U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–678 WASHINGTON : 1999

NANOTECHNOLOGY: THE STATE OF NANOSCIENCE AND ITS PROSPECTS FOR THE NEXT

DECADE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BASIC RESEARCH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 22, 1999

No. 106–40

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

LAMAR SMITH, Texas

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

DAVE WELDON, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

MERRILL COOK, Utah

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin

STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California

GARY G. MILLER, California

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

JACK METCALF, Washington

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan

ZOE LOFGREN, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

(III)

C O N T E N T S

June 22, 1999: Page

Opening Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Basic Research, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 1

Opening Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking

Minority Member, Subcommittee on Basic Research, U.S. House of

Representatives ............................................................................................. 2

Panel:

Eugene Wong, Assistant Director for Engineering, National Science Foundation: Testimony ......................................................................................... 3

Paul McWhorter, Deputy Director, Microsystems Science, Technology and

Components Center, Sandia National Laboratories: Testimony ............... 5

Richard Smalley, Professor of Physics and Chemistry, Rice University:

Testimony ...................................................................................................... 7

Ralph Merkle, Research Scientist, XEROX Palo Alto Research Center:

Testimony ...................................................................................................... 9

Discussion ......................................................................................................... 11

APPENDIX 1: OPENING STATEMENTS

Written Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Basic Research, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 24

Written Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking

Minority Member, Subcommittee on Basic Research, U.S. House of

Representatives ............................................................................................. 25

Written Statement by Representative Lynn Woolsey, Subcommittee on

Basic Research, U.S. House of Representatives ......................................... 27

APPENDIX 2: WRITTEN TESTIMONY, BIOGRAPHIES, FINANCIAL

DISCLOSURES, AND ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Eugene Wong, Assistant Director for Engineering, NSF:

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 30

Biography .......................................................................................................... 40

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 41

Paul McWhorter, Deputy Director, Microsystems Science, Technology and

Components Center, Sandia National Laboratories:

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 47

Biography .......................................................................................................... 48

Letter from Paul McWhorter to the Honorable Nick Smith, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Basic Research, on Improving Peer Review for

Nanoscience ................................................................................................... 49

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 51

Richard Smalley, Professor of Physics and Chemistry, Rice University:

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 55

Biography .......................................................................................................... 69

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 70

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 71

Ralph Merkle, Research Scientist, XEROX Palo Alto Research Center:

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 78

Biography .......................................................................................................... 91

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 92

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 93

Page

IV

APPENDIX 3: MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Neil Gross and Otis Port, ‘‘The Next Wave,’’ Business Week, August 24–

31, 1998 ................................................................................................................. 100

The Physics of Materials: How Science Improves Our Lives, Committee

on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics, National Research

Council, 1997 ........................................................................................................ 104

(1)

HEARING ON NANOTECHNOLOGY: THE STATE

OF NANO-SCIENCE AND ITS PROSPECTS

FOR THE NEXT DECADE

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BASIC RESEARCH,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in Room

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Smith [Chairman

of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman SMITH [presiding] The Science Subcommittee on Basic

Research will come to order for the purpose of a hearing on

nanotechnology and the state of nanoscience and its prospects for

the future decades.

Today the Subcommittee is meeting to review federal funding of

research into nanotechnology, to discuss the role of the Federal

Government in supporting nanoscience research, and to discuss the

economic implications of the scientific advances made in the field

of nanotechnology.

In Fiscal Year 1999, the Federal Government will spend approximately $230 million on nanotechnology research. Eighty percent of

the funding comes from the National Science Foundation, about

$90 million; the Department of Defense; the Department of Energy.

The remaining money comes from the National Institutes of

Health, the Department of Commerce, and NASA. In addition, the

private sector has shown interest in the field of nanotechnology.

And the question that this Subcommittee hopes to answer is how

much effort should the Federal Government be putting into taxpayer funded research in this area?

According to testimony submitted by our panelists, scientists

have already learned a great deal about how to use

nanotechnology. The best example of this is today’s biotechnology

industry. But, according to researchers, that is only the beginning.

Nanotechnology holds great promise for breakthroughs in health,

manufacturing, agriculture, energy, and national security. In fact,

some researchers state that over the next few decades,

nanotechnology will impact every aspect of our society.

Unfortunately, while progress has been made, the United States

does not dominate nanotechnology. A significant amount of research is currently underway in Europe, especially Japan. In that

context, it seems to me it is appropriate that we cooperate and

keep abreast of the research being done in these other countries.

2

It is also appropriate for the Subcommittee to take a good look at

the Federal Government’s role in funding nanotechnology research,

to discuss what can be done to help move this research from the

lab to the marketplace, and to discuss where nanotechnology might

be in 10, 20, 30 years from now.

I would like to thank our esteemed panelists very much for taking time out of your schedule to be here today and would ask our

Ranking Member if she has a statement at this time.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to join you

today in welcoming our witnesses for this afternoon’s hearing. The

ages of civilization are designated by reference to a prominent material that could be fashioned by the prevailing state of technology.

For example, the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age.

Now we are at the threshold of an age in which materials can be

fashioned, atom by atom.

The word ‘‘revolutionary’’ is too overworked to have much impact

anymore, but nanotechnology, which is the subject of today’s hearing, truly is revolutionary. As expressed in a recent report from the

National Research Council, the ability to control and manipulate

atoms, to observe and simulate collective phenomenon, to treat

complex material systems, and to span length scales from atoms to

our everyday experience provides opportunities that were not even

imagined a decade ago. Nanotechnology will have enormous consequences for the information industry, the manufacturing of all

kinds of medicines and health. Indeed, one of our witnesses has

written that it will leave virtually no product untouched.

I congratulate the Chairman for convening this hearing so that

we may learn more about the promise of this research related to

nanotechnology and about the marvels that have been accomplished thus far. We are, naturally, interested in hearing the panel’s assessment of the vitality of federally supported research efforts in this field and we are aware that the planning activities are

underway which may lead to research in this nanotechnology in the

Administration’s Fiscal Year 2000 budget request.

The views of the panel on the value, timeliness, and appropriate

focus of such an initiative would be welcome. Again, I want to

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and I appreciate

the attendance of our witnesses. Maybe in 10 years, 15 or 20 years,

we will say we had that hearing and look what it brought. Thank

you.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Representative Johnson. At this

time, I would like to introduce our panelists and also, for your information, your testimony will be live because it is being webcast

on our website.

First is Dr. Eugene Wong. He is the Assistant Director for Engineering at the National Science Foundation. Paul McWhorter is the

Deputy Director of the Microsystems Science Technology and Components Center at the Sandia National Laboratories. Richard

Smalley is Professor of Chemistry and Physics at Rice University

and in 1996 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Ralph

Merkle is a research scientist at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.

In 1998, he and NASA scientist Stephen Walch were awarded the

Feynmann Prize in Nanotechnology. Esteemed witnesses today. We

thank you.

3

It is our policy to have witnesses take the oath. If you would rise

and raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to

give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Mr. WONG. Yes.

Mr. MCWHORTER. Yes.

Mr. SMALLEY. Yes.

