U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–599 2006

S. HRG. 108–789

S. 189, 21ST CENTURY NANOTECHNOLOGY

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 1, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 1, 2003 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Allen ..................................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Sununu ................................................................................ 30

Statement of Senator Wyden .................................................................................. 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

WITNESSES

Baird, Dr. Davis, Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy, University 

of South Carolina ................................................................................................. 35

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36

Jiao, Jun, Ph.D., Co-Director, Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 

Portland State University ................................................................................... 48

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50

Murday, Dr. James, Chief Scientist, Acting, Office of Naval Research .............. 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Murphy, Kent A., Ph.D., Founder and CEO, Luna Innovations .......................... 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Roberto, James, Ph.D., Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences, 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory .......................................................................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

Teague, E. Clayton, Ph.D., Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination 

Office ..................................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15

Von Ehr II, James R., CEO, Zyvex Corporation ................................................... 58

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington, prepared statement ..... 71

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, prepared statement . 72

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from Connecticut, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 73

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank Lautenberg to: 

James R. Von Ehr II ........................................................................................ 74

Dr. E. Clayton Teague ...................................................................................... 76

Written questions submitted by Hon. John McCain to: 

Dr. Davis Baird ................................................................................................. 78

Dr. Jun Jiao ...................................................................................................... 78

Dr. James Murday ............................................................................................ 77

Dr. Kent A. Murphy ......................................................................................... 79

Dr. James Roberto ............................................................................................ 77

Dr. E. Clayton Teague ...................................................................................... 78

James R. Von Ehr II ........................................................................................ 79

(1)

S. 189, 21ST CENTURY NANOTECHNOLOGY 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. George Allen presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Good afternoon to you all. Today, the Commerce 

Committee will examine S. 189, 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. 

Senator Wyden, my good friend and counterpart and key leader 

and friend on this issue of nanotechnology, will be here shortly, 

and he’ll have some opening remarks as well. 

We’re going to look today in this hearing, in both panels, at the 

progress of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and the issues 

surrounding the transfer of basic nanotechnology research out of 

government and university labs into the private sector for commercial applications. 

And I do want to especially thank my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden on this issue. Last September, Senator Wyden and I 

held the first congressional hearing ever on the topic of 

nanotechnology. And at that time, many of our colleagues thought 

nanotechnology was too small of an issue to be concerned about to 

focus on. However, as elected leaders, I’m convinced that we need 

to focus and recognize that this industry is really at the verge of 

a tremendous revolution. 

There are companies in the private sector, like Hewlett Packard, 

General Motors, IBM, General Electric, Siemens, Intel, and Dell, 

all involved in nanotechnology research and development. Furthermore, I think that we all ought to recognize that we are not alone 

in this country being interested in nanotechnology. Indeed, when 

one will look at the global picture, we are falling a bit behind, insofar as our research and development in nanotechnology, and we’re 

facing some stiff foreign competition in nanotech research from 

Japan, the European Union, Russia, Korea, and China. Now, this 

Nation, the United States, has been at the forefront of almost every 

important transformative technology since the industrial revolution, and we must continue to lead the world in the nanotechnology 

revolution, in my estimation. 

2

Now, our role, as elected leaders, should be to create or to foster 

the conditions precedent for our researchers and innovators to compete and contribute and succeed, both domestically and internationally. I am not here to say that we ought to guarantee anyone’s success, but the Government’s role is to make sure the field 

is fertile, our tax policies, our research policies, our regulatory policies, allow the creative minds in the private sector, in our colleges 

and universities, as well as in some of our Federal Government 

Agencies, to reach their full potential. And that’s really why Senator Wyden and I introduced S. 189, to provide, in an organized 

and collaborative way, an approach to nanotechnology research and 

commercial economic development. 

Our strategic goal is logical and very clear. We want to leverage 

the government, academic, and corporate research capabilities and 

assets this country has currently available, and to allow our whole 

country, and those involved in it, to compete and succeed worldwide. 

Now, the groundbreaking nanotech projects today will mean substantial regional and national job growth in the future. Our legislation authorizes $678 million for grants to support basic, fundamental research and development and establish research centers of 

excellence that will bring together experts from the various disciplines, agencies, and private sector, as well as universities. This 

legislation also leverages and recognizes the work taking place at 

the state-led initiatives, like the ones in Virginia, Oregon, Texas, 

California, Pennsylvania, and New York. 

