U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–408 2015

NANOTECHNOLOGY: UNDERSTANDING HOW 

SMALL SOLUTIONS DRIVE BIG INNOVATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 29, 2014 

Serial No. 113–169 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVE B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement ........................................................................... 76 

WITNESSES

Christian Binek, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Physics and Astronomy, University of Nebraska—Lincoln ................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 78 

James M. Tour, Ph.D., T.T. and W.F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor 

of Computer Science, Materials Science and Nanoengineering, Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, Rice University ....................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Answers to submitted questions 1

Milan Mrksich, Ph.D., Henry Wade Rogers Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry and Cell and Molecular Biology, Northwestern University .... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Answers to submitted questions 2

Jim Phillips, Chairman and CEO, Nanomech, Incorporated ............................... 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Answers to submitted questions 3

1 Mr. Tour did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 2 Mr. Mrksich did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 3 Mr. Phillips did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 

(1) 

NANOTECHNOLOGY: UNDERSTANDING HOW 

SMALL SOLUTIONS DRIVE BIG 

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lee Terry (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Terry, Lance, Harper, Olson, 

Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Schakowsky, Sarbanes, and Barrow. 

Staff present: Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Graham Dufault, 

Policy Coordinator, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Melissa 

Froelich, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Kirby 

Howard, Legislative Clerk; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, 

Manufacturing, and Trade; Michelle Ash, Democratic Chief Counsel; Carol Kando, Democratic Counsel; and Will Wallace, Democratic Professional Staff Member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Welcome all to our rock and roll hearing that is in 

a series of hearings called Nation of Builders where we explore 

American technology and its impact on job creation and manufacturing. I want to thank all of you here today. Now I feel like I am 

giving a speech on the National Mall. So while they are trying to 

fix it, I will continue to talk and be the guinea pig. 

So just as electricity, telecommunications, and the combustion 

engine fundamentally altered American economics in the ‘‘second 

industrial revolution,’’ nanotechnology is poised to drive the next 

surge of economic growth across all sectors. 

Nanotechnology refers to the ability to manipulate matter between 1 and 100 billionths of a meter, an endeavor that is no small 

feat. Pun intended. This capability is helping solve long intractable 

problems. For example, as computers get smaller, the problem of 

heat generation becomes more and more severe, and nanotech 

could hold the solution. 

Currently, there are natural barriers to making transistors, 

semiconductors, and computers any smaller because the heat generated during use destroys the material if that material is below 

a certain size. The ability to harness the inertia of an electron 

could one day allow a computer to operate on its own recycled 

2 

waste heat. This capability is called spintronics, and it would allow 

electronic computer parts to break through that size barrier. 

Dr. Binek, who is here from the University of Nebraska, probably 

off of the Big 10 media days in Chicago, will expand on the idea 

of spintronics and describe his excellent work in this area of nanotechnology. 

Advances in nanotech don’t just mean we can make things smaller. It is the ability to harness matter at the nanometer level, which 

has applications across many industries. In medicine, nanotech research has revealed that advanced nerve regeneration and cancer 

detection, diagnosis, and treatment methods could be just around 

the corner. In manufacturing, nanotech research has allowed us 

simply to make better materials. For example, nanocomposites can 

be used to decrease the weight of the bumper on a car, while enhancing its resistance to dents and scratches. And with three teenage boys, that is appreciated. And wires used to transmit electricity 

made from carbon nanotubes could one day eliminate much of the 

electricity loss that occurs in transmission. 

Today we seek to learn more about what obstacles stand in the 

way of nanotech research, but also any barriers that exist between 

the research and development stage and full-scale commercialization. 

There is no question that the U.S. is a leader in nanotech researching, but as U.S. researchers make new discoveries and the 

applications are revealed, I am concerned that other countries are 

doing more to facilitate nanotech development than we are. 

Nanotech is a true science race between the nations, and we could 

be encouraging the transition from research breakthroughs to commercial development. 

I believe the U.S. should excel in this area. Historically we have 

a great track record on generating startups, which is fueled by our 

entrepreneurial spirit in this country. However, for the first time 

since the Census Bureau started measuring this statistic, more 

businesses are failing than starting in the United States. Four 

hundred thousand businesses are born annually nationwide, while 

470,000 are failing. That is a disturbing statistic. 

Accordingly, I am curious as to whether, given this hostile business climate, there are regulatory obstacles to adoption of nanotechnology in the commercial context. 

As Dr. Binek notes in his testimony, Moore’s Law tells us that 

the performance-to-cost ratio of computing power doubles every 18 

months or so. I believe we ought to be careful not to slow down the 

progress described by ‘‘Moore’s Law’’ with ‘‘more laws.’’ 

Again, I thank our witnesses, and introductions will be right 

after the ranking member’s opening statement. Yield to the ranking member, Jan Schakowsky, for her statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Terry follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY

Thank you all for joining us today to discuss nanotechnology-a catalyst that I believe could play a leading role in the next wave of economic growth. 

Just as electricity, telecommunications and the combustion engine fundamentally 

altered American economics in the ‘‘second industrial revolution,’’ nanotechnology is 

poised to drive the next surge of economic growth across all sectors. 

3 

Nanotechnology refers to the ability to manipulate matter between 1 and 100 billionths of a meter-an endeavor that is no small feat. 

This capability is helping solve long-intractable problems. 

For example, as computers get smaller, the problem of heat generation becomes 

more and more severe, and nanotech could hold the solution. 

Currently, there are natural barriers to making transistors, semiconductors and 

computers any smaller because the heat generated during use destroys the material 

if that material is below a certain size. 

The ability to harness the inertia of an electron could one day allow a computer 

to operate on its own recycled waste heat. 

This capability is called spintronics, and it would allow electronic computer parts 

to break through that size barrier. 

Dr. Binek, who is here from University of Nebraska, will expand on the idea of 

spintronics and describe his excellent work in this area of nanotechnology. 

Advances in nanotech doesn’t just mean we can make things smaller-the ability 

to harness matter at the nanometer level has applications across many industries. 

In medicine, nanotech research has revealed that advanced nerve regeneration 

and cancer detection, diagnosis and treatment methods could be just around the corner. In manufacturing, nanotech research has allowed us simply to make better materials. 

For example, nanocomposites can be used to decrease the weight of the bumper 

on a car, while enhancing its resistance to dents and scratches. 

And wires used to transmit electricity made from carbon nanotubes could one day 

eliminate much of the electricity loss that occurs in transmission. 

Today, we seek to learn more about what obstacles stand in the way of nanotech 

research, but also any barriers that exist between the research and development 

stage and full-scale commercialization. 

There is no question that the U.S. is a leader in nanotech research. 

But as U.S. researchers make new discoveries and new applications are revealed, 

I am concerned that other countries are doing more to facilitate nanotech development than we are. 

Nanotech is a true science race between the nations, and we should be encouraging the transition from research breakthroughs to commercial development. 

I believe the U.S. should excel in this area. Historically, we have a great track 

record on generating startups, which is fueled by our entrepreneurial spirit. 

However, for the first time since the Census Bureau started measuring this statistic, more businesses are failing than starting in the United States-400,000 businesses are born annually nationwide, while 470,000 are failing. 

Accordingly, I am curious as to whether-given this hostile business climate-there 

are regulatory obstacles to adoption of nanotechnology in the commercial context. 

As Dr. Binek notes in his testimony, Moore’s Law tells us that the performanceto-cost ratio of computing power doubles every 18 months or so. 

I believe we ought to be careful not to slow down the progress described by 

‘‘Moore’s Law’’ with ‘‘more laws.’’ 

Again, I thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, it looks like our macrotechnology might 

have been fixed. I am not sure. Is this working, this on here? OK. 

So I want to thank you, Chairman Terry, for holding this important hearing on the issue of nanotechnology. I look forward to hearing from each of our accomplished witnesses about this exciting 

field. I was about to ask you all for some help here. I figured maybe 

the scientists know. 

But I would like to take this opportunity to introduce one of the 

witnesses today. Dr. Milan Mrksich is a professor at my hometown 

school of Northwestern University and a leader in the field of nanotechnology. Dr. Mrksich has focused his research on biomedical advances that would not be possible without the development of nanoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:56 Sep 09, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-169 CHRIS
4 

technology. He has been involved in research that has made Chicago one of the premiere destinations around the world for nanotechnology, from research and development on Northwestern’s campus to the commercialization at the nearby Illinois Science and 

Technology Park, and other sites. So I look forward to getting his 

valuable perspective on this. 

From real-time monitoring of critical infrastructure to water purification to more effective treatment of cancer, nanotechnology has 

the potential to solve some of the world’s most important challenges. Few fields of scientific research have as much breadth or 

potential. 

