the hour
or month. One company schedules time overnight so as to not interfere
with student and faculty usage. They are trained on the equipment ahead
of time and recertified if equipment changes.
UCF only has a limited amount of such equipment at this time.
Question 5. What are some of the barriers to these public/private
partnerships that you have encountered?
Answer. There needs to be an incentive or mutually beneficial
reasons for public/private partners to form. Joint research efforts are
one way but if the industry has to be providing all the funding, they
may decide to simply do the work internally. Lack of awareness of
possible areas of overlap or mutual benefit is also an issue. Creative
ways of communicating this should be developed.
Maximizing Return on Investment from the NNI
Question 6. Since the original authorization for the NNI expired in
2008, numerous attempts have been made to authorize the program. What
do you think is needed in a reauthorization to improve the program
overall and increase its return on investment?
Answer. We need to do more research that addresses important
societal issues, develop stronger ties to industry, and support for
entrepreneurs to effectively move the technology to the market. Metrics
such as patents spin out companies, and jobs created should be included
with every program supported by the NNI. Research into nanotechnology
commercialization should also be included in the initiative. More
efforts into addressing the manufacturability and scalability would
also increase the return on investment. We should also invest in
nanosafety since safety concerns are negatively affecting investment
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Dr. Thomas O'Neal
Question 1. You testified that knowing how to manufacture and
scale-up the production of nanomaterials and products that include
nanomaterials is a barrier to commercialization. For example, Boeing
may need tons of very pure carbon nanotubes for a plane fuselage. What
programs or initiatives should the Federal Government sponsor to help
manufactures learn how to scale up their manufacturing capability?
Answer. Create manufacturing centers, Industry-University
partnerships using Germany as a model.
Question 2. Should the Federal Government establish ``prototyping
centers'' so that companies can make ``proof of concept'' products and
refine their manufacturing processes?
Answer. This is a great idea. It should include a significant
number of students to help with the knowledge transfer aspects.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Dr. Thomas O'Neal
Question 1. Nano-medicine and nano-biology hold significant promise
to improve human health. How is the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) supporting this critical area?
Answer. In terms of research, yes, but in terms of product
development--no. Consideration should be given to developing more
initiatives such as NSF's GOALI program. This provides funding for
companies as an incentive to work with Universities. Additionally,
funding under this program should be able to be directed to companies
for certain activities.
Question 2. Public-private partnerships between universities,
government, and industry are key methods to ensure that promising
research is developed into useful new technologies and products. One
example of such a partnership is the new Virginia Nanoelectronics
Center, a partnership of several Virginia Universities, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and Micron Technologies. How does the NNI
plan to incentivize, facilitate, and further leverage these kinds of
public-private partnerships?
Answer. By investing in both academia and industries and
facilitating collaboration. Scientist, engineers, and business people
should all be the same room addressing issues.
Question 3. I have heard some concern from nanotechnology
researchers regarding the current state of technology transfer for
nanotech research. Given that nanotech requires sophisticated
manufacturing processes, for instance, to what extent is NNI focused on
potential barriers to widespread use of nanotechnology-based products?
Do we know, for instance, if printing and imaging technologies used in
consumer electronics can be transferred to nanotechnology?
Answer. Yes. Companies like Intel, IBM, and HP need a business case
to become more involved.
Question 4. Some scholars have raised ethical concerns about
nanotechnology research and its applications. What are the dual use
implications of nanotechnology? Should we be paying more attention to
the ethical implications of this field and its products?
Answer. This is a hype, I don't see any real issues. Life sciences
have been functioning at the nano-scale for a long time. The issues are
the similar with many disciplines. We have good safe guards in place
that will protect society. As long as we can prove that nano-products
are safe that's what matters. Research into safety should be increased
to address this issue. While we understand the nano-toxicity, we should
clearly understand and communicate state why they are toxic, to whom,
at what exposure, etc. Often the same product can be beneficial or
harmful depending on the dose
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. George McLendon
Manufacturing
Question 1. Nanomanufacturing is the bridge that connects
nanoscience with nanotechnology products and is essential if we are to
realize the economic returns on this technology. However,
nanomanufacturing infrastructure and techniques are in their infancy.
How significant a barrier to nanotechnology commercialization is the
absence of nanomanufacturing infrastructure, such as equipment, tools,
processes, and systems? To make sure the United States is the global
leader in nanomanufacturing, what should the Federal investment be in
infrastructure development? And in what areas should we invest?
Answer. There are many barriers for nanotechnology
commercialization. Manufacturing in this area is quite diverse as some
products would need state of the art lithography labs, while others
might need specialty chemical plants. Each of these capabilities exists
in nascent form in existing manufacturing infrastructure such as those
used for computer chip production or in fine chemicals productions. So
the barrier is not that the basic tools are lacking, it is in the
difficulty in retrofitting and turning these platforms towards the
special needs of nanotechnology. Also, because the U.S. has lost its
traditional manufacturing base particularly in semiconductor
manufacturing there are significant barriers for those nanotechnology
applications that require advanced lithography.