I’m especially pleased by the Bush Administration—good timing—especially pleased by the Bush Administration’s focus and 

support for nanotech. The President requested $849 million for 

nanotechnology, which is a 10 percent increase over last year’s request. If Congress approves this requested increase, the funding for 

the National Nanotechnology Initiative will have doubled since fiscal year 2001. 

Now, this afternoon we’ll be hearing from an eminently qualified 

panel, two panels, to discuss this measure, Senate Bill S. 189, as 

well as technology transfer and the progress of nanotech research 

and development in the United States. 

I want to welcome all of our witnesses for being with us. Thank 

you for your willingness to be here, some from clear across the 

country and halfway across the country, and some from right 

around here in this region, but thank you for your willingness to 

testify before this Committee on this very important subject for our 

future. 

I will introduce each one of you in the panels as we proceed, but 

before I do that, I would like to ask my colleague, who’s been a real 

partner and teammate in this effort in nanotechnology, Senator 

Wyden, if he has any opening remarks he may wish to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s great to 

team up with you. And suffice it to say, we are going to be busy 

on the technology front over the next few months with Internet 

taxes and our legislation to ensure that the Net does not get barVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
3

raged with a whole new array of taxes. And, of course, today we’re 

focusing on a special priority you and I have had for a number of 

years. So I’m really pleased that the Oregon/Virginia Tech Alliance 

is alive and prospering, and I thank you for it. 

I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my statement could be made a part of the record, and maybe I could just 

highlight a couple of my concerns. 

Suffice it to say a lot of Americans still think that 

nanotechnology is the stuff of science fiction or that it is certainly 

a fairly exotic discipline with widespread application far off in the 

future. 

I was home just last week in Oregon and met with a whole host 

of Oregon companies and academic leaders and scientists that certainly made it clear that practical applications of nanotechnology 

are available today. Nanoscale and microscale technologies, from 

computer printers to computer inks, have, in fact, already been created by companies in my home state. Companies in Oregon are fusing together the sciences of nanotechnology and microtechnology, 

which works on a slightly larger scale, and creating a variety of 

new innovations. 

The collaborative effort between Oregon’s universities and technology companies, called Micro2Nano, intends to go ever further 

using nanotechnology to create biosensors, reactors, energy sources, 

medical devices, and the next generation of semiconductors. 

What our legislation, of course, does, as Chairman Allen has 

touched on, is provide the critically-needed funding not just for Oregon and Virginia that have been leaders in the field, but for programs across the country. 

I also think that the last major explosion of technology and information technology, offers a clear and positive precedent for the use 

of discipline-specific expert advisory panels, as opposed to the use 

of more general, less knowledgeable counselors. I bring this up only 

by way of saying that I know that we’re going to have some debate 

with respect to the advisory council and who could handle this. 

Chairman Allen has been very reasonable in this, and probably out 

in the real world, nobody gets completely consumed by these kinds 

of questions. The National Research Council, in this book, an excellent book, ‘‘Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers,’’ stresses how important it is that there be an independent advisory council on 

nanotechnology, because if we’re going to have a significant financial investment, it ought to be matched by a significant intellectual 

investment, and that ensures that we have the best possible people 

on this job. And Chairman Allen and I have had some more discussions on this with some obviously feeling that the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology should be the overseeing 

body in nanotechnology efforts. And I think virtually all the independent academic experts feel that the language we’ve got in our 

bill is appropriate. 

But, as I say, Chairman Allen and I have worked out all of these 

issues and certainly have come up with the resolutions to matters 

far more contentious than this. And I look forward to working with 

you, Mr. Chairman, on this and would close simply by welcoming 

one of our witnesses, Dr. Jun Jiao, of Portland State University. 

She is a leader in the field of research and development in a variVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
4

ety of nanotechnology disciplines, and I’m just thrilled that one of 

the great minds in the field is here today and wanted to welcome 

her. And I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to 

move this legislation quickly to the Senate floor. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Wyden follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for convening today’s hearing. I am 

pleased to count him as a supporter and cosponsor of the 21st Century 

Nanotechnology Act. In fact, when I formerly Chaired the Subcommittee on Science, 

Technology and Space and the Senator from Virginia was the Ranking Member, we 

convened the Senate’s first-ever hearing on the subject of nanotechnology. I am as 

pleased as he is to see the full Committee’s attention turn to this subject again. 