That being said, nanotechnology’s impact on public health and 

our environment is not yet well understood. Certain studies have 

indicated potential hazards. For example, titanium dioxide nanoparticles, which are used in sunscreen to block UV light can also 

kill microbes used to treat municipal water supplies. That is why 

we need to be careful to ensure that federal regulators responsible 

for public health and chemical exposure, from EPA to FDA to 

CPSC, coordinate efforts to better understand any possible toxicity 

of nano materials and protect the public from harmful impacts, 

while enabling their beneficial use. 

The United States recognized the promise of nanotechnology 

early on, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative has benefitted 

from nearly $20 billion in federal investment since 2000. Other 

world leaders have followed suit, and more than $70 billion in global investment in nanotechnology over the same period. 

The Federal Government must continue to play a lead role in 

supporting nano research and development. Last year, Congress 

appropriated $1.5 billion for nanotechnology, more than 10 percent 

below the Administration’s request, however. According to the 

GAO, some other nations may already have surpassed the U.S. in 

terms of public investment in nanotech, and we can be sure that 

those competitors will maintain significant investments in this 

promising field moving forward. 

Congress, I believe, should commit to adequate support of cutting 

edge research, and I hope all my colleagues will join in working to 

increase National Nanotechnology Initiative funding moving forward. 

We should focus on the areas of nanotech pipeline that are in the 

most need of additional support. There is a demonstrated lack of 

financing for nanotech as it moves from the development stage to 

the commercialization stage. I am concerned that without consistent and significant financial backing, the advancement of nano 

in this country could slow. We should work to ensure that promising technologies, especially those that can save and sustain 

human lives, have the support needed to reach and benefit the public. 

Again, I am very excited about the promise nanotechnology holds 

for our country and the world. I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses today, especially about where we go from 

here. 

I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:] 

5 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

Thank you, Chairman Terry, for holding today’s important hearing on the issue 

of nanotechnology. I look forward to hearing from each of our accomplished witnesses about this exciting field. 

I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce one of our witnesses, Dr. Milan 

Mrksich, a professor at my hometown Northwestern University and a leader in the 

field of nanotechnology. Dr. Mrksich has focused his research on biomedical advances that would not be possible without the development of nanotechnology. He 

has been involved in research that has made Chicago one of the premier destinations around the world for nanotechnology—from research and development on 

Northwestern’s campus to the commercialization at the nearby Illinois Science and 

Technology Park and other sites. I look forward to gaining from his valuable perspective. 

From real-time monitoring of critical infrastructure to water purification to more 

effective treatment of cancer, nanotechnology has the potential to solve some of the 

world’s most important challenges. Few fields of scientific research have as much 

breadth or potential. 

That being said, nanotechnology’s impact on public health and our environment 

is not well-understood. Certain studies have indicated potential hazards. For example, titanium dioxide nanoparticles, which are used in sunscreen to block UV light, 

can also kill microbes used to treat municipal water supplies. That is why we need 

to be careful to ensure that federal regulators responsible for public health and 

chemical exposure—from the EPA to FDA and the CPSC—coordinate efforts to better understand any possible toxicity of nanomaterials and protect the public from 

harmful impacts while enabling their beneficial use. 

The United States recognized the promise of nanotechnology early on, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative has benefitted from nearly $20 billion in federal investment since 2000. Other world leaders have followed suit, with more than $70 

billion in total global investment in nanotechnology over the same period. 

The federal government must continue to play a lead role in supporting nanotechnology research and development. Last year, Congress appropriated $1.5 billion for 

nanotechnology, more than 10 percent below the Administration’s request. According to the GAO, some other nations may have already surpassed the U.S. in terms 

of public investment in nanotech, and we can be sure that those competitors will 

maintain significant investment in this promising field moving forward. Congress 

should commit to adequate support of cutting edge research, and I hope all of my 

colleagues will join in working to increase National Nanotechnology Initiative funding moving forward. 

We should focus on the areas of the nanotech pipeline that are most in need of 

additional support. There is a demonstrated lack of financing for nanotechnology as 

it moves from the development stage to the commercialization stage. I am concerned 

that without consistent and significant financial backing, the advancement of nanotechnology in this country could slow. We should work to ensure that promising 

technologies—especially those that can save and sustain lives—have the support 

needed to reach and benefit the public. 

Again, I am excited about the promise nanotechnology holds for our country and 

the world. I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses today, especially about where we go from here. I yield back. 

Mr. TERRY. Does anybody wish to make an opening statement on 

the Republican side? 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, introduction please, sir? 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, I will do that right now then. So hold on. 

So our witnesses today, I want to thank all four of you for being 

here. We have three universities represented that are leaders in 

nanotech development and research, and I will just take a personal 

note and say we allowed one outside of the Big 10. 

So I want to introduce from the University of Nebraska, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Christian Binek. Then we also 

have Milan Mrksich from, a Henry Wade Rogers Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry and Cell and Molecular Biology at 

Northwestern University. Jim Phillips, Chairman and CEO of 

6 

NanoMech, Incorporated. And now I yield for opening statement/introduction to the gentleman from Houston, Texas. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As our guests can see by my nameplate, another Rice Owl is in 

the house this morning. That owl is James Tour. 

Dr. Tour and I share a common idol, the late Dr. Rick Smalley, 

who won a Nobel Prize in 1996 for his work in nanotechnology at 

Rice. Dr. Smalley changed my life by showing me that I had no future, none, in nanotechnology. After my first year of chemistry with 

him, that was pretty apparent. But he changed Dr. Tour’s life by 

recruiting him to Rice to a leader in the Nanoscience and Technology Institute. 

Dr. Tour is a perfect witness to teach this committee about nanotechnology. He has created a thing called NanOKids, teaching kids 

K–12 about nanotechnology. If he can teach a fourth grader, man, 

he can surely teach members of Congress. 

So with that observation, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. TERRY. We can all hope. 

So have any of you testified before? A couple of you, good. For 

the two that haven’t, this is an information hearing. It is not like 

a GM hearing where you have to raise your hand and get grilled. 

You are here to teach us. We want to hear what your work has 

been about, and we appreciate your testimony, which most of us 

have read. 

So we will start from my left to right. You have 5 minutes. There 

should be a clock up there if you want to look up. If you are still 

speaking about the 5-minute mark, I will just kind of lightly tap 

the gavel, which is the international symbol for wrap it up. 

So with that, I recognize the gentleman from the University of 

Nebraska, Dr. Binek. 

STATEMENTS OF CHRISTIAN BINEK, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA—LINCOLN; JAMES M. TOUR, PH.D., T.T. AND W.F. 

CHAO PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, PROFESSOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, MATERIALS SCIENCE AND NANOENGINEERING, SMALLEY INSTITUTE FOR NANOSCALE 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RICE UNIVERSITY; MILAN 

MRKSICH, PH.D., HENRY WADE ROGERS PROFESSOR OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, CHEMISTRY AND CELL AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY; AND JIM 

PHILLIPS, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, NANOMECH, INCORPORATED 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTIAN BINEK 

Mr. BINEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me and having this opportunity to testify, and also, thank you, Congressmen 

and Congresswomen. So I am on faculty at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln and also an active nano scientist and I would 

like to give you a smooth start, let’s say, into nanoscience and 

nanotechnology, so maybe we can start with the question, what is 

that all about? 

And starting by the prefix of the word nano, which actually 

comes from the Greek word nanos, and it means dwarf, so we deal 

7 

with something very small, as we all know by now. But what we 

probably lack is an intuition for what it means, one billionths of 

a meter, so we need actually a proper ruler, so to say, to have comparison. And if we think of something small, we may think, for example, of the red blood cell in our bloodstream. But it turns out 

that is actually on the order of 6 microns in diameter. So a 

nanometer is 10,000 times smaller than that. Or maybe it is better 

to look at the molecular scale, and then we would identify a 

nanometer as being 5 atoms next to each other. So that gives us 

the scale, and that sets the stage for Feynman’s celebrated remark, 

‘‘There’s plenty of room at the bottom.’’ And indeed, we can sort of 

say create and hope to create nanostructures from the bottom up, 

which are extremely small, much, much smaller, for example, than 

a cell, and have function and can, for example, travel in our bloodstream and monitor and maybe even increase health. So that was 

Feynman’s vision of ‘‘swallowing the doctor’’ as he called it. 

From there I would like now to switch over and give us an idea 

of what is the special physics that happens at the nanoscale. What 

are those emerging properties at the nanoscale? And again, it is 

Feynman who asked the question, what happens if we can arrange 

atoms at will? And today, we are actually in a position where we 

can start to do that. We can image and manipulate atoms at will, 

and the answer is that if we can do that, then we can basically design material properties at will, because it turns out that all material properties, literally all of them, electric, magnetic, optic, thermal, mechanic, you name it, they all depend on the underlying 

atomic structure. So if you can arrange atoms at will on the 

nanoscale, then we can design within certain limits, for example, 

dictated by quantum mechanical loss, we can design materials 

properties. 

Now, that is not the end of the story. We can actually do more. 