Mr. MERKLE. Yes.

Chairman SMITH. Let the record indicate that all witnesses have

indicated in the affirmative. And we thank you very much.

And the spoken testimony we try to limit to 5 minutes. There is

a green, yellow, and red light on the little boxes in front of you.

But all testimony that you have presented to the Committee in

writing, without objection, will be entered into the record of this

hearing. And, hearing no objection, it’s so ordered.

Dr. Wong, if you would begin.

TESTIMONY OF EUGENE WONG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,

ARLINGTON, VA; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL J. MC WHORTER,

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MICROSYSTEMS SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND COMPONENTS CENTER, SANDIA NATIONAL

LABORATORIES, ALBUQUERQUE, NM; RICHARD E. SMALLEY,

PH.D., THE GENE AND NORMAN HACKERMAN PROFESSOR

OF CHEMISTRY AND PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, RICE UNIVERSITY, HOUSTON, TX; AND RALPH C. MERKLE, XEROX PALO

ALTO RESEARCH CENTER, PALO ALTO, CA

TESTIMONY OF EUGENE WONG

Mr. WONG. Yes. My name is Eugene Wong and I am the Assistant Director of the National Science Foundation for Engineering. I

am pleased to come before you to testify on the great opportunities

that are presented to us in the area of nanoscience and technology.

One nanometer is truly a magical point on the scale of length,

for it is at this place where the smallest man-made things meet the

natural atoms and molecules of the living world. Recent discoveries

at this scale are promising to revolutionize biology, electronics, materials, and other applications. We are seeing inventions and discoveries that were unimaginable only a very short time ago. For example, we now have materials and electronic devices that assemble

themselves and we will see an example of that in a moment and

biological motors extracted from living systems and running on

their own.

What is nanoscale? One nanometer is 1-billionth of a meter. To

get an idea of the size, we can compare some familiar things. The

diameter of an atom is about 1⁄4 of 1 nanometer. The diameter of

a human hair, on the other hand, is 10,000 nanometers. The protein molecules, which are so important, so critical to life, are several nanometers in size. Moving to man-made things. The smallest

devices on commercially available chips are about 200 nanometers,

whereas the smallest experimental device on experimental chips

are approximately 10 nanometers in their smallest dimension.

Nanoscale refers to dimensions that vary from a fraction of a

nanometer to tens of nanometers.

4

Figure one provides a good illustration of the scale.

[Slide.]

This is an image of a pyramid of germanium atoms sitting on top

of a silicon base—silicon surface. The pyramid is about 10

nanometers across its base and only 1.5 nanometers in height.

Each round-looking object is a single germanium atom. This pyramid was made at the Hewlett-Packard Laboratories and was

formed just a few seconds all by itself via a process called self-assembly. Self-assembly is illustrated in figure two.

[Slide.]

Here we have a collection of actual materials that were formed

by self-assembly. They take different shapes and I think one of the

key points about self-assembly is by properly creating the environment for assembly, these molecules and atoms actually collect

themselves into the requisite shapes, as in the case of the sphere

and as in the case of the pyramid that we saw on the last—in the

last figure.

Over the last 20 years, a series of instruments were invented

that now allows us to see, manipulate, and control objects in

nanoscale. They are the eyes, fingers, and tweezers of the

nanoscale world. With these remarkable tools, a new world of discovery and invention has been created. This is the world of

nanoscale science and technology.

Not every piece of nanoscale science and technology is new. Photography, for example, is a relatively old nanotechnology. Most of

molecular biology also works at nanoscale and some of it is clearly

not new. What is new and different is the degree of understanding

we are able to achieve with the new tools and the precision and

control that we are able to exert on the—on molecules and devices

at this scale. Because of the new techniques, we are witnessing

truly an explosion of revolutionary discoveries in nanoscale.

Why is nanoscale so important? First, I think the small size itself

is of critical importance. Microelectronics through successively reducing the size of devices and increasing the density of devices

interconnection on chips has brought us the revolution in information technology we see today. And I think the systematic reduction

to the nanoscale range will be just as important a development.

Second, with the ability to control and change nanoscale structures and materials, we can dramatically improve their properties

without ever changing their chemical composition. And this is a

new-found—this is a new dimension.

Third, much of molecular biology works at nanoscale. By using

the techniques of nanoscale science in biology, we gain two great

advantages: a deeper understanding of how nature works and ways

to mimic and improve upon nature. The applications of nanoscale

science and technology will lead to breakthroughs in a myriad of

applications, in information technology, advanced manufacturing,

medical care, the environment, energy generation, and national security.

While my written testimony contains several examples of potential applications in these areas, here I will just highlight a couple

of examples. The first commercial nanoscale products are already

in production. The—a magnetic rehab for disk drives with

nanoscale dimensions and based on the giant magneto-resistance

5

principle is on the market today and promises to revolutionize the

computer storage market. Prototypes of memory chips using an advanced version of the same principle have also been designed and

fabricated.

[Slide.]

Figure three shows an example of these memory chips. Figure

three shows a design for nanoscale memory chips that will have

1,000 times the memory; 100,000 times in speed—and be 100,000

times in speed; and only 1⁄10 the size of existing memory chips.

Nanotechnology can be used to dramatically improve animal and

plant genetics and better control the growing processes in agriculture. Nanofabrication of detector arrays provides the potential to

do thousands of simultaneous gene experiments with very small

amounts of material.

[Slide.]

Figure four shows a chip—figure four, please. Figure four is the

picture of a natural nanochip with 6,400 dots, each containing a

small amount of a different gene in the yeast genome. With this

chip, scientists can discover which genes are being activated or inhibited during the growing process. The application of this technology to agriculture has only begun to be appreciated.

The nanochip will allow the genes to be completely characterized,

molecule by molecule, in just a few hours. Only a short time ago,

the same experiment would have taken dozens of scientists years

to complete.

The National Science Foundation has a long history of support

for research in nanoscale science and technology. Research supported by the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate has

culminated in two Nobel Prizes in the last few years. One of these

went to Dr. Richard Smalley, who is here today testifying. NSF

also funds the National Nanofabrication Users Network, which provides the primary fabrication infrastructure for chip-level

nanoscale research.

Yes.

Chairman SMITH. I apologize for interrupting, but if you would

sort of conclude in the next 30 seconds or so, we will have a lot

of time for questions.

Mr. WONG. Yes, please. Thank you.

Despite great commercial promise, the field of nanoscale science

and technology cannot advance without strong federal support because this is a basic research area in its early stages of development. That is why we are coming before you to seek your encouragement and your endorsement of this important area.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. McWhorter.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. MC WHORTER

Mr. MCWHORTER. I am Paul McWhorter from Sandia National

Laboratories. I would like to thank the Committee for the invitation to talk to you about the role of nanotechnology in the second

silicon revolution.

It is really difficult to imagine any field of science or technology

that has had a more profound impact on the last half-century than

microelectronics. The hallmark of the microelectronics industry has

been to each year provide chips that are smaller, faster, cheaper,

6

and better. This has revolutionized all aspect of our lives from our

most advanced weapons systems to our toaster ovens.