The field of nanotechnology offers a unique pathway to the medical practices, materials and major innovations of the future. Now is the time not only to fund 

nanotech, but to marshal this country’s efforts into a cohesive drive to lead the 

world in this field. To do that, this committee will need to ensure both adequate 

funding and expert advisory resources to the nation’s nanotechnology programs. 

A lot of folks believe that nanotechnology is still the stuff of science fiction—or 

that its widespread application is still far off in the future. But on a recent trip 

home I was encouraged by Oregon companies’ practical applications of 

nanotechnology today. Nanoscale and microscale technologies from computer printers to computer inks have already been created by Oregon companies. Today, companies in my state are fusing the sciences of nanotechnology and microtechnology, 

which works on a slightly larger scale, to create new innovations. A collaborative 

effort between Oregon’s universities and technology companies called Micro2Nano 

intends to go farther—using nanotechnology to create biosensors, reactors, energy 

sources, medical devices, and next generation semiconductors. 

The key to all these advances will be adequate funding for research and development. The Wyden-Allen Legislation, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and 

Development Act, will provide that funding to nanotech not just in Oregon and Virginia, but across the country. In addition to providing research and educational 

grants, our bill establishes the nanotechnology infrastructure America currently 

lacks. That includes a national program to keep abreast of our global and economic 

competitiveness, and to consider ethical concerns. Research centers created in the 

bill would bring together experts from various disciplines to work together for better 

results. 

I want to be very clear this afternoon, however, that I do not believe funding and 

programs will do the job automatically. Equally essential to America’s 

nanotechnology future is the advice and guidance of a qualified, expert panel of scientists who know this field inside and out. For that reason, I am not satisfied with 

proposals to make the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

the overseeing body for American nanotechnology efforts. 

The last major explosion of technology—information technology—offers a clear 

and positive precedent for the creation of a discipline-specific, expert advisory panel 

as opposed to the use of more general, less knowledgeable counselors. The Information Technology Research and Development (ITRD) initiative has described their expert advisory committee as quote, ‘‘crucial’’ to its effort to align federal research of 

science and technology as well as to develop advocates for the program. The expert 

guidance provided allowed America to move to the forefront of the information technology wave. I want no less for this country when it comes to nanotech. 

My legislation calls for an independent advisory panel on nanotechnology, and I 

intend to stick to that provision. A significant financial investment in 

nanotechnology must be matched by a significant intellectual investment. Only then 

can this country reap the full range of rewards offered by this burgeoning field. 

As today’s hearing begins I would like particularly to welcome one of our witnesses, Dr. Jun Jiao of Portland State University. Dr. Jiao is a leader in the field 

of nanotechnology research and development. She will be one of the great minds to 

lead this country into the future with nanotechnology, and I look forward to today’s 

discussion with her.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for your great leadership and your comments about this hearing and the promise of 

nanotechnology. 

5

Now we’re going to listen to the real experts. We’re trying to facilitate and help you all move forward so you’re improving our material sciences and biological sciences and life sciences and so forth. 

I’m going to first introduce the first panel and then hear from 

you in the order in which—I’ve made some brief predicatory remarks about each of you. 

First is Dr. James Murday. Dr. Murday is the Acting Chief of 

Science of the Office of Naval Research. Until recently, he served 

as Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, 

perfect to have you here. From May to August 1997, he also served 

as acting Director of Research for the Department of Defense Research and Engineering. 

Dr. James Roberto is the Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He is responsible 

for ORNL’s research portfolio in material science, condensed matter, physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics. He is a former president of the Materials Research Society and chair of the Division of 

Materials Physics of the American Physical Society. Now, is that 

right? American Physical Society? All right. 

And also we have, last but not least, Dr. Clayton Teague. Dr. 

Teague is the current Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. The NNCO provides day-to-day technical and administrative support to the National Nanotechnology Initiative. 

Gentlemen, thank you all for being with us. We’d now would like 

to hear your insight and your views, and we’d like to start with 

you, Dr. Murday. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES MURDAY, CHIEF SCIENTIST, 

ACTING, OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH 

Dr. MURDAY. Thank you. 