An example for such a design for nanostructures would be—a simple but effective example would be nanoparticles specifically tailored in magnetic properties to be applied in magnetic hypothermia 

weight of potential cancer treatment. 

We can do more. We can bring different materials into close 

proximity. We have tools now, for example, multilayer—techniques, 

and we bring materials A and B in proximity, which traditional 

chemistry doesn’t allow us to do. And when that happens, new effects, new physical phenomena can emerge at the interface, and 

that sends the whole is indeed more as the parts A and B. Or as 

Herbert Kroemer said it already 40 years ago, today we can say the 

interface itself is the device. So from there, we can speculate and 

we can build a larger, more complex structures, nanostructures, 

and we have the tools to do that from the bottom up, like scanning 

macroscopy, or from top down. 

And with all that, we can look a little bit into the future and can 

see that nanotechnology will certainly transform information technology, medical applications, energy and water supply, smart materials, and manufacturing. And specifically in the information technology, there is a nonlinear trend going on now for 5 decades 

known as Moore’s Law, where we can see that the performance to 

cost ratio is actually exponentially growing, so beyond our actual 

intuition. To give you an example of the hard drives of IBM from 

8 

1956 had less than 5 megabyte storage capacity, was two refrigerators big and weighed 2 tons. Fifty years later, we could make 

hard drives with 100 gigabytes capacity of storage and just the size 

of a deck of cards. That is 100 million fold improvement in that 

kind of performance to cost ratio. 

So the industry is well aware that Moore’s Law is not necessarily 

a law of nature. It can and most likely seems right now to stop and 

to come to an end, and there are processes funded like spintronics, 

where I am involved, which allow us to tackle those problems and 

come to new types of electronics that we utilize the spin degree of 

freedom is just one example. 

So I am running out of time here. I would like just to conclude 

with an impact nanotechnology most likely has on society and economy. We need to recognize that nanotechnology is highly interdisciplinary and that there is a positive feedback which excels the 

progress. We have to prepare the workforce for this interdisciplinary and have to continue funding from the industry side and from 

the government side. 

With that, let me thank you for having me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Binek follows:] 

9 


93408.001
10 


93408.002
11 


93408.003
12 


93408.004
13 


93408.005
14 


93408.006
15 


93408.007
16 


93408.008
17 


93408.009
18 


93408.010
19 


93408.011
20 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Dr. Binek. 

Dr. Tour, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. TOUR 

Mr. TOUR. My name is James Tour, and I am the T.T. and W.F. 

Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Material Science and 

Nanoengineering, and Professor of Computer Science at the Richard Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice 

University in Houston, Texas. 

Rice’s home is the home of nanotechnology where carbon 60 was 

discovered. I have over 500 research publications and 70 patents in 

nanotechnology in the fields of nanomedicine for treatment of traumatic brain injuries, stroke, and autoimmune diseases, nanomaterials including graphene and carbon nanotubes for electronics, optics, and composites, and high surface area nanomaterials for environmental capture of carbon dioxide and for water purification. All 

of these technologies are licensed to companies from my laboratory 

at Rice University, and all are transitioning from basic research to 

deployment in the U.S. and abroad. 

It is possible for Congress to directly improve the research enterprise in U.S. universities and to mitigate the current brain drain 

of our best and brightest scientists and engineers. This can be done 

without commitment of any new spending. 

Among the most ingenious pieces of legislation in my view was 

the Bayh-Dole Act dealing with intellectual property arising from 

Federal Government funded research. Prior to the enactment of the 

Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. Government had accumulated 28,000 patents, but fewer than 5 percent of those patents were commercially 

licensed. The key change made by Bayh-Dole was ownership of the 

inventions that were made by federal funding. Bayh-Dole permits 

a university, small business, or nonprofit institution to elect to pursue ownership of an invention in preference to the government. 

Government got out of the way, and this spawned enormous entrepreneurial endeavors and led to startup companies and jobs being 

birthed throughout the country. And most interestingly, the legislation required no new allocation of funds. 

Unfortunately, there has been a dramatic loss of research funding to U.S. universities on a per-investigator basis over the past 5 

years. The situation has become untenable. Not only are our best 

and brightest international students returning to their home countries upon graduation, taking our advanced technology expertise 

with them, but our top professors are moving abroad in order to 

keep their programs funded. The trolling by foreign universities 

upon top U.S. faculty has become rampant due to the declination 

of U.S. funding levels on a per faculty member basis. The brain 

drain is not something that we can recover. The impact of what has 

already been lost will last decades. 

I am not here to present to you an apocalyptic scene and then 

cry for money to slow the problem. I realize the cupboards in 

Washington are bare, and I offer you a no new spending solution. 

I have a large research laboratory, 30 graduate students and postdocs working busily to make new nanotechnology discoveries and 

translate those into exploitable applications. In 2008, my program 

was 90 percent federally supported and 10 percent industrially supVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:56 Sep 09, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-169 CHRIS
21 

ported. Then for the first time in my 26-year career as a faculty 

researcher, I could no longer survive. One federal grant after another was unfunded. So I started to appeal to industries, showing 

them how our nanotechnology research could solve technical problems in their industries. Presently for company funds research at 

an academic institution through a sponsored research agreement, 

thereby guaranteeing the company access to research reports and 

their setting of milestones, then the company loses the benefits of 

a significant tax deduction of their allocation of funds. In other 

words, their allocation to sponsored research no longer has the 

same tax deductible benefits as a non-researched based gift would 

have afforded them. 

I am asking Congress to consider legislation that would 

incentivize industry to fund academic research universities and 

nonprofits by granting the companies with a total or significant tax 

deduction for such university research investments. This permits 

companies to take up the slack where the Federal Government has 

been unable to maintain the research enterprise. Help me and my 

colleagues to raise our own research funds through partnerships 

with corporations. If I can explain to industries that there will be 

a complete or significant tax deduction for the sponsored research 

agreement, then I can sell my research to them with the utmost 

attractiveness. 

Let me close with this. King Solomon wrote in Proverbs 25:11, 

‘‘Like apples of gold, in settings of silver, is a ruling rightly given.’’ 

I pray your kind consideration for new Bayh-Dole-like ingenious 

legislation to be enacted, nullifying the dire conditions facing the 

U.S. research enterprise and loss of our U.S. trained scientists and 

engineers. This legislation would require no new federal allocations, and it can become part of the holistic approach to funding 

of academic science. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tour follows:] 

22 


93408.012
23 


93408.013
24 


93408.014
25 


93408.015
26 


93408.016
27 


93408.017
28 


93408.018
29 


93408.019
30 


93408.020
31 


93408.021
32 


93408.022
33 


93408.023
34 


93408.024
35 


93408.025
36 


93408.026
37 


93408.027
38 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. Dr. Mrksich, you are now recognized for 

your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MILAN MRKSICH 

Mr. MRKSICH. There it is. The last name is not easy. My motherin-law struggled with it for many years. 

But I am currently the Henry Wade Rogers professor at Northwestern University with appointments in chemistry, biomedical engineering, and cell biology. I direct a research lab that develops 

nanomaterials for applications in drug discovery and diagnostics, 

and medical devices. I have also been involved in the translation 

of university-based science into companies, having co-founded 

SAMDI Tech, 480 Biomedical, a stent company, and Arsenal Medical. I am glad to be here to share some of my perspectives. 

As you have heard, the nanotechnology field has been enabled by 

the development of methods that can create materials with dimensions that are tiny, thousands of times smaller than the width of 

a hair. And we now know that the properties of a material that can 

vary strongly on their dimensions, and we have the ability to tailor-make materials with novel and important properties. This is a 

broad-based field. Unlike traditional disciplines, it cuts across the 

entire science and engineering enterprise, and has really led to paradigm shifting technology across the board. 

The National Nanotechnology Initiative recognizes transformative potential and required federal agencies across the board 

to invest in nano. And that really was important to creating a national strength and infrastructure in this new and exciting area. 

At Northwestern, we started the International Institute for 

Nanotechnology, now one of the largest such centers. This partners 

with departments across campus and to date, has raised over $600 

million in research funding to develop this next generation of technology. It has also trained hundreds of students, many of which are 

now faculty members across the globe in this area. 

This investment has already led to a nascent but growing and 

important industry. Again, at Northwestern, our institute has seen 

about 25 companies get started, and those have raised greater than 

$700 million in research support to commercialize their products. 

And these success stories aren’t unique, of course, to Illinois. They 

are found across our Nation. 

At the same time, there is a wide recognition that a lack of 

predefined regulatory processes can still present challenges to the 

commercialization of nanotechnologies. While regulations for safety 

and environmental impact are important, they should be effective 

at providing for the public’s concerns and safety, but they need to 

be tailored to different classes of materials used in different sectors, and they need to be defined to remove the risk of uncertainty 

that product developers face when taking on these initiatives. 