The global microelectronics industry has vectored ahead based on

a very simple metric: to make transistors smaller. As transistors

become smaller, they become faster. You can pack more of them on

the chip and chips are able to store and process more information.

To date, this has been the silicon revolution.

Today we stand on the verge of a second silicon revolution. The

metrics of the second silicon revolution will be different and more

important than simply continuing to pack more transistors onto a

chip. The metrics of the second silicon revolution will be the incorporation of new structures, microscopic machines, on the chip

alongside the transistors, creating a whole new generation of computer chip, a chip that can not only think but sense, act, and communicate as well. These fully functional machines have feature

sizes smaller than human red blood cells. This new capability will

have as profound of an impact on our lives over the next 30 years

as microelectronics have over the past 30 years.

The second silicon revolution has begun and a variety of commercial products exist today that contain micromachines. To fully realize the potential of the second silicon revolution, however, certain

scientific hurdles must be overcome. In the 1800’s, realization of

high-performance, traditional industrial machines required the development of a fundamental understanding of the science of the

microdomain. Similarly, to effectively design, build, and operate

machines in the microdomain, we must have a fundamental understanding of the materials and surfaces in the nanodomain.

Nanotechnology and nanoscience will be the key elements of fully

achieving the vision of micromachines and microsystems. It will be

nanotechnology that will lead to new functions, better performance,

and higher reliability in micromachines and microsystems.

I have a very brief two-minute video I would like to show that

just describes the state-of-the-art of microtechnology to date. If you

could roll the video.

Chairman SMITH. We would note for the audience that we have

three screens: one in the middle and one in——

[Video.]

Mr. MCWHORTER. This is a picture of the world’s smallest machine in operation. This is a transmission. For size comparison, the

gear teeth that you are looking at are the size of a red blood cell.

The gear itself is the size of a grain of pollen. This transmission

is used as part of a system to increase the force that you can get

out of the microdevices.

This is a rack and pinion system that we demonstrated. Again,

built at Sandia National Laboratories. This enables us to get large

linear displacements in the microdomain.

All of these devices are built using integrated circuit fabrication

technique and they’re batch fabricated tens of thousands at a time

on a six-inch silicon wafer. Bringing these technologies together, we

create this microscopic positionable mirror with large implications

for use in the global telecommunications infrastructure. You can

see it switching an optical lasar at a very fast rate.

This is a prototype safety mechanism for a nuclear weapon that

has been developed. The purpose of this is to work on researching

7

ways to continue to increase the safety of the nation’s nuclear

weapons. This device operates by it has a 24-bit code, which means

that there is less than a 1 in 16 million chance of a random occurrence causing this device to unlock. You can see the engine driving

the pin structure up and down inside of a maze. This is the way

the decoding function is done. There is an engine and transmission

that is moving this entire platform from the right to the left.

In order to unlock or arm the weapon, the code has to be entered

correctly. The two gears that you see on the platform have to come

and engage the other gear train in order to pop up a mirror to arm

the weapon. Remember, this entire device is microscopic in dimension and built thousands at a time.

The code’s been entered correctly. The gears here engage. That

completes the gear train and we’re able to pop up the mirror and

arm the weapon. This is just an example of the type of technology

that is available today in the microdomain.

Chairman SMITH. Now is each gear the size of a red blood cell

or——

Mr. MCWHORTER. Each gear is the size of a grain of pollen.

This is just another size demonstration. This is a microscopic

dust mite that we were able to give a ride around on the outfit gear

of the microengine.

The message I would like to leave you with today is that microtechnology is real. It is here today. But, looking towards the future,

to really realize the full potential of the microtechnology, we desperately need the type of capability further described in the term

nanoscience. Other people on the panel will tell you more about the

broader, longer term application of nanotechnology. What I would

like to tell you is there is a need for it today in the area of microsystems and there would be—in addition to the longer term applications, there would be short-term impact from this work.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you.

Dr. Smalley.

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD E. SMALLEY

Mr. SMALLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity today

to present my views on nanotechnology. There is a growing sense

in the scientific and technical community that we are about to

enter a golden new era. We are about to be able to build things

that work on the smallest possible length scales, atom by atom,

with the ultimate level of finesse. These little nano things and the

technology that assembles and manipulates them, what we call

nanotechnology, will, I am certain, revolutionize our industries and

our lives.

Everything we see around us is made of atoms, the tiny elemental building blocks of matter. From stone to copper to bronze,

iron, steel, and now silicon, the major technological ages of human

kind have been defined by what these atoms can do in huge aggregates, trillions upon trillions of atoms at a time, molded, shaped,

and refined as macroscopic objects. And even in our vaunted microelectronics of today, 1999, and our highest tech silicon computer

chip, even the smallest feature is still a mountain compared to the

size of an atom. The resultant technology of our 20th century is

fantastic, but it pales when compared to what will be possible when

8

we learn to build things at the ultimate level of finesse, one atom

at a time. And if you think you have seen something now, just

wait. This next century is going to be incredible.

Nature has played the game at this level for billions of years,

building stuff with atomic precision. Every living thing is made of

cells that are chock full of nanomachines. Not quite as cute as

these we just saw, but beautiful in their own way, each of them

going about the business of life, rubbing up against one another.

Each perfect right down to the last atom. The workings are so exquisite that changing the location or the identity of just a single

atom causes the machine to change, generally to damage it.

Over the past century, we have learned about the workings of

these biological nanomachines to an incredible level of detail and

the benefits of this knowledge are beginning to be felt now in medicine. In the coming decades, we will certainly learn to modify and

adapt this machinery to extend both the quality and the length of

life. Biotechnology was the first nanotechnology and it has certainly a long, long way to go.

Let me give you just one personal example: cancer. As I sit before

you today, I have very little hair on my head. It fell out a few

weeks ago as a result of the chemotherapy that I have been undergoing to treat a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the same sort

that recently killed King Hussein of Jordan. While I am very optimistic, this chemotherapy, frankly, is a very blunt tool. And I am

sure most of you have personal awareness of this. It consists of

small molecules which are toxic. They kill cells in my body and although they are meant to kill only the cancer cells, they kill hair

cells, too, and cause all sorts of other havoc.

Now, I’m not complaining. Twenty years ago, without even this

crude chemotherapy, I would probably already be dead. But 20

years from now, not that far in the future, I’m confident we will

no longer have to use just this blunt tool. By then, nanotechnology

will have given us specially engineered drugs which are nanoscale

and essentially cancer-seeking missiles, a molecular technology

that specifically targets just the mutant cancer cells in the human

body and leaves everything else blissfully alone.

To do this, these drug molecules will have to be big enough—

probably thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of atoms—so that

we can code information into them of where they should go and

what they should kill. They will be examples of an exquisite—a

new exquisite nanotechnology, this time human-made, a technology

of the future. I may not live to see it, but, with your help, I am

confident it will happen and cancer, at least the type that I have,

will be a thing of the past.

Powerful as it is, this bio-side of nanotechnology that works in

water in the water-based world of living things will not be able to

do everything. It cannot make things strong like steel or conduct

electricity with the speed and efficiency of copper or silicon. For

this, other nanotechnologies are being developed and will be developed in the future. It’s what I call the dry side of nanotech.