Chairman Allen, Senator Wyden, I’m pleased and honored for the 

opportunity to share some of my enthusiasm on the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative. As a scientist at the Office of Naval Research, in the Naval Research Laboratory, I’ve been engaged in fostering nanoscience since the early 1980s. And in the last two years, 

I culminated in the privilege of serving as the part-time director of 

the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, or NNCO. 

Senator ALLEN. Move the microphone a little bit closer. 

Dr. MURDAY. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

And hopefully that experience over these 20 years has provided 

some insights that can help accelerate the rate of the science discovery and its transition into innovative technologies. 

Concurrent with my involvement in nanoscience, DOD interest 

dates back into the early 1980s. And by 1997, that interest was 

sufficiently mature that the DOD created a nanoscience strategic 

research topic in its basic research program. Thus, the DOD was 

a natural participant in the 1997 to 2000 year process of creating 

the national initiative, and that’s one of the reasons, my engagement there, that I was asked to serve as the Director of the NNCO. 

DOD’s interest in nanotechnology stems from its huge potential 

impact on national security and, by inference form that, homeland 

security, homeland defense. And its early entry into nanoscience 

means that we’re in a position to enable some transitions, even in 

6

this time frame, without looking for 20 years into the future. And 

I’ll highlight one of those for you in a moment. 

For simplicity’s sake, I tend to organize nanotechnologies as they 

pertain to national security and homeland defense into about three 

generic topic areas. One is nanoelectronics, photonics, magnetics—

that’s basically information-technology devices—sensors to acquire 

information, logic to process it, memory to store it, communicate 

and transmit that information, and ultimately to display it. And, 

from my observations in the electronics industry, I believe that by 

the end of this decade, essentially every electronic device that you, 

myself, and Defense acquisition, is going to want to buy is going 

to be enabled by having a nanostructure. Nanostructure inside will 

be pasted, or should be pasted, on all those devices. Having the capabilities that will add to those devices is going to be very important for information warfare, metric-centric warfare, for the 

uninhabited combat vehicles, the added intelligence necessary to 

take the man out of those immediate vehicles, automation to reduce manning—in fact, we’re training through virtual reality, 

which I think will, in turn, spill down into our schools. 

The second generic topic area is what we call nanomaterials by 

design. And the DOD weapons and platforms frequently require 

much higher performance than one sees in their counterparts in 

the civilian sector. And the ability to maneuver things at the 

nanometer size scale is going to provide much greater capability to 

give higher performance. 

Now, I’ve got here an example of this. This is a nanostructured 

coating, the black coating you see. And these parts have been introduced into the fleet now; they’re actually out in operation. They’re 

in reduction gears on surface-ship air-conditioning units, they’re in 

hull ball valves on submarines, and in several other applications. 

And the improved performance that we expect, and we’re evaluating now in the field, are expected to yield considerable savings. 

The nanostructured coatings have a wear resistance that’s five 

times greater than their microstructured counterparts, and they 

have 10 times the fatigue life. So this is a significant improvement. 

Because of these enhancements, this particular coating won an 

R&D 100 award in the year 2000. That’s an award given to one of 

the top 100 technologies introduced into the marketplace in that 

year. 

The third generic area is in nano-biotechnology. And, by far, the 

greatest impact of that is going to be in medicine and health, but 

it relates also to the warfighter. We would be able to monitor physiological status. If you have a man out on point, you want to make 

sure that he’s alert and not going to sleep on you. If you have 

somebody who’s wounded, you’d like to have a system that could 

detect the status and perhaps start to take some recuperative action. But maybe more importantly, and it leads into the homeland 

security, as well, as in the area of chemical/biological warfare defense, weapons of mass destruction. 

If you think about this, if you work in the nanoscience, you can 

pick up and manipulate and measure individual atoms. These are 

very small. The chemical agents and the pathogens that we worry 

about in chemical/biological warfare are large in comparison. So it’s 

relatively reasonable to expect that we can take those tools we’re 

7

using in nanoscience and morph them into highly sensitive detection techniques. And, in fact, we’re beginning to see that will happen. Further, since these can be miniaturized, you can have arrays 

of them, and that addresses the selectivity part of the problem. 