We should invest in programs that help retrofit existing
manufacturing enterprises to supply nanotechnology products. Because
the U.S. still has active manufacturing for specialty chemicals and
medical products, these areas are ideally positioned to benefit from
Federal investment. However, incentives for nanotechnology retrofitting
must be supported by equal investment in measurement tools and
standards for those measurements. One of the most significant
retrofitting challenges is in characterizing the quality/purity of
nanotechnology products. New instrumentation, that is validated and
standardized, has to be available to industry that is moving towards
providing nanotechnology products.
Workforce training and education
Question 2. Your testimony indicated that the nanotechnology
workforce should reach 800,000 by 2015. This sort of job growth would
go a long way toward economic improvements. How can the United States
make sure we have an adequate supply of engineers and technicians to
support nanomanufacturing and the overall job growth projected for the
field? What approaches will help ensure that both nanomanufacturing
capacity and a trained workforce grow in tandem?
Answer. The NSF has a traditionally central role in graduate
support. It may be deniable to have a specific focus for URP--
undergraduate research programs in nanotech to create a pipeline, as
well as graduate and/or postdoctoral fellowships in nanotechnology, to
insure an adequate workforce.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. George McLendon
Technology Transfer
Question 1. A large share of NNI funding supports research at
universities and Federal laboratories. Last year's review of the NNI
cited the need to increase the focus on the transfer of technology from
the research community to the private sector. How effectively is the
knowledge generated by NNI investments being transferred from
universities and Federal labs to the private sector? What mechanisms
are Universities using today to facilitate this transfer and which are
the most effective?
Since the original authorization for the NNI expired in 2008,
numerous attempts have been made to authorize the program. What do you
think is needed in a reauthorization to improve the program overall and
increase its return on investment?
Answer. Maximizing ROI from the NNI: Better focus on transitional
research alongside foundational work.
At Rice, we have examples of strategic relationships with companies
such as Lockheed-Martin who invest in our more applied research, and
have their researchers mentor academic teams to develop ideas so that
they can be transferred into corporate labs. However, in tough economic
times companies often do not have the luxury to invest in relationships
that may need three years or longer to mature. Start-ups are another
avenue but also may not always be the best way to let transformative
technology have the time it needs to fully develop. Rice has been
fortunate to have more than four nanotechnology start-ups that have
survived longer than five years.
The most effective approach are strategic relationships with
established companies who have the ability to fund nanotechnology
development for the long haul; the barriers to these truly
transformative technologies becoming effective products are
significant--and range from manufacturing challenges to regulatory
uncertainties. Larger companies offer the best route for most
nanotechnology development at this point, though programs should also
acknowledge the unique role that entrepreneurship plays particularly in
nanomedicine.
Question 2. On page 91 of the hearing transcript, Senator Nelson
says: ``Dr. McLendon, give us an example on that Lockheed case where
there's a Lockheed scientists with one of your scientists. What are
they developing?'' Please provide this information for the record.
Answer. Lockheed Martin engineers are working with Rice scientists
to develop better-performing rechargeable batteries using
electrochemical etching nanochemistry. Steve Sinsabaugh (Lockheed
Martin Fellow), and Lisa Biswal and Michael Wong (Rice professors) have
created a new material that can store and release more electrons (and
lithium ions) than the current graphite material used in lithium-ion
rechargeable batteries. The technology breakthrough comes from the
recognition that silicon cannot store and release electrons without
disintegrating after recharging, but that porous silicon can.
Laboratory results at Rice indicate that porous silicon can store and
release as much as 10 times more electrons than graphite over many
recharge cycles, meaning smaller batteries are possible. Once proved
out for real-world operating conditions, this technology may lead to
longer-lasting cell phones, cheaper electric cars, smaller computers,
and lighter satellites and airplanes. This Lockheed Martin-Rice
research is an exciting example of an industry-university partnership
successfully resulting in basic science papers, patent applications,
and well-trained student and postdoctoral researchers.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Dr. George McLendon
Set-aside funding
Question. Should the Federal Government, through the NNI, set aside
a specific amount of each agencies funding for nanomanufacturing and/or
environmental, health and safety?
Answer. Yes. The lack of nanomanufacturing capacity and the
uncertainty in EHS regulation for nanomaterials represent significant
barriers for commercialization. Both topics fall between multiple
agencies and thus are often difficult to both fund and coordinate.
However, it is essential to engage industry deeply in the area of
nanomanufacturing. For example, in nanomanufacturing Federal dollars
could be provided to match industry investments in academic
partnerships. In this way, the research outcomes will quickly translate
to partners capable of fully scaling up the ideas and processes. For
nano-EHS research academic teams must be highly responsive to the needs
of regulator policymakers and should engage these end-users directly in
their research planning and evaluation.