My own research these days has focused on carbon nanotubes.

Can we have my first slide? Or do I need to hit my laptop? Is it——

[Slide.]

9

This is a carbon nanotube. These nanotubes are an outgrowth of

the research that led to the Nobel Prize a few years ago. These

nanotubes are absolutely incredible. They are expected to produce

fibers 100 times stronger than steel, but only 1⁄6 the weight. Almost

certainly the strongest fibers that will ever be made out of anything, strong enough, even to build an elevator to space. In addition, they will conduct electricity better than copper and transmit

heat better than diamond. Membrane made from the rays of these

nanotubes are expected to have revolutionary impact in the technology of rechargeable batteries and fuel cells, perhaps giving us

all-electric vehicles within the next 10 to 20 years with the performance and range of a Corvette at a fraction the cost.

[Slide.]

As individual nanoscale molecules, these carbon nanotubes are

unique. Just think of one at a time. They have been shown—here

you see one draped across a few electrodes. They have been shown

to be true molecular wires, to conduct electricity like copper—in

fact, even better—and have already been assembled into the first

molecular transistor ever built; with just a single molecule, a functional transistor. Several decades from now, we expect to see—we

may be able to see. We don’t know yet—but it may be possible that,

within several decades, our current silicon-based microelectronics

will be supplanted by a carbon-based true nanoelectronics of vastly

greater power and scope.

It is amazing what one can do just by putting atoms where you

want them to go.

Recently an Interagency Working Group on Nano Science, Engineering, and Technology has studied the field of nanotechnology in

detail and made its recommendation to OSTP on March 10 for a

new initiative in this critical area. Quoting briefly from Mike Roco,

chair of this working group:

A national initiative, entitled Nanotechnology in the 21st Century Leading to a

New Industrial Revolution is recommended as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 budget.

The initiative will support long-term nanotechnology research and development

which will lead to breakthroughs in information technology, advanced manufacturing, medicine, health, environment and energy, and national security. The impact

of nanotechnology on health, wealth, and lives of people will be at least the equivalent of the combined influences of microelectronics, medical imaging, computer-aided

engineering, and man-made polymers developed in this century.

Mr. Chairman, honorable Congressmen, I believe it is in our nation’s best interests to move boldly into this new field. Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Smalley, exciting testimony. This is the

most—I want the witnesses to know, this is the most high-tech

Committee room that we have in the United States Congress and

we had a slight malfunction and that’s—so our screen for the members sort of malfunctioned.

Dr. Merkle, please proceed.

TESTIMONY OF RALPH C. MERKLE

Mr. MERKLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For centuries, manufacturing methods have gotten more precise, less expensive, and more flexible. In the next few decades, we will approach the limits of these trends. The limit of precision is the ability to get every atom where we want it. The limit of low-cost is set

by the cost of the raw materials and the energy involved in manuVerDate 13-MAR-2000 15:07 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\RENEE\60678P1.XXX txed02 PsN: txed02
10

facture. The limit of flexibility is the ability to arrange atoms in all

the patterns permitted by physical law.

Most scientists agree we will approach these limits but differ

about how best to proceed, on what nanotechnology will look like,

and then how long it will take to develop. Much of this disagreement is caused by the simple fact that, collectively, we have only

recently agreed that the goal is feasible and we have not yet sorted

out the issues that this creates. This process of creating a greater

shared understanding both of the goals of nanotechnology and the

routes for achieving those goals is the most important result of today’s result.

Nanotechnology, or molecular nanotechnology, to refer more specifically to the goals discussed here, will let us continue the historical trends in manufacturing right up to the fundamental limits imposed by physical law. It will let us make remarkably powerful molecular computers. It will let us make materials over 50 times

lighter than steel or aluminum alloy, but with the same strength.

We will be able to make jets, rockets, cars, or even chairs that, by

today’s standards, would be remarkably light, strong, and inexpensive. Molecular surgical tools, guided by molecular computers and

injected into the bloodstream, could find and destroy cancer cells

or invading bacteria, unclog arteries, or provide oxygen when the

circulation is impaired.

Nanotechnology will replace our entire manufacturing base with

a new, radically more precise, radically less expensive, and radically more flexible way of making products. The aim is not simply

to replace today’s computer chip-making plants, but also to replace

the assembly lines for cars, televisions, telephones, books, surgical

tools, missiles, bookcases, airplanes, tractors, and all the rest. The

objective is a pervasive change in manufacturing, a change that

will leave virtually no product untouched. Economic progress and

military readiness in the 21st century will depend fundamentally

on maintaining a competitive position in nanotechnology.

Many researchers think self-replication will be the key to

unlocking nanotechnology’s full potential, moving it from a laboratory curiosity able to expensively make a few small molecular machines and a relative handful of valuable products to a robust manufacturing technology able to make myriads of products for the

whole planet. We know self-replication can inexpensively make

complex products with great precision. Cells are programmed by

DNA to replicate and make complex systems, including giant redwoods, wheat, whales, birds, pumpkins, and more.

We should likewise be able to develop artificial, programmable,

self-replicating molecular machine systems, also known as assemblies, able to make a wide range of products from graphite, diamond, and other non-biological materials. The first groups to develop assemblers will have a historic window for economic, military, and environmental impact.

Developing nanotechnology will, I think, be a major project, just

as developing nuclear weapons or lunar rockets were major

projects. We must first focus our efforts on developing two things:

the tools with which to build the first molecular machines and the

blueprints of what we are to build. This will require the cooperative

efforts of researchers across a wide range of disciplines: scanning

11

probe microscopy, supramolecular chemistry, protein engineering,

self-assembly, robotics, materials science, computational chemistry,

self-replicating systems, physics, computer science, and more. This

work must focus on fundamentally new approaches and methods;

incremental or revolutionary improvements will not be sufficient.

Government funding is both appropriate and essential for several

reasons. The benefits will be pervasive across companies and the

economy. Few, if any, companies will have the resources to pursue

this alone. And the development will take many years to a few decades beyond the planning horizon of most private organizations.

We know it is possible. We know it is valuable. We should do it.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Merkle, you still had 2 seconds to go before

you finished. [Laughter.]

It would seem to me if there was—first let me introduce my professional staff assignee, Peter Harsha, who is just coming to work

for the Science Committee, for the Committee members and for

those in the science community that will be working with this Subcommittee.

It seems to me, listening to the testimony, that, if there was zero

bias among you four gentleman that are offering this testimony,

that the potential for this research in terms of what it can accomplish for humanity as well as what its potential is for industry and

the economy is every bit as much or more than the silicon revolution. This Subcommittee will be looking closely at recommending

that we substantially increase the government effort in terms of

taxpayer dollars into this area of research as well as ways that we

might encourage the private sector and industry, that might eventually benefit from such research, to have an all-out effort as the

United States tries to maybe make sure that we are a lead nation.