Dramatic advances in the sensor, you also can expect to see advances in protection, decontamination and therapeutics. Recognizing some of these opportunities, some of the DOD scientists organized a workshop, about a year ago, about nanotechnology innovation for chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive detection 

protection. That workshop came up with a set of recommendations, 

which has gone to the national initiative and will be part of the 

planning process as we go through a revitalization of that in NNI 

over the next year. 

Let me finish with a couple of observations from my tenure at 

the NNCO. The first is that having sweated the uncertainties in 

the transition from the Clinton to the Bush Administration and 

wondering whether we were going to survive as an initiative, I very 

much appreciate the incorporation of the initiative into law. 

The second point is, the Nanoscale Science Engineering Technology Committee is populated by a dedicated group of agency department nanotechnology champions, with Dr. Mike Rocco, of NSF 

as leader. Those champions are essential to the continued success 

of the NNI, and they now face a real task of taking a program that 

is just now leaving its infancy and moving into adolescence and 

making sure that we do that appropriately and we do it in a way 

that will help accelerate the transition into commercial products. 

And I can assure you that the interest and support that you are 

showing for the initiative is very important to this group of people 

and will help them accomplish that task. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Murday follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES MURDAY, CHIEF SCIENTIST, ACTING,

OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss Nanotechnology Research. You and the other Members of the 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation have been leaders in 

calling attention, both nationally and in the Department of Defense, to the importance of funding basic research and to bringing new technology quickly from the scientist’s bench to our Sailors and Marines. 

Department of Defense Interest in Nanoscience 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has been investing in fundamental nanoscience 

research for over 20 years. For instance, one of the early programs dating into the 

1980s was Ultra-Submicron Electronics Research (USER). In 1997, the DOD identified several Science & Technology (S&T) topics with the potential for significant impact on military technology; nanoscience was selected as one of those special research area (SRA) topics (see below for illustrative impact examples). A DOD 

Nanoscience SRA coordinating committee was established; its current membership 

is: Dr. Gernot Pomrenke, Air Force; Dr. John Pazik, Navy; and Dr. William Mullins, 

Army. Further, each Service has a coordinating group to guide its nanoscience program. 

Nanoscale Opportunities with Potential Major DOD Impact: 

Nanoelectronics/Photonics/Magnetics

• Network Centric Warfare

• Information Warfare

• Uninhabited Combat Vehicles

8

• Automation/Robotics for Reduced Manning

• Effective Training through Virtual Reality

• Digital Signal Processing and Low Probability of Intercept

Nanomaterials ‘‘by Design’’

• High Performance, Affordable Materials

• Multifunction Adaptive (Smart) Materials

• Nanoengineered Functional Materials (Metamaterials)

• Reduced Maintenance (halt nanoscale failure initiation)

BioNanotechnology—Warfighter Protection

• Chemical/Biological Agent detection/destruction

• Human Performance/Health Monitor/Prophylaxis

Since the DOD nanoscience programs are some 20 years old, one might expect to 

see transition successes. One example from each Service is illustrated here. Under 

Army funding Dr. Chad Mirkin, Northwestern University, has invented a way to 

utilize nanoclusters of gold for the sensitive, selective detection of DNA. This technology has been demonstrated to work for anthrax, has been commercialized by a 

start-up firm Nanosphere, and is under clinical evaluation. The Air Force is funding 

Triton Technologies Inc. under an Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to insert nanostructured clay particles in polymers. One benefit of this composite is reduced gas permeability. This new material was marketed by Converse 

in athletic shoe heels with greater elasticity (He gas bubbles trapped by the low permeability polymer composite); the reduced permeability is also of interest for packages containing food, beverages and pharmaceuticals. The Navy is interested because nanoclay particles increase the fire resistance of organic composite materials 

for ship applications. Under Navy funding Inframat has developed a thermally 

sprayed coating of alumina/titania nanopowders. The properties of this coating are 

far superior to the micropowder equivalent; this product was one of the R&D Magazine selections as an R&D 100 award for the year 2000. The coating is presently 

under field evaluation on Naval ships. 