Similarly, the manufacturing methods and standards that will be 

important to all companies in this space are still not well-developed. We don’t have the standard tools we can rely on to produce 

in volume products based on nanomaterials, and this is an area 

where a public/private partnership based perhaps on the National 

Network for Manufacturing Innovation Centers could be quite efVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:56 Sep 09, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-169 CHRIS
39 

fective at providing the entire industry with engineering practices 

that will enable the growth of this area. 

I would like to add comments to the theme of globalization that 

we have heard. The scientific and economic promise of nanotechnology has certainly been recognized by our foreign partners and 

competitors, and recent trends in those regions point to challenges 

that the United States has not faced before. First, governments in 

Europe and Asia continue to make targeted investments in nanotechnology, with annual growth rates that are in the double digits, 

and approaching 50 percent in China. Second, the culture and infrastructure has changed in Europe and Asia, and unlike 10 and 

15 years ago, researchers there are quite effective at starting new 

companies. And finally, as you have heard, we are seeing the recruitment of our best scientists to full-time and part-time positions 

in other countries. And the globalization has certainly had and will 

have many benefits, but it will also level the global playing field 

for translating basic research into commercial entities, and it will 

dilute the positive impact of nanotechnology on our own economy. 

We must act now to ensure that our early investment and the 

very substantial impact it is positioned to deliver can be realized. 

We must renew our support for fundamental research in the nanosciences, as this will retain and continue to attract the best researchers to the United States, and keep our development pipeline 

full. We must remove barriers that make it challenging to start 

new companies that are in the early stages of product development. 

We must develop effective regulatory standards, but also clearer 

standards that remove the risk of uncertainty that many companies face in product development. And we must make the patent 

system more efficient, and remove the five or more year delay it 

can take to realize patent protection and keep out would-be competitors. We must engage our partners in industry, academia, and 

the government to create a manufacturing toolbox and kit that is 

universal, and again, serves the entire field. 

I thank you for your time, your attention, your service to our 

country, and I am happy to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mrksich follows:] 

40 


93408.028
41 


93408.029
42 


93408.030
43 


93408.031
44 


93408.032
45 


93408.033
46 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Phillips, you are now recognized for your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIM PHILLIPS 

Mr. PHILLIPS. As a manufacturer of nanotechnology it is a great 

time to be alive. With the inventions of the chip and the software 

storage and the internet, more will be invented in the next 10 

years than in the history of mankind, and no more place than 

nanotechnology will achieve these great new inventions and competitiveness that America is going to depend on, especially in manufacturing, where we see manufacturing drop as part of our GDP 

from about 79 percent to 17, 18 percent, giving us a distinctive 

competitive disadvantage on a global basis. 

I am proud to be chairman and CEO of NanoMech. We are based 

in northwest Arkansas, down the street from the likes of Walmart, 

Tyson headquarters, and we have, over the last year, won a portfolio of award-winning inventions and commercial products, including innovations in machining and advanced manufacturing, lubrication and energy, biomedical implant coatings, and very strategic 

military applications. We feel we are poised for dramatic expansion 

of our manufacturing operations. I am proud to say we are in the 

process right now of adding an additional 25,000 square feet to our 

existing factory. We have bought up the entire technology park 

that we live in with the belief that we will be needing that kind 

of manufacturing capacity to keep up with our demand. 

Today, the United States is locked in a moon race, in an absolute 

moon race with other major countries trying to take the lead in 

materials science and bio nanoscale engineering research, development, commercialization in what is sure to be the next industrial 

revolution of progress. While these competitive countries lost out to 

an extent to the U.S. in the information technology revolution, they 

are determined to put enormous amounts of public and private capital to work to win this more important race. Given the monopolistic efforts of China alone to control all of the world’s dwindling 

resources. Today they control about 85 percent, the U.S. is now at 

great risk of not having the materials and the rare earth metals 

that are core to the most important manufactured goods that are 

essential to our daily lives. Nanoscale engineering is our greatest 

hope in providing a way to do more with less and amazing and sustainable ways to keep America secure, and the world leader in commerce, technology, and especially defense. Speaking of defense, it 

is clear by now that the country with the best UAVs wins. And no 

weaponization area more than UAVs will benefit from the tremendous advantages of nanoengineering and manufacturing. This, of 

course, is not to mention the huge gains already realized in defense 

and national security and weapons systems deploying quantum 

leaps in super-advanced nanoengineered coatings, lubricants, fuels, 

energetics, faster processors, and battlefield gear, all due to nanotechnology. 

Over the past 2 years, I have had the opportunity to participate 

in the Council on Competitiveness executive committee, as well as 

its U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative, and the Office 

of the Comptroller General’s Study on Nanotechnology. I take this 

47 

opportunity to offer my perspective as an entrepreneur and a nanomanufacturer. 

Many U.S. States and localities do too little to attract manufacturing facilities, imposing complicated time-consuming procedures 

on top of federal rules to site and build production facilities. The 

permitting process for a manufacturing facility in the United 

States might take months, if not years, where in some countries 

the time required is merely a few weeks or less. We are certainly 

offered by China and Russia it seems like on a quarterly basis to 

move our entire operation there. Never will do it. Former ex-pilot 

in the Air Force and definitely a patriot, and we just won’t do those 

kinds of things. We don’t even take their money, even though they 

offer it to us all the time. Consider, for example, NanoMech, 

though, as our very safe product platforms. I don’t know of any 

nanotechnology lawsuits for liability in the 30-year history of nanotechnology to date. We utilize convergent assembly so that we can 

nanoengineer tremendous improvements in many products and 

through this process, what we ship, even though nanoengineered 

and nanomanufactured, is no longer at nanoscale, but vastly superior to conventionally manufactured products. We are developing 

cutting edge technology that enables dramatically more efficient industrial processes, and therefore can save billions of dollars across 

several industries, while dramatically increasing performance. 

At the nanoscale, we and other manufacturers can reduce or 

eliminate harsh chemicals and materials and replace them with 

more environmentally sound and sustainable components. We do 

that every day. One of our products is called nGlide. This is a new 

super additive for the energy space. For that reason, we have 

opened up in Texas and are working with some of the largest companies in the energy manufacturing space. We add just a small 

amount of lubricant, and we reduce the coefficient of friction down 

to literally zero. Hardly any wear for that product going forward. 

We work with the largest companies around the United States in 

this. We also work with racing teams where this has all been demonstrated. Think of it, no wear, yet higher performance. The ability 

to increase miles per gallon, miles per hour, reduce heat, reduce 

wear. 

One of the other products we have is called TuffTek. This is 

where we spray a nano spray in a very safe facility with cubic 

boron nitride, the hardest substance known to man. When we do 

that, it creates a very hard coating surface on cutting tools. When 

we do that, cutting tools can last as much as 10 times longer. Of 

course, cutting tools are at the core of everything that is manufactured. This year, we were awarded the R&D100, the Edison, and 

the Tibbetts Award for that, the Tibbetts Award coming through 

the EPA. 

Talent is perhaps the most important driver for manufacturing 

competitiveness, especially nanotechnology. The United States 

needs highly skilled workers to realize the productivity gains essential to remain globally competitive in the digital and nano age. 

Yet current and anticipated human capital deficiencies exist across 

the board. Not only are current openings for highly skilled workers 

challenging, manufacturing workers are retiring at a much higher 

rate than they are being replaced. For that reason, we ask this 

48 

committee to consider taking a real hard look at the area of visas. 

Visas have turned out to be a huge problem for us as we try to man 

and staff our company with the very best and brightest. 

At this point in time, it looks like time is up so I will defer to 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:] 

49 


93408.034
50 


93408.035
51 


93408.036
52 


93408.037
53 


93408.038
54 


93408.039
55 


93408.040
56 


93408.041
57 


93408.042
58 


93408.043
59 


93408.044
60 


93408.045
61 


93408.046
62 


93408.047
63 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you. 

Mr. TERRY. So all witnesses have testified. This is our opportunity to begin our questions for you, and so as chairman, I get to 

start, and I will start with Dr. Binek. 

Now in your testimony, Doctor, you mentioned the interdisciplinary field. Could you expand on how you and the University of Nebraska are engaged in interdisciplinary practice, and who is part 

of that and how it enhances the ability to advance nanotechnologies? 

Mr. BINEK. Yes, thank you, chairman, for that question. 

Let me first start locally, at the University of Nebraska, we have 

Nebraska Center for Materials and Nanoscience, which is an interdisciplinary center where we work together as physicists, chemists, 

and engineers on nanotechnological problems that includes building where all the tools and for electro-microscopy to x-ray machines 

to lithography, all housed in our actually quite new Walt A. Keaton 

building. And in addition, we are fortunate to have an NSF-funded 

MRSEC, Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, and 

in the same spirit interdisciplinary, we have physicists, we have 

chemists, and engineers all coming together and working on nanotechnological problems. 