So my first question would be how do you evaluate—can we justify that kind of effort, number one? And how do you evaluate the

United States position in terms of this research effort compared to

Japan and Europe? And we’ll just maybe each one of you, if you

could take about 35, 45 seconds and give me a quick reaction,

starting with you, Dr. Wong, and——

Mr. WONG. Well, first of all, I think the benefits are obvious and

very great and, as several of the panel members have already said.

However great it is, the horizon is too long for private investment.

But, nonetheless, any federal investment in this area will catalyze

private investment. It will greatly accelerate the pace at which the

benefits can be translated into real applications. I think the United

States is in the forefront of this new science and technology area,

but the other countries, the other developed nations, are not far behind. It is an area of great focus for all the developed countries in

the world; for European countries as well as Japan.

Mr. MCWHORTER. I think this is an area that the nation must

maintain a leadership role in and in order to maintain and grow

our leadership role in nanotechnology, I think government investment is critical. What we find in these emerging areas of technology is that many times commercial companies can be riskaverse, but when government money can come in and catalyze and

initiate an effort, then the industrial investment will follow. And

so the activities that we are talking about here would be just critVerDate 13-MAR-2000 15:07 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\RENEE\60678P1.XXX txed02 PsN: txed02
12

ical to catalyzing this continued growth in our leadership position

and in participation from more commercial companies.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Smalley.

Mr. SMALLEY. Let me just add that nanotechnology of the sort

that has been talked about today is different than the major scientific technological pushes the country has undergone in the past,

mostly since the Second World War and including the Manhattan

Project, in that nanotechnology is intrinsically small science and so

it is impossible to dominate the field by a huge program in a national laboratory with major facilities because it is a place where

many small laboratories are active. In fact, hundreds throughout

the world.

So we are particularly—it’s particularly possible for countries

that are not as well-funded as the United States to be major players in this area. It is a small science initiative that needs to be

treated as a big science, big technology, big impact area. Which

makes its funding difficult. I mean, you can’t say we are going to

have a $300 million program to do this one particular thing because there are many particular things to be done. And so it brings

to a focus the age-old difficulty in funding small science. Nonetheless, it is an area out of which, to many extents, all blessings will

flow in this next century.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Merkle.

Mr. MERKLE. Well, I think the benefits of this technology will indeed be very impressive and I think we need to continue and expand the base of research which has been pursued throughout the

country to develop a better understanding at the molecular scale

and a better ability to arrange and manipulate structures at the

molecular scale.

Beyond that, I would also suggest that research in artificial selfreplicating systems would be a good thing to pursue, that this is

an area where we have, so far, had relatively modest amounts of

effort, mostly done by individuals or small groups.

Chairman SMITH. Just a follow-up question, Dr. Smalley. So does

this—is it a situation—what is our weakness in terms of aggressively pursuing this research? Is it the talent of researchers that

are capable of exploring this field? Or is it simply enough money

to pay for enough grants to interest enough researchers?

Mr. SMALLEY. I believe, at the moment, our weakness is the failure so far to identify nanotechnology for what it is. It is a tremendously promising new future which needs to have a flag. Somebody

has to go out and put a flag in the ground and say:

Nanotechnology, this is where we are going to go and we are going

to have a serious national initiative in this area.

Chairman SMITH. Representative Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank

you so much for such an outstanding panel of witnesses today. I

note that two of them have a Texas base. One is a University of

Texas graduate and the other one is a researcher at Rice. And I

am delighted.

I was here when we voted down the supercollider that smashed

the atoms and I was very chagrined by that and thought that was

a mistake. And most of us here that were here during that time

thought so. The ones who didn’t think so are not here right now.

13

And hopefully we won’t do that again in research, because we all

now realize the value of that kind of basic research.

Tell me a bit about how—what is our standing—I know you commented on that earlier—in terms of funding this basic research?

Because it is clear to me that this is really a government responsibility more than anything else. Private businesses just don’t have

the dollars nor do they feel the keen responsibility to do such basic

research, not knowing what the future might bring. Most of them

are directed toward a certain product when they are researching.

And though we know a bit about the product—you just, Dr.

Smalley, you mentioned some of the possibilities for the future that

might come, but there are other things that might come that we

don’t know about yet.

And I wonder, did we lose ground when we stopped putting as

much into basic research here several years ago? We are trying to

catch up now. And what are some of the possibilities, you think,

for the future? And how do we stand with other countries in funding our basic research?

Mr. WONG. I think the nanoscience and technology represents an

exemplar of how basic research really pays off. I think basic research in our areas have been one of the best investments the

country has ever made. And I think we have seen an example of

that. I think we have found enough in this sector to know what the

future—how brilliant the future is going to be, how bright it is

going to be.

But I think we need to continue to invest in that area. There is

a timing area. I think the particular thing about nanotechnology

and nanoscience is the timing. The timing is right for a major advance, I think, in this area because we have so many, as Dr.

Smalley has said, there are just so many things to be found, so

many things to be investigated. This is truly a wonderful area for

national investment.

Mr. MCWHORTER. I really agree with the comment about timing,

that there’s been a lot of research that’s been going on in the area

of nanotechnology. I think that research has shown much promising results to where you can start seeing a glimmer of the future

and a glimmer of what’s going to be possible. I think one of the real

opportunities with the program as you’re considering it is that

there has been a lot of research in a lot of different areas and such

a program would have the capability of unifying and providing

some vision and unification to the research that’s going on. Because

I think that, you know, the putting a man on the moon was mentioned earlier, that that was a single-minded goal, but many people

lined up behind. And I think that that’s one of the needs of

nanotechnology is to have the big picture goal and the national initiative to energize the people working in the area.

Mr. SMALLEY. Concerning our competitive situation vis-a-vis the

rest of the world, as you know, coming out of the Second World

War, the United States was premier in the world in the research

that was done, both from native-born researchers and from European researchers that came over to get away from Hitler. And in

many extents, we are running off of that wonderful time. I myself

decided to go into science when Sputnik went up. I was in high

school at the time. So that generation is passing now.

14

At Rice University, for a quarter of a century, I have taught

some of the very brightest human beings I have ever met. It’s a

fantastic university, as you know. It’s amazing the fraction of them

that do not go into science. By and large science is not what American boys and girls do. They go into other fields and do very well

at it.

We’ve managed to get this far here at the end of the century, still

being pretty much as good as anybody, in many areas better than

most, because of our openness, because of foreign researchers coming into work in our universities, and so forth. I don’t think we

should assume that will continue forever. European, Japanese,

Asian universities have embraced research in very serious ways

and, in many areas, are more than competitive with anything in

the United States. The reason for foreign nationals to come to this

country to do their Ph.D. dissertations is getting weaker and weaker. And one of these days it’s going to happen that we don’t do very

good research in this country because we can’t get good American

boys and girls to get into the field.

And that’s one of the reason why I emphasize this is a small

science activity. This is where we are most effective. We can have

a huge project like the superconducting supercollider that can be

worldwide premier because of the vast investment and we can sort

of capture it. But this is much more diffuse and much more sensitive to the overall well-being of American science and the way it’s

perceived by youngsters. Many of these bright students don’t go

into the field because they see graduate students not getting jobs

because of the decrease in the funding for basic research. They regard it as—this isn’t a serious enterprise in society.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. MERKLE. Well, I would agree with my fellow panelists that

the opportunities in nanotechnology for the next few decades are

absolutely remarkable and that it would be a great shame if we

were to walk away from this. We must pursue this. It is essential

that we pursue this in a timely fashion and, in fact, we are now

seeing the major size of the opportunity.

I think that we do, absolutely, need to pay attention to the

younger generation. One of the things that I see is e-mail which

is sent to me by students; students who send me requests asking,

I want to get into nanotechnology. What should I do? I want to get

into nanotechnology. Where are the programs? I can point them at

Rice. I can point them at a few others. I want to be able to point

them at more programs.

Students are very quick to pick up on new ideas and new technology and they have picked on this and they are very excited. We

need to provide the support and the follow-through so that they

have somewhere to go so that they can learn what needs to be

learned, so that they can participate in these programs, and so that

we can develop the technology. Thank you.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Chairman SMITH. My good friend from California, Representative

Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was reviewing

this hearing, I was thinking, well, how are these brilliant doctors

going to be able to talk about nanotechnology so that laypersons

15

will understand it, so that my constituents will understand it? So

that the taxpayers will think it is a good idea that they pay taxes

and that we actually invest in microtechnology? You were great.

Thank you. Your testimonies were terrific. Dr. Smalley, you gave

me my answer.

So those are the kinds of things I think the public is going to be

asking. I believe that not only the taxpayers, not only our constituents, but also our students, future students. Young people that

come into your colleges are all ready to think of new technologies.

We need not just boys, but girls to care about science and technology.

And I think the kinds of questions they are going to be asking—

and I’m going to ask them and then I hope you’ll answer. One, does

length of life or quality of life, which, or is it both, that are going

to be affected by nanotechnology? I also think they’re going to want

to know, does self-replicating mean cloning? And, if so, what are

the ethics?

And, also, will the benefits of nanotechnology be used in peaceful

applications or are we only looking at it so we can be bigger and

better and competitive with the rest of the world? Is there a way

we can all work together, globally, to improve the challenges we

have for lack of food, health care around the globe? Because, first

of all, that’s what people in my district just north of the Golden

Gate Bridge will be asking me, Marin and Sonoma counties. And,

second of all, that’s a good way to get girls interested in science.

They have to see a real, neat, something meaningful.

So my three questions: quality of life, length of life; self-replicating; and a partnership for a peaceful benefit. So in whatever

order. Dr. Merkle, you look ready.

Mr. MERKLE. Well, basically the answer to the question of will

we improve the length or the quality of life, the answer is both. I

think that as we see this technology mature, we will have a remarkable set of medical capabilities. Disease and ill-health are

caused largely by damage at the molecular and the cellular level,

and today’s surgical tools are simply too big to deal with damage

at that level. In the future, we’ll have surgical tools that are molecular, both in their size and their precision, and they will be able

to intervene directly at the level where the damage occurs and correct it. So I think that will have a remarkable impact on health

care overall and will lead to a revolution in medicine.

As far as the self-replication, it’s very much a non-biological kind

of self-replication. And to give you an analogy, if you look at cars.

Cars provide transportation, but they are very mechanical in their

design style. Horses also provide transportation and they’re very

biological. Horses can survive on sugar lumps, carrots, straw, hay,

the whole bit. A car requires a refined fuel, a single refined fuel,

such as gasoline. And it really can’t function without gas, oil

changes, spark plugs, roads to run on. It’s an artificial device. It’s

a mechanical device.

And in the kind of designs I’ve thought about for self-replicating

systems, they’re very mechanical. They completely lack the adaptability of living systems. They are very much machine-oriented.

And the thought of them being able to function outside of a very

16

carefully controlled environment is similar to a car running wild in

the woods.

As far as the broader implications for the environment, I think

that today’s manufacturing methods are often too imprecise to economically avoid pollution. Because nanotechnology will be a very

precise manufacturing technology, it won’t pollute. As

nanotechnology replaces existing manufacturing technologies, pollution from manufacturing plants will largely disappear.

Nanotechnology will also let us make inexpensive solar cells and

batteries, giving us very low-cost, clean solar power. This should

virtually eliminate the need for coal, oil, and nuclear fuels.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Dr. Smalley.

Mr. SMALLEY. Let me just pick up on this last point that Dr.

Merkle mentioned, the energy problem. Let’s suppose that halfway

through this next century, we really do have a problem with burning fossil fuels. Right now, I believe there’s really one alternative

that could really apply to the energy needs of the entire planet,

which, of course, is what you have to do if you’re going to affect

things like the CO2 greenhouse effect, if it is a problem. And right

now that alternative is nuclear, nuclear fission, in particular, not

nuclear fusion, fission.

And while I can well imagine, I actually believe that the United

States and Europe, Japan are stable enough societies that they

could actually generate all their power by nuclear fission and provide the necessary stewardship to make the planet safe, I find it

very hard to believe that the entire planet can operate as a nuclear

power. And it is a very scary future. It would be very nice to have

an alternative to fossil fuels and an alternative to nuclear fission

that would be capable of providing energy for what will probably

be 10 billion to 15 billion people in the middle of this next century

in a way that the planet can sustain.

I believe that it’s almost certain that, if that alternative exists,

it has to be solar. But, right now, we do not have the solar technology that’s even laughably close to being able to handle, for example, 80 percent of all the world’s energy production. And if you

don’t do 80 percent, you’re not touching the problem. And if you

don’t provide energy technology that is economically cheaper than

any alternative, it won’t be adopted any way.

Where is that solar technology going to come from? Not just improving solar cells, but something totally new that on a cloudy day

in New York can take most of the photons that hit some cheap collector and store it in some useful form of energy, hydrogen or electric charge someplace. When you think about the physics that controls that, you are rapidly led to the conclusion that the physics

that makes it possible happens within a little one nanometer cubic

box. That’s where the event occurs that the energy from a photon

becomes a stored hydrogen molecule and electron.

In fact, in photosynthesis, it’s about a one nanometer cubic space

where, at the last moment, it becomes stored energy. I don’t know

what that solar energy technology is going to be, but I bet you it’s

a nanotechnology. That’s one of the reasons why it’s so important

for us to invest in it now. It’s so broadly disseminated. It involves

so many disciplines. It is small science, thousands of laboratories.

Somehow out of that, our hopes exist that that’s where the solar

17

technology comes out and we have an alternative this next century

to either burning all our fossil fuels and the negative encounter

that would come from that or to a nuclear fission power economy.

Chairman SMITH. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Larson.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Smith. And I thank the panelists

as well for this interesting and informative discussion. The one

thing that I come away with is that all of you are absolutely sure

that nanoscience and nanotechnology is the way of the future. I

think someone used the term what we need to do is plant the flag.

One of the things that seems to work here in Washington is if

we’re planting the flag we’re doing so because there’s an enemy

that we’re dealing with or a nation at risk.