I am also involved in two centers. One center is located also at 

the University of Nebraska, led by us. It is the Center for 

Nanophotonic Devices. It is an interdisciplinary research between 

six universities. And another center I am involved in is the C–Spin 

Center, where 18 universities nationwide—— 

Mr. TERRY. That is C–Spin, and what is that? 

Mr. BINEK. It is a lengthy acronym for a center where we, again, 

look for spintronic solutions, mainly to sort of say the barrier which 

is anticipated by extrapolations of scaling. It is known in the semiconductor industry it is known that if you continue the scaling, 

making things just smaller and smaller, we will hit a barrier latest 

by 2020, which is determined by many reasons and also fundamental reasons, like quantum tunneling. We are asked to look for 

solutions to solve those heat problems you mentioned in your introduction, and spintronics is one of those potential solutions where 

you use the spin degree of freedom and we can have new functions 

in our devices, not only processing, but also processing and memory 

in one device. The spin or the collective phenomenon of magnetism 

is ideal for non-volatile memory, and we can switch those state 

variables also by electric means, avoiding electric currents, and 

that seems to be one way in the future to solve that problem. 

Mr. TERRY. And as I understand, there are industries that are 

also involved, and so how do they participate? Talent, money, whatever. 

Mr. BINEK. They participate on various levels, mainly money, 

and that is a good thing. So for example, the C–Spin center, if I 

am not mistaken, we talk about a volume of $31 million of funding 

for a 6-year period. It is mainly by the Semiconductor Research 

Corporation, which is a consortium of who is who in the semiconductor industry from IBM, Intel, Global Foundries, Micron, you 

name it. And in addition, with the contribution. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

64 

Mr. Phillips? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TERRY. You take that nanotechnology and then apply it in 

manufacturing. I am interested about how you make that shift and 

the capital that is necessary to get that done. How do you do it? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, it is pretty conventional, the way American 

businesses always run. You have got to raise capital to build anything, whether it is a space shuttle or a Dairy Queen. You have to 

be able to capitalize it, and sometimes it comes from purely private 

capital, in my case, my capital as well. And then sometimes you 

are also able to get grants, both on a state and federal level, and 

those are very important. So we have received over time grants 

from National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, 

Department of Energy, and so forth. Although very minimal compared to the totality of capital we have raised. 

When you build a company like this, the first thing you have to 

do is have the incredible ideation and invention, the concept and 

everything, and then you have to turn that into something that is 

manufacturable. You have to be able to create assembly lines that 

have quality control with repeatability, scalability, so that it prices 

out whatever it is you are manufacturing, that it becomes a musthave that people can afford. So it is basic business practices. In 

this technology which is very, very new, there are more regulatory 

probably than conventional. We know in the U.S., we appreciate 

the regulatory. We believe in safety and the controls that are in 

place, albeit we have to compete against countries that perhaps— 

have 5 percent total regulatory costs against our 30 to 35 percent 

regulatory cost. So we have to build in an effort to accommodate 

that. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, and my time is expired. 

I recognize the ranking member, Jan Schakowsky, for your 5 

minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Instructor Tour, I appreciate all of the commercialization, especially that and the problems that you face because companies seem, you are saying would want these tax 

breaks. But I want to just make the very clear point that you say 

without any new federal dollars. Not true. It is a decision on 

whether there is direct federal subsidies and grants, or we give tax 

breaks. There is a reason that we talk about tax breaks as tax expenditures, because clearly, that is a cost to the Federal Government as well, any tax dollars that would be lost because we would, 

and so there is a lot of other considerations. Is it better for the Federal Government to make some of the decisions about where the 

money goes? Do we just leave it to the private sector? And I know 

others have mentioned public/private partnerships as another way 

to go. 

So I just wanted to make the point that this is not a freebie for 

the Federal Government when we say that we do it through tax 

breaks that we would give to corporations. Not ruling that out, but 

it is a tradeoff that we have to discuss. 

I wanted to ask Dr.—— 

Mr. TOUR. May I comment on that? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, of course. 

65 

Mr. TOUR. I think that I said no new spending and no new allocations, because I well appreciate what you are saying, Congresswoman. It is a reality that when you don’t have taxes, you don’t 

have money coming in. So that is why I used the words that no 

new spending, no new allocations. 

But the other thing that I hope that I underscored is that it is 

really a dire situation in the federal dollars that are able to come 

in and by doing this, somehow we are spreading the load out a little bit to incentivize industry coming in. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am all for that and it is not a criticism. I just 

wanted to make sure that we are clear that one way or another, 

it is money from the Federal Government. 

I just have a suggestion, Dr. Mrksich. If you added another vowel 

between the M and the R, if you added an E, everyone could pronounce your name. 

Mr. MRKSICH. You should see my mailbox. I have about 10 good 

versions of improvements on my name. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Just an idea. Four vowels, four consonants in 

a row makes it hard. OK. I don’t want to take up too much of my 

time. 

I know that you primarily focus on nanomaterials for biological 

and medical applications, and I am wondering if you could provide 

a little more detail on the research that you are doing. What kind 

of advances might happen over the next 5 to 10 years due to your 

research? 

Mr. MRKSICH. I would be happy to. In the area of therapeutics, 

one kind of a very special properties that nanomaterials give us is 

the ability to target tissues more selectively. So a lot of drugs that 

are intended to act in the brain, whether it is for Alzheimer’s Disease, those drugs are being developed, Parkinson’s and others, 

those drugs have a difficult time crossing the blood brain barrier. 

So they can be taken, they are in the system, but they don’t get 

to the site where they can act and improve health. 

We have now found that nanoparticles, because of their small 

sizes, but larger than molecules so they avoid some of the systems 

that molecules get tied up in, are much more effective at crossing 

that barrier. So this could be a platform to deliver medicines to the 

site where they can act so that when we have a medication, a pharmaceutical that is not useful because it doesn’t get to the site, one 

can literally have to drill through the skull and put a device in the 

brain, or one might be able to use nanoparticle carriers to get them 

there. We still haven’t worked through all of the safety issues and 

what the dosing should be, what the properties of those particles— 

but that is one example where nano would take existing trends and 

just put them at a different—on a different plane. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I was going to ask you about the support gap, 

but I think we have really heard from everybody that one way or 

another, the United States needs to figure out how we support this 

industry, and I just want to make sure that that has absolutely 

been heard. 

In your testimony, Dr. Mrksich, you mentioned the multi-agency 

structure of the National Nanotechnology Institute, but I don’t 

know if you know that Congress has not reauthorized that or provided an updated vision for it since 2003. I am wondering if there 

66 

are any particular changes you think need to be made in order for 

it to get new life. 

Mr. MRKSICH. Absolutely. The NNI, started in 2000, has absolutely been a success in terms of creating an infrastructure in the 

U.S., making the U.S. the global leader in innovating, and having 

the opportunities to translate into commercial entities. The NNI 

never had its own money. It required the agencies to redirect a 

fraction of their budgets to nano-related research. I think we are 

at the point where we have got this incredible infrastructure and 

we are now beginning, just in the last 3, 4, 5 years seeing a reverse 

brain drain. Our best people leaving and other folks who would 

have come to the United States staying. And this is a direct reflection of the imbalance of research money and infrastructure that is 

available. 

So there is no question in my mind that in renewing, it is really 

reinventing the NNI to put real money behind it and to ensure that 

our best people have the tools, have the funding to continue on this 

incredible first 15-year history we have created. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So for me, lesson learned. Private and public 

money is really needed to keep us in the forefront. Thank you. 

Mr. TERRY. Recognize, I will not recognize the gentleman from 

Kentucky. Mr. Olson, you are recognized. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair, and my questions, first off, will be 

for Dr. Tour. 

Doctor, you mentioned in your testimony you have 30 grad students and undergrads, doctors, and post grads working for you at 

Rice. You mentioned concern about the brain drain, because many 

of these people come from overseas. How many people of that 30 

are not from here in America? Half, two-thirds? 

Mr. TOUR. Of that 30, probably 25 are not Americans. 

Mr. OLSON. How many people find a way to stay here after they 

graduate? You give them that great diploma, that sheepskin? 

Mr. TOUR. I would say that half of them will stay. More would 

stay if they could. The very best of the international students are 

returning to their home countries where they can get faculty positions. There are no opportunities for them here. There are very few 

faculty positions opening up in the United States because of the 

funding situation, and that funding situation being a lack of money 

that is coming in in federal grants, and mechanisms for that. So 

they are getting very attractive offers from their home countries, 

or from countries like Singapore, and also, interestingly enough, 

the U.K. and Europe because of the large amounts of money in the 

area, specifically in carbon nanotechnology graphene. So many of 

them are leaving that would have liked to have stayed. 

Mr. OLSON. And Doctor, you said in your testimony that corporations get a deduction if they fund research through your institute. 