I believe—and not much has been discussed with respect to

this—that on a number of technological fronts, because of advancing technology and competing nations that do not lag that far behind us, that we’re in a unique position of seeing this nation leapfrog with its own technology. Witness the individual, you know,

traveling on bicycle in Burma with a cell phone, communicating. I’d

be interested in your response to the potential for leapfrogging and

where does the scientific community come in collectively and say,

hey, wake up America. This is a real problem. You’re about to be

leapfrogged by your own technology and your own arrogance for not

having seen the opportunity to reinvest in yourself.

Whoever wants to take it.

Mr. MERKLE. Okay, well I think the potential for leapfrogging is

very great, obviously, because the basic requirements for doing research in nanotechnology are relatively small. It is possible for a

relatively small organization to have a big impact. Now there are

some very interesting questions around that as to whether a small

group can effectively leapfrog a large group. I think they boil down

to understanding where you’re going and having a clear and sharp

focus. And I think if a small group had a sharp focus, it could be

very effective. Whether or not such a small group with such a

sharp focus will develop in some foreign country I really can’t say.

It’s certainly a possibility.

Mr. LARSON. You have the opportunity to make the decision

today in this country to invest X number of dollars into

nanotechnology. What would that figure be and where would you

direct its focus?

Mr. MERKLE. I think the focus would be directed towards research which improved our ability to manipulate molecular structure. That would include scanning, probe microscopy, and self-assembly. That would be on the experimental end. I think on the theoretical end, I would focus very clearly on what does a molecular

manufacturing system look like? In other words, we have been

talking about what will we be seeing in 20 years or 30 years, sometime in the next century? What will these remarkable advances

look like?

We have computational capabilities today which will let us model

proposed molecular machines. And we could have very strong theoretical programs aimed at describing what this future will look like

so we have a better understanding of what it is and how best to

achieve it.

18

Mr. LARSON. So help me here. As a government official, what

does the government do? Put out an RFP to our universities to say,

look, please respond, you know, to this money that we’ve set—how

would you go about directing that and focusing those dollars so it

gets into the hands of people that are on the cutting edge of this

technology? I mean, please help me here. I’m just——

Mr. WONG. Yes, I think the National Science Foundation’s in

that business. It’s our business to fund the most promising areas

of research. And I think we believe in betting on the people; supporting the infrastructure, the research infrastructure; the universities; the highest quality peer-review process. I think these are all

important parts of the infrastructure that we have built up that

have made the basic research such a productive enterprise.

Speaking of leapfrogging, I think there are two points I’d like to

make. One is it’s easy to leapfrog in one specific aspect and that

happens all the time. But in terms of an overall paradigm shift, to

be able to really move, in a major way, in the sector, that requires

a basic infrastructure. And I have a great deal of faith in the

robustness of our infrastructure.

Mr. LARSON. How much money should the country be investing?

Mr. WONG. The—I guess—I can tell you what we are doing now.

The NSF at the moment is spending $90 million a year in

nanoscale funds for research.

Mr. LARSON. Is that enough, Dr. Wong?

Mr. WONG. That’s not enough, but I think you are leading me to

a dangerous place, which is to anticipate what the——

Mr. LARSON. That’s our job. To lead you to dangerous places so

we can make better decisions.

Mr. WONG. Yes. I will try to accommodate you a little bit. I think

the final budget will be issued, that the Administration is going to

work out, over the next few months, but, clearly, from my own vantage point, I’m eagerly advocating the cost of this very important

research.

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. It’s at $230

million governmentwide, including other agencies, in addition to

the $90 million.

I think we’ll do a short second round. And, Dr. Merkle, a question for you. How much can we expect the private sector to move

ahead with research? Some have suggested, until they see the application within 2 to 5 years, there’s not going to be an interest in

the commercial sector to contribute to this kind of research. Give

me—guide us in terms of what Xerox is doing and what we can expect other private sectors to do.

Mr. MERKLE. Well, Xerox, as an example, is happy to have one

or perhaps 1⁄2 a researcher working in this area, but certainly

would not pursue any larger effort unless there were some outside

source of funding. So the idea of having a 5- or 10-person group,

which is relatively modest as these things go, focus specifically on

molecular and nanotechnology is not something that would be within the charter of Xerox. Similarly, I think, many other companies

are relatively limited, or if they are pursuing research, are pursuing research with relatively near-term goals. So the commercial

funding for long-term development is relatively modest at the corVerDate 13-MAR-2000 15:07 Mar 16, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\RENEE\60678P1.XXX txed02 PsN: txed02
19

porate level. If you look at major corporations, they are not pursuing this as aggressively as they might.

Chairman SMITH. The testimony from all of you, though, seems

to imply that the application is in reach in a lot of areas and, if

that is true, it seems like, somehow, there’s a way to harness the

contribution, financial contribution, an effort of the private sector

as well. Does anybody have a reaction? Yes, Mr. McWhorter.

Mr. MCWHORTER. I think the private sector will invest and will

invest in a very large amount, but the issue with the private sector

is risk. And, you know, the key aspect of what the investment will

be is, you know, when will they see what the application is and

when will they see the risk being mitigated? And so I think with

a program like the NSF program that’s being described, one of the

key roles that that does is it shows the direction and it mitigates

the risk so that you can free up and realize the private sector investment.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Smalley, you have an answer.

Mr. SMALLEY. Well, there’s a huge difference between the circumstance where you see a product in 2 to 3 years and one where

you imagine one in 10 years. In the current financial enterprise,

you can make a start-up for the first, but you’d be a fool to make

a start-up with the second, unless you’re in the biotech industry in

which case you may still be a fool.

We’re certainly talking about the 10-year, 20-year time horizon.

And so, at the moment, this is primarily a responsibility of large

organizations in societies like our Federal Government. I believe

that’s really the way it ought to be. I mean, I think that American

industry has evolved in a healthy way and that they are much better about taking care of the short-term applications where they

need to get their profits. But that devolves upon universities and

federal laboratories much more the core responsibility for taking

care of a longer-distance view.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Wong, how would we manage a multiagency nanoscience initiative? Should NSF be a lead agency? Have

you done any thought on this? Has there been any talk between

the agencies that are now working——

Mr. WONG. The NSF has been the coordinator of a major interagency effort for the last few years. There’s a very active working

group going on now chaired by NSF in this area. We are prepared

to play that role. We’ve had a long history in it. We are absolutely

determined and devoted to this as a major strategic direction. Since

we are the primary funder of basic sciences and long-lead-time

projects, I think we are probably in a position to do that.

Chairman SMITH. How about our effort of being aware of the research that’s being accomplished in other countries? Do we have

the—I notice we have cut way back on our science attaches even

in Japan. Do we have the proper effort to observe and keep abreast

of what’s happening in other countries? Whoever can best answer

that.

Mr. SMALLEY. Well, as an active researcher in the field, the one

thing we do most of the time is worry about what other people are

doing. And so there is a tremendous amount of scrutiny and, for

that matter, collaboration with researchers in European and Japanese laboratories. So that aspect, I think, is well in hand.

20

Now, broader, on the national security level, looking at programs

we may not be aware of through the published literature and at

conferences and so forth, this I’m not equipped to comment on but

it is, perhaps, something that needs to be looked at.

Chairman SMITH. Representative Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, you stole my question. And I was going to

ask Dr. Wong and Dr. McWhorter about cooperation internationally. So I suppose what I’d like to say—ask is how can we do a better job of being—of partnering with other scientists around the

world so we’re not reinventing the wheel if it’s already invented

and et cetera.

Mr. WONG. I think we’ve—over the last 15 years or 20 years—

we really have evolved a system of international competition yet cooperation at the same time that’s extremely healthy. At the basic

science research level, there’s open publication, there’s open exchange. I think that’s been a tremendous boon to the whole field

and we will continue to do that.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. McWhorter.

Mr. MCWHORTER. I agree. I think this is an area that we have

done very well in. You know, we are a global community now and

it’s, you know, I think the world of scientists are much more connected these days and most of the conferences are international in

nature and so there’s a lot of interaction among people from different countries.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, where would it not be? I mean, when we

talk nuclear, is that a place where we wouldn’t be sharing?

Mr. WONG. I think there are at least two areas where one has

to be very careful. One is national security issues, when national

security issues are involved, clearly we ought to be careful. And

second is when intellectual properties are involved, when the research and development have moved sufficiently downstream to

have property rights. I think there we have to be careful as well

unless our commercial interests be impaired.

Ms. WOOLSEY. And is it possible to be careful enough? I mean,

if we are all working together globally would we maybe not have

to be so careful? Oh, you know where I am. I’ve shown my hand.

Mr. WONG. My bias is that we can always improve, but I think

we’re doing pretty well. That’s my bias.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Anybody else like to respond to that?

Mr. SMALLEY. I believe it’s much easier to render the entire process sterile by trying to be too careful than it is to both succeed in

developing an area and make sure that you’ve kept it all to yourself. You spend all your time trying to make sure that nobody else

gets a good idea, you shut down your own intellectual activities.

So in this area of nanotechnology where it’s tempting, in fact almost impossible to avoid, talking about revolutionary advances,

which will have huge economic impact and national security implications, it’s quite easy to get yourself in a conversation where

you’re saying, well, if it’s that important, let’s put it all behind a

fence and we’ll do it all ourselves and never talk to anybody. And

that would be a prescription for sterility. It would not happen in

the United States. And we would guarantee being a third-class

player in the game.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay.

21

Mr. MCWHORTER. I think that we can keep in mind the difference between nanotechnology in general versus specific, say, national security applications of nanotechnology. And in the general

case, you know, cooperation is good. And in the specific case of national security, secrecy and confidentiality is critical. And so there

would be applications that, maybe at a national lab, where, you

know, we wouldn’t talk about the work. And so, you know, the national security issue is a very important one.

Mr. MERKLE. Yes, I think, actually, I would agree with the general comments. One of the observations is that an international cooperative effort where we are very closely involved with researchers in other countries is also a very good way of monitoring their

activities so that we are not caught by surprise.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Larson.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you again, Chairman Smith. And, again, my

appreciation. Just a quick two questions. One will be very simple

to answer, but the—in the President’s proposed information technology initiative, it includes the acquisition of the terascale computing system for addressing challenging scientific computing problems. What would be the impact of that level of computational

power on nanotechnology research?

Mr. SMALLEY. It’s vast. The key aspect of nanotechnology is

you’re now dealing at the fundamental, ultimate level where you

know where all the atoms are. That instantly makes it a fundamental science. So if you know where the atoms are, you can say,

okay, how does it behave? And it becomes a calculatable problem.

Well, not calculatable with the computers of a couple decades ago,

but, interesting, calculatable now with these new incredible computers.

And I can tell you from my own research as we try to build these

cables that are 100 times stronger than steel and so forth, every

day there are questions: well, how can we make this work? And

we’ll think up some way. It’ll take us months to see whether it

works. And we do calculations to see whether it’s feasible. And

those calculations are now becoming much, much more relevant

and much more fundamental.

It’s a wonderful aspect about nanotechnology that hasn’t been

mentioned today so far is that it is simultaneously deep, fundamental true science of the true ivory tower sort and yet commercially, in some cases immediately, financially interesting. By and

large the reason that biotechnology has a special flavor is that it

is a nanotechnology. That you know where all the atoms are. You

can calculate it. And yet you’re dealing with some little nano object

that suddenly has a commercial importance as a drug. And so you

will find researchers in biotech industries, completely privately

funded, doing research that would fit perfectly in a biochemistry

department in a university and visa-versa. There’s this immediacy

between the ivory tower pure scientist and the technologist.

In the rest of science, by and large, that’s not been the case. The

pure scientists are dealing with problems and techniques that are

pretty far from the commercial realm, with a few exceptions. But

in nanotechnology, they will get much more together. So it will

have the effect of vitalizing the American scientific establishment

22

by getting the scientist at the most fundamental levels involved in

objects of societal and commercial importance.

Mr. LARSON. What are the top 10 universities in this country

dealing with this technology?

Mr. SMALLEY. Well, Rice University, clearly, is number one.

[Laughter.]

By and large, they are the top 10 that you always hear mentioned, although since the 1960’s and the 1970’s, the strength of research in this country has broadened out dramatically from the

Harvard and MIT, Cal Tech, Princeton, Yale. But those names still

are up high on the list, for good reasons.

Mr. WONG. Let me mention, if I may, a topic that hasn’t been

raised—bioinformatics. It’s a subject that’s very closely connected

with nanotechnology. And bioinformatics lives on terascale computers. And the computation involving the shape of molecules and

their functions is a critical part of bioinformatics. And it’s probably

the most exciting part of biotechnology today.

Mr. LARSON. And, Dr. Merkle, you’ve made the distinction a couple of times here, at least—and for a non-scientist, forgive me—but

you keep—when we say nanotechnology, you make a point to say

molecular nanotechnology.

Mr. MERKLE. Well, I think there is the idea that we’ll be able to

build a wide arrangement of molecular structures. And, in particular, one of the things which, of course, I’ve mentioned a few

times is that artificial self-replicating systems will play an important role. This is an idea which I think is gaining acceptance, but

is not yet fully accepted throughout the scientific community, and

so I want to just say that this is an area where there are some differences in opinion about the particular routes to follow, but, nonetheless, agreement about the overall goals and objectives that we

should be able to build, essentially, most of the structures that are

consistent with physical law.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, sir.

Chairman SMITH. Gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee, the

Congress, the Nation, our compliments to you for what you have

achieved so far. I think all of us that have heard your testimony

today and will read your testimony in the transcript are going to

be the flag bearers because it seems obvious that the information—

there’s enough information and enough justification to aggressively

pursue additional research in this area. I mean, it might not culminate in what we would hope it would, but it seems obvious that

the justification is there and it’s a worthwhile pursuit and I think

we will aggressively pursue that as we proceed with our new appropriations.

So, again, my thanks. My compliments. We would like to ask

your permission to send you additional questions. One question I

would like you to answer for us, if you will, is how do we best devise the kind of peer-review process that is going to help us best

assure that the taxpayers’ dollars is best spent? So if you’ll include

that in your responses.

Chairman SMITH. So, again, thank you very much and this Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139