Any example of a corporation that has lost their deduction, that 

has not invested in your institute because they lost a tax credit, 

tax, whatever you want to say about the tax preference. Any example of somebody who said listen, Doctor, I want to help you out but 

I just can’t do it. I have to have that—— 

Mr. TOUR. Oh, there are companies that have said that they just 

can’t swing this, but they are the companies that have come forward are doing it anyway, but it is very hard to get companies to 

67 

step forward, and if I can use this as a leveraging point, it actually 

works out quite well for both of us. And as to the amount of deduction that they presently get, it is very hard even to figure that out. 

I am not a tax person and I tried to get that data even to bring 

it in here to speak to these companies how much they say definitely that it would help if we had had that tax deduction. But they 

didn’t know how much they are really allowed to deduct. And different companies had different views on this in trying to understand the tax law even. 

Mr. OLSON. It sounds like it does hurt for sure. I mean, these 

guys sort of sit back and say hum, Dr. Tour, you are doing great 

work, but I have got shareholders I got to take care of, a legal obligation to do that, so I may not invest in your great research because of our tax policies. 

Mr. TOUR. Absolutely, and there are companies that may even be 

in your district that have said that. I am not exactly sure where 

the border of your district is. 

Mr. OLSON. It changes dramatically. But sir, you and I live in the 

energy capital of the world, and so I am thrilled about what is happening in the energy sector with nanotechnologies. 

On your Web site, it mentions oil and gas, enhanced recovery operations, those type of things. Elaborate on what is going on, how 

you are getting help from industries around there, and what we 

should be excited about. 

Mr. TOUR. So we have a project that is funded in total by Apache 

Corporation where we have been able to capture CO2 coming out 

of a natural gas well, so natural gas is a very clean sort of carbon 

fuel, 30 percent lower CO2 emissions than running a car on gasoline. But coming out with natural gas is CO2. That CO2 is generally 

just vented to the air. We have figured out how to trap it and how 

to send it back down whole. Apache is working on the conversion 

of that to industrial scale for the deployment. We are working on 

nano reporters, which these are funded by seven different oil companies in a consortium called the Advanced Energy Consortium, 

where we developed sensors that can go down hole and they can 

travel through the sub-three nanometer ports, the sub-three nanometers ports down hole, and then bring up information as to how 

much oil is down there. And also nanoparticles for enhanced oil recovery, when they see that oil to grab that oil and bring it back 

up, and then self separate. So those are a few examples from the 

oil industry. 

Mr. OLSON. Finally, healthcare, medical. As you know, right 

across from Rice University is the Texas Medical Center, the largest research institution in America for healthcare research. You 

mentioned—I am sorry, your Web site mentioned carbon nanovectors involved in this. What is so exciting about carbon nanovectors? 

Mr. TOUR. OK, so we can take these carbon particles now, and 

all of this has been licensed to a company. They bought the whole 

suite of patents, licensed the whole suite of patents. This is in collaboration with Baylor College of Medicine across the street, UT 

Health Science Center, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, and Methodist Hospital and joint patents between us all. These carbon particles, they can trap something called super oxide. Super oxide, if 

someone gets a traumatic brain injury, traumatic brain injury is 

68 

the number one disabler of young adults and super oxide causes 

great degradation to the brain in the first several hours after. It 

is exactly the same as the biggest disabler in older adults, which 

is stroke. It is a lack of oxygen. There has been a blockage. There 

is a lack of oxygen. When that blockage is removed and oxygen 

comes in, super oxide forms which degrades the brain. We inject 

the nanoparticles just before we clear the blockage, and then what 

happens is this sequesters the super oxide and makes it unreactive 

towards the brain, and so you get far less brain degradation. 

Mr. OLSON. I am out of time. Thank you. 

Mr. TERRY. I recognize Mr. Johnson. Bill, you are recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I pass. Thank you. 

Mr. TERRY. OK, then the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, 

you are recognized for your 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Phillips, as someone who started a firm from the bottom, can you give more insight 

into the hurdles that startups deal with with nanotechnology? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, sir, I would be glad to. We, too, as a 

company and as a scientific nanotechnology company, the majority 

of our scientists are on visas or trying to get visas, to the tune of 

about 80 percent of those, and trying to maintain them in the 

United States is one of our most difficult problems. I mean, basically the visa program in the United States is so out of date, and 

so difficult that it is like we are telling our Einsteins and our 

Wernher von Brauns to get the heck out of the United States, go 

home. It is exactly like that. We face that issue very day. A number 

of our scientists have become American citizens while working at 

NanoMech. I am proud to say they have gone down to Judge Parker’s courtroom down in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, raised their hand, and 

some of the greatest scientists ever come out of the Ukraine, India, 

China, have become American citizens through working at 

NanoMech on our nanotechnology. One of the scientists that came 

out of China ran the entire water management program for China 

when he was 29. He is now a proud American citizen. But every 

day it is harder and harder with this visa program. We have one 

our top researchers right now that is working on the most advanced systems for the Department of Defense in the way of creating the best body armor that ever has existed, totally fireproof, 

totally waterproof, totally antimicrobial, antibacterial. We basically 

finished and we have been trying for 2 years to get his wife a visa 

to join him here in the United States, although he was educated 

here in the United States, received his Ph.D. here in the United 

States. That is kind of an everyday problem for us in terms of visa 

programs. 

Other things in nanotechnology that are difficult, I am not a 

state-run company. I don’t want to be a state-run company, but I 

have to compete against state-run companies. In China today they 

have the Nanopolis. The Nanopolis is a multi-, multi-, multi-billion 

dollar project to create commercialized nanotechnology. They invite 

us over there every day. I have been invited to be their keynote 

speaker in China this year for the third year in a row, and for the 

third year in a row, I will turn it down. But they are really outspending us at this point in time in a big way, along with Russia. 

Russia has a $10 billion fund that they are operating in the United 

69 

States called RusNano. Dmitri, who is based out in Silicon Valley, 

is a Russian who has been trying to either invest in us or in other 

companies, and have successfully invested in many nanotechnology 

companies in the United States, as well as venture capital companies in an effort to gain access, or if not even control, of our nanotechnology that has been produced through billions of dollars worth 

of research through National Science Foundation, NIH, down 

through our incredible university system. So we have to capitalize 

this company in order to build very fast. I think we are the fastest 

growing nanomanufacturing company in the United States to do 

things like we do to create new types of greases and lubes. That 

may not sound like a very important thing, it may sound kind of 

boring, but the world runs on machines. Machines run on lubricants. Without it, they don’t run as well. So we are able to create 

lubricants that make machines basically last a lot longer. For instance, we believe if we were lubricating the Navy ships, I have 

had conversations with the Secretary of the Navy on this; we could 

extend the life of our Navy fleet immediately 10 to 20 years without any other expenditures, and many things like that. So getting 

access to government-type contracts is very tough for smaller companies. Getting access to competitive capital on a national and 

global scale through public/private partnerships is becoming harder 

and harder. Overcoming this thing called the valley of death where 

you go to full-scale scaling companies like ours and we operate on 

patents that we have licensed from leading American universities. 

So just in the area of competitiveness, we have the willpower at 

NanoMech to grow this company, to provide incredible new technologies like very lightweight body armor that is much, much safer 

than what is out there today, new types of weapons that have 

never even been dreamed of that can be reached through nanotechnology—— 

Mr. LONG. Let me interrupt you there. I know nanotechnology is 

extremely exciting and there are a lot of tremendous benefits from 

it. I know that in my home State of Missouri that Brewer Science 

has partnered with Missouri State University in my hometown and 

have a very, very good partnership with the development of nanotechnologies, so I think that some of these public/private partnerships are starting to take root, and I hope to see them expand, so 

good luck to you on your ventures. 

Mr. Binek, can you tell me is Nebraska in the SEC? 

Mr. TERRY. That is a cheap shot. 

Mr. LONG. Well, I know they are not but I just love hearing it. 

I yield back. 

Mr. TERRY. We are united in being former members of the Big 

12 with you. 

Recognize the gentleman from the SEC, Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Absolutely, best team in the SEC, University of 

Florida Gators. Go Gators. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on a growing 

sector of America’s innovation economy. 

Nanotechnology is a sector that holds exciting prospects for the 

United States with its continued position at the forefront of technological advancement and economic growth. Nanotechnology is the 

70 

perfect demonstration of how the private marketplace continues to 

innovate to solve economic and societal problems. 

For example, in my district, Dais Analytic, which was named to 

the Forbes magazine’s top energy projects to watch in 2012, has developed technologies and programs to clean dirty air and dirty 

water. Because nanotechnology is still a relatively new phenomenon, it is important that the Federal Government not stifle innovation and growth with burdensome and unnecessary regulations 

and red tape. 

Here is my question. I currently serve as the co-chair of the Congressional Technology Transfer Caucus, and I am interested in how 

we economically capitalize upon the investments made in technology research. I understand that it may be difficult to transition 

from research to licensing to commercial development. Can you 

walk us through, and this is for the panel, can you walk us through 

the challenges that are faced in the stages of development, from 

patenting new research and technology to licensing it to companies 

to commercializing it, please? Whoever would like to start. 

Mr. MRKSICH. I can begin. I have done this a number of times, 

and having advances in my university lab lead to something interesting. Within the universities, we disclose that, apply for patents, 

and at the same time start to form a small company. That is sometimes done by raising seed or angle money. Sometimes it is done 

by going straight to venture capitalists, if that is the scale of the 

investment required. Then from there it gets a start, and runs on 

the treadmill and hits milestones and raise more capital. 

One comment I want to make about nano, though, this is a new 

area. If you look at biotechnology, there are many repeat entrepreneurs that really are quite effective at getting new technologies 

out. There are venture capital firms and angels who specialize in 

that space, and so they are very sophisticated in recognizing opportunities and aggressively pursuing them. 

Ten years ago, there were just a handful of nanotechnology companies that got started. We didn’t have the capital infrastructure, 

the sophisticated investors that made it and the repeat entrepreneurs that made it more straightforward to get started. So as 

I look back, I think, and in my case, this is true as well, the SBIR 

program has oftentimes been the stepping stone to get IEP out of 

the university into a company where you can start working on a 

prototype and de-risk the technology. And I think in this young 

field still, where many of the founders of new companies are firsttime founders, they are not familiar with the process and there are 

many barriers to getting going. Making it more straightforward to 

direct SBIR funds towards those folks, I would even think about a 

policy that said if you have a research grant from the NSF or the 

NIH or the DOE and a nanospace, and you apply for a patent, that 

you have a streamlined access to an SBIR to get that out of the 

university and put it into the commercial sector where it can get 

going. Because I think there are a lot of things that are left on the 

floor because, again, this young area with first-time entrepreneurs 

don’t have a straightforward time getting something started. 

I will let the others add other perspectives. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, please. Anyone else, please? 

71 

Mr. TOUR. I have gone through this many times. I agree with 

Milan and I have known Milan for a long time, is that what I am 

finding now is that it is international companies and entities and 

investors that are coming and wanting to buy up the technology. 

Just recently, one of our patents was licensed to a Chinese company for the development of super capacitors, and they are going 

to take this on and make batteries for electric vehicles this way. 

Three of our technologies are currently being licensed by the 

Israelis to start companies in three different areas, based on the 

technology that was developed in our laboratory. There was a company that was going to start and the tax advisor said don’t start 

it in the United States, start it in Singapore. And that was purely 

from a tax consideration standpoint. 

So at no other time in my career in the last year or two I am 

seeing this coming of foreign entities and buying up U.S. technologies, and so the question then becomes why aren’t the U.S. entrepreneurs stepping forward as aggressively as the international 

entities, and I am not sure that I have answer to that for you, and 

that is something that there is probably, you in this room have 

thought about this more than I have. But this is a trend that I am 

noticing that the biggest and most aggressive buyers of the technology now, in my experience in the last several years, are not U.S. 

entities anymore. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to come 

back and kind of take off on what, Dr. Tour, you were just talking 

about. What do you think we need to do to regain U.S. competitiveness for human talent and corporate investment as compared to 

what some of those other countries that are doing that are statesponsored, subsidized countries like China and others? 

Mr. TOUR. Right. So even before coming here, I talked to this 

Israeli group that is licensing three of our technologies to certain 

companies. And I said show me the tax structure of what it would 

cost me to start up a company in Israel. And they sent me the links 

to all of that data, and the tax structure is a lot more friendly towards small companies, especially if you are going to build your 

manufacturing entity outside of Tel Aviv, moving it. So I am talking about tax rates that are on the order of about 7 percent. 

So you look at numbers like this, and I am cognizant of the fact 

that the U.S. government runs on taxes, but I have started several 

small companies myself and I will never start another one again. 

It is a very difficult and arduous task, and so now I just go into 

the licensing and license it out to others. But the tax structure is 

quite aggressive here, and again, I am deferring to what the Congresswoman said, and I acknowledge that. I am just saying that 

when you look at the tax structure, it is very different. 

My testimony here is saying that without a proper mechanism 

for funding, many of these very smart people that we have are now 

leaving. The U.K. has come with a graphene and carbon program 

that is enormous. The European Union, that is enormous and funding at a very large scale. And they are trolling U.S. faculty. I had 

two offers, two offers in the last year from the U.K. to move my 

program there. My program that was 90 percent federally funded, 

72 

10 percent industrially supported in 2008 is now 80 percent industrially supported and 20 percent federally supported. Same amount 

of money. I have been able to make that transition, so my testimony is help me to make that transition. If the Federal Government can’t step up, what can you do in the meantime to allow me 

to bring more money into my laboratory and my colleagues into 

their laboratories to maintain their programs here, rather than just 

having us move abroad. Because these folks are industrious folks 

and they are going to find out how to get their program continued. 

And if that means moving overseas, they will do it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So is it safe to say, then, that tax reform is critically important to retaining nanotechnology expertise in America 

and making us competitive? 

Mr. TOUR. I absolutely think so, sir, and I know that is not the 

direct privy of this committee, but I know that you have influence 

in that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Dr. Binek, how can research consortia such as the 

Semiconductor Research Corporation be encouraged in the U.S.? 

Have you worked with other similar organizations or know of similar organizations working with universities to support nanotechnology research? 

Mr. BINEK. In the case of the Semiconductor Research Corporation, their motivation is basically driven by,I mean, they look at the 

scaling issue and they know if we don’t do something drastically 

soon, there will be a major problem because who wants a next generation cell phone which just changes color, right, but there is no 

progress anymore. So this kind of driving force can, I think, be very 

strong, but it can probably also be very strong, although I have less 

experience outside the semiconductor industry. For other industries, however, my concern here is that it is mainly short-driven to 

some extent they have to see the abyss in front by doing their own 

extrapolations, seeing that scaling 2020 will, and then they say 

OK, we better do something, and now it is already a little late. And 

I think we should find ways to do something in advance. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. In your testimony, you discuss U.S. dependence on rare earth permanent magnets, which are predominantly 

mined in China. So why are these magnets important to the U.S. 

economy and what are the benefits of finding alternatives? 

Mr. BINEK. So you find them everywhere, from your cell phone 

in the modern lithium ion batteries and I was specifically referring 

to the important use of them in permanent magnets. There are 

high energy permanent magnets which enable this extremely lightweight electrical engines, which allow for this unmanned aerial vehicles, for example, or headphones even. All kinds of applications, 

wind turbines. For example, a 2 megawatt wind turbine has 800 

pounds of rare earth minerals in it, so they are very important and 

the thing about rare earth, as the name may suggest, they are not 

that rare. You cannot just mine them as other metals like gold or 

copper. They are not really concentrating that much, so you have 

to operate with large volumes and then extract small amounts of 

them. And that is a very costly enterprise, and also it comes with 

a huge burden on the environment. I mean, there are stories about 

these toxic lakes in China which are a big problem. 

73 

So finding alternatives to rare earth is certainly an important 

thing, and nanotechnology, again, can help here. For example, in 

the field of permanent magnets we do that also at the University 

of Nebraska. We use nanostructuring of materials, bringing hard 

and soft materials into proximity and then get those properties 

without rare earth, just really metals, for example. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TERRY. I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of you 

for being here and for your insight. It is certainly amazing some 

of the progress that is being made and the excitement for the future of what we can do if we do this properly. 

Dr. Binek, if I may ask a follow-up on Mr. Johnson’s question, 

specifically about the rare earth materials. How far away are we 

from developing alternatives at a commercially viable high volume 

manufacturing process? 

Mr. BINEK. I think we are still quite a step away to replace them. 

Certainly we will not replace them with a switch everywhere. 

There are different field and different needs applications where we 

can hope to find replacements soon, but I am very certain as far 

as I can predict that they will still play an important role in the 

foreseeable future in many, many applications. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BINEK. I may want to mention that there are—as a mining 

operation also again reopened in the United States, but it comes 

with its own problems. 

Mr. HARPER. OK, and where is that? 

Mr. BINEK. To be honest, I need to pass on that. 

Mr. HARPER. OK, that is fine. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Phillips, if I could ask you a few follow-up questions. In your 

testimony, you discuss the U.S. permitting process for manufacturing facilities. Why is the time table for approval longer in the 

United States than other countries? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, you could basically say the United States 

perhaps is more advanced in that area in terms of guarding safety 

and regulations and things like that, and to a great extent, a lot 

of those regulations are necessary for a good, safe country. But—— 

Mr. HARPER. OK, and how have other countries—— 

Mr. PHILLIPS. I am up against countries that don’t even know 

what OSHA is. They have no OSHA. They have no requirements 

for insurance. They have no permits, typically, and so all I do is 

try to make a comparison as to trying to compete against those 

companies and countries like that that are state-run companies. It 

makes it more difficult for a company like us. Albeit, we work very 

closely with our municipalities, our state governments, and so forth 

to expedite those situations to reduce the amount of paperwork, 

typically, that comes with it. A lot of it is incredibly redundant paperwork, committees upon committees upon committees that you 

have to deal with that I would say could be incredibly streamlined. 

Having founded a company in Mississippi, co-founded a company 

called Skytel in Jackson, Mississippi that became instant messaging and ushered that in on a worldwide basis. I can remember 

back to the days in the ’90s on how easy it was to do things like 

74 

that. Of course, that was in the digital space, as we moved from 

analog to digital and totally transformed the way business is done. 

I believe that the transformation that is taking place in moving 

from micron technology in a manufacturing scale to now nanoscale 

will dwarf all the benefits we saw in the digital world, moving from 

analog to digital. Unfortunately, as the testimony shows today, in 

Europe and Asia and so forth, they are taking nanotechnology tremendously more serious than the U.S. government is in terms of 

advancing it with incredible speed, with developing either public/ 

private partnerships or outright gifts to corporations to make them 

competitive. We have seen a couple of those in the U.S. A lot of 

criticism about Solyndra. Solyndra received $500 million in funding 

and then went bankrupt, but in China, there were four competitors 

to Solyndra that received $5 billion each to compete and dropped 

the price on a worldwide basis and took the worldwide lead in 

solar. And now the remains of Solyndra are owned by China, as is 

A123, our leading battery company, that received $500 million in 

funding in the U.S., but compared to China it was dwarfed. 

So although I’m not, again, wanting to be a state-run company 

or anything like that. We have to look at the entire business model 

on a global basis, not on a U.S. basis, in order to compete going 

forward. It is something we have to get a handle on, because if we 

don’t make things, we really cease to be a country. 

Mr. HARPER. So what you are saying is if there is a way to fast 

track some of this process, that is a great benefit to you. And you 

mentioned countries that maybe are not doing it right. Are there 

some countries that are, indeed, doing it well on nanotechnology 

R&D? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, you look to Germany and Japan and so forth 

and the amount of public/private partnerships that you see there 

are fantastic in terms of the speed, Sweden and others. And this 

is not to over-criticize my country which I love dearly and represent it, as in the military days. I think we are definitely trying 

a lot of things, but we are stymied to a certain extent in patents 

right now. The cost of a U.S. patent compared to overseas many 

times is prohibitive and in the area of nanotechnology, in order to 

protect gigantic investments it takes to enter into a manufacturing, 

as opposed to digital space, that cost is very high. I just hope 100 

years from now when America looks back, we don’t basically say 

well, we are the country that did Facebook, compared to the country that came up with new ways to manufacture that totally created new cures, whether it was for cancer or what have you, and 

nanotechnology and maintained a very competitive weaponization 

system, as weapons became smaller and easier to perhaps control 

those weapons in strategic and tactical applications. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Phillips. I yield back. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, and the gentleman from New Jersey is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Phillips, in your testimony you referred to various policies 

that may be hampering business investment in nanotechnology, including the R&D tax credit. In 16 countries with a higher R&D 

credit than the U.S.—and I am sorry that that is the case—I believe that their corporate tax rate is different from the United 

75 

States, and our corporate tax rate is among the highest, perhaps 

the highest in the industrialized world. Could you comment on that 

in a little greater detail, and any advice you might be willing to 

give us in that regard? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, when we have a breakthrough technology 

that hits like digital or like in the case of nanotechnology, maybe 

the Federal Government needs to look at investment tax credits on 

spending by companies in nanotechnology of a variety of types so 

that they can capitalize their manufacturing facilities faster, perhaps do more research and development faster, and through investment tax credits produce new goods that return in the purchase of 

those goods through sales taxes and other type taxes, including income taxes on a federal basis, actually multiply the receipts on the 

tax base, even though in the early stages of those companies those 

changes could, without question, accelerate the development, and 

also lead to more investments in those companies from the private 

sector if it favored a technology as robust and with as much potential as nanotechnology. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. I certainly agree with that. 

Dr. Tour, the regulatory landscape for nanotechnology drives industries as how they look today. If you would, sir, could you expand 

on the regulatory process for startups and how Congress might be 

involved in improving the situation. 

Mr. TOUR. All right. So we don’t have good standards now to 

make comparisons and upon which to really target ways to mitigate the problem so that the improvement of standards against 

which we could direct these would certainly be a help for us to be 

able to move these along so we generate new materials. And then 

sometimes our—I served for 3 years on E–Track, which is a Department of Commerce committee to rewrite some of the export 

control laws, and because we have a very large book of things that 

we can export—and it was interesting that we couldn’t export 

many of the things that are made overseas in much larger volumes 

than we are even making them. So we were hampered in that way 

and many ways, and that even hampered the basic research of collaborating with people. 

So things become archaic, and after 3 years on that committee, 

I stepped down because everything that was proposed I wasn’t even 

sure if it was even read. And so I am not sure that anything ultimately changed as a result of that. 

So I realize that this is a big country and lots of things have to 

be done, but some of these barriers that really there was no good 

scientific rationale for the inhibitions that were there. 

Mr. LANCE. And from your expertise, could those matters be 

changed by administrative rule and regulation, or would it require 

a statutory change, change from us here in Congress? 

Mr. TOUR. I am sorry, I don’t know that. 

Mr. LANCE. Certainly it might be easier if it were only to require 

some sort of change from the Department of Commerce or another 

agency of the Executive Branch, but obviously, we and our co-equal 

responsibilities are looking for statutory change as well to improve 

the situation. 

Mr. TOUR. Right. 

76 

Mr. LANCE. Certainly I thank you for your service, and it may 

seem frustrating but I certainly think it is important that talented 

professionals, including academics, are involved in what you do, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. And that concludes 

our question and answer period. I want to thank all of you for 

being here. I think you have enlightened us, especially on policy aspects, which is hopefully one of your goals here today. I think you 

have given us several things to think about how we can help improve the research and development of nanotechnologies in the 

United States, so I appreciate that. 

So with that, did you want to say something? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, let me just thank the witnesses. I think 

this is a real growth area for our country if we do the right thing. 

We have the brains. We have an infrastructure to do this, and it 

would just be such a pity if we lost this in the global marketplace. 

So thank you very much for underscoring that, and for sharing 

your expertise. 

Mr. TERRY. So we have up to 2 weeks to submit written questions to you. Don’t know if there will be any, but we have that and 

if we do send you written questions, we would appreciate about a 

couple of weeks timeframe to get your written answers back to us. 

With that, thank you again. You have been a great service to us, 

and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

Today’s hearing is a valuable one. We will learn how scientists and engineers are 

making significant advances by working with nanoparticles. 

Nanoparticles are extremely small. One nanometer is one billionth of a meter. A 

single hair is roughly 75 to 100 thousand nanometers wide. 

Nanotechnology can be used to reduce the effect of oil spills on the environment, 

improve solar panel output, and help detect early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers are working on even more applications, including groundbreaking uses in 

cancer treatment and the fight against climate change. 

At the federal level, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI, provides participating agencies with a coordinated framework for supporting nanotechnology research, development, and manufacturing. I applaud President Obama and the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, or PCAST, for their ongoing 

support of NNI and their broader efforts to bolster this field. 

Thanks in part to their efforts, the United States leads the world in nanotechnology investment and research. Important research occurs throughout the country, 

including at the California NanoSystems Institute, which I am proud to say has one 

of its two locations within the district I represent, at UCLA. 

But our lead in this technology is being challenged. Nanotechnology is flourishing 

not just here, but around the globe. Nations have devoted significant effort—and 

public funds—in order to become the most attractive place to research, develop, commercialize, and manufacture nanotechnology products. 

One problem is that in the United States, the NNI has not been reauthorized 

since 2003, when Congress first gave the initiative a statutory foundation and appropriated funds for its work. In addition, public funding for nanotechnology research has been significantly cut over the last few years, with total federal R&D 

funding for the field dropping nearly 20 percent from 2010 to 2014. This is a mistake. 

We in Congress should demonstrate our support for nanotechnology by increasing 

scientific research funding in next year’s budget. We should enhance the educational 

opportunities available to students and workers to ensure they have the science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics knowledge necessary for jobs in nanotechnology. And we should play a more active role in the NNI. The program should be 

77 

reauthorized, and in doing so, we should provide an updated, cohesive vision for how 

the U.S. can stay competitive on a global scale. 

I am pleased that the Subcommittee will have the opportunity today to learn more 

about nanotechnology from those who know it best. While the main topic of this 

hearing is innovation, I encourage members and panelists to remember, in addition, 

that advances through nanotechnology are made possible by altering particles at a 

very basic level. As nanotechnology becomes more prolific, scientists like those on 

this panel must come to understand exactly what the environmental, health, and 

safety implications are. And members of this Committee must work with agencies, 

including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, 

and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to ensure that human health and 

safety and the environment are protected. 

Thank you. 

78 


93408.048
79 


93408.049
80 


93408.050
81 

Æ 


93408.051