Each Service has its own laboratory nanoscience programs. The Army efforts in 

nano-electronics, nano-optics, organic light emitting diodes and displays, sensors, 

and Nano-Electromechanical Systems (NEMS) are centered at Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Adelphi; the work on organic nano-materials is largely at ARL Aberdeen. The Army’s Natick Soldier Center (NSC) also invests in innovative 

nanotechnology initiatives, including projects in nano-photonics, nano-composites, 

nano-fiber membranes and photovoltaics. The Air Force nano-materials program is 

largely centered at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton. It has work on nano-composites, inorganic nano-clusters, nano-phase metals and ceramics, nanotribology, 

nanobiomimetics and nanoelectronics. The Navy program is centered at the Naval 

Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington DC. NRL has created a Nanoscience Institute with the goal of fostering interdisciplinary research that cuts across the NRL 

organizational structures. A new NRL Nanoscience Building will come on-line in the 

fall of 2003; it has been specially designed to minimize those noise sources that 

would limit the precision of nanostructure measurement / manipulation. To fully exploit this new building capability, NRL will welcome collaborations with external researchers. 

In 2002, the Army established a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), 

the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN), at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (MIT), awarding a 5-year $50M contract for the development of 

nanoscale technologies for soldier performance and protection. ISN works in partnership with industry to produce revolutionary technologies to enhance soldier survivability in the battlespace. The industrial partners working with the ISN provide 

needed core competencies, expertise in transitioning technologies from the laboratory to the real world, and cost sharing. 

DOD contributions to National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Planning/

Reporting 

The DOD has been an active participant in the initial Interagency Working Group 

on Nanostructures and its successor body, the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and 

Technology (NSET) committee. I, while a staff member at the Naval Research Laboratory, served as the first director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. In addition, several workshops have been executed by DOD scientists/engineers 

in support of revisions to the NNI implementation plan. 

9

Nanoscience shows great promise for arrays of inexpensive, integrated, miniaturized sensors for chemical / biological / radiological / explosive (CBRE) agents, for 

nanostructures enabling protection against agents and for nanostructures that neutralize agents. The recent terrorist events motivated accelerated insertion of innovative technologies to improve the national security posture relative to CBRE. Since 

DOD has considerable experience in this topic, DOD scientists led the effort to redefine a NNI Grand Challenge to address this important topic. They also organized 

an AVS (formerly the American Vacuum Society) hosted workshop on 

Nanotechnology for CBRE Protection and Detection. The report for that workshop 

is available at: http://www.wtec.org/nanoreports/cbre/

In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003, Section 246, addressed the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program. It states that the Secretary of Defense shall carry out a defense nanotechnology research and development program. The purposes of the program are stated as: 

(1) To ensure United States global superiority in nanotechnology necessary for 

meeting national security requirements. 

(2) To coordinate all nanoscale research and development within the Department 

of Defense, and to provide for inter-agency cooperation and collaboration on 

nanoscale research and development between the Department of Defense and other 

departments and agencies of the United States that are involved in nanoscale research and development. 

(3) To develop and manage a portfolio of fundamental and applied nanoscience 

and engineering research initiatives that is stable, consistent, and balanced across 

scientific disciplines. 

(4) To accelerate the transition and deployment of technologies and concepts derived from nanoscale research and development into the Armed Forces, and to establish policies, procedures, and standards for measuring the success of such efforts. 

(5) To collect, synthesize, and disseminate critical information on nanoscale research and development. 

The report directs the DOD Director of Defense Research and Engineering to submit to the congressional defense committees an annual report on the program. The 

report shall contain the following matters: 

(1) A review of——

(A) the long-term challenges and specific technical goals of the program; and 

(B) the progress made toward meeting those challenges and achieving those 

goals. 

(2) An assessment of current and proposed funding levels, including the adequacy 

of such funding levels to support program activities. 

(3) A review of the coordination of activities within the Department of Defense, 

with other departments and agencies, and with the National Nanotechnology Initiative. 

(4) An assessment of the extent to which effective technology transition paths 

have been established as a result of activities under the program. 

(5) Recommendations for additional program activities to meet emerging national 

security requirements. 

The DOD will prepare these reviews, assessments, and recommendations in conjunction with the related efforts for the NNI as a whole. 

In closing, the Department of Defense investment in basic research over the last 

20 years is paying off in transformational capabilities to the DOD. I have mentioned 

only a few examples within the DOD nanoscience Science & Technology program. 

I believe the Department of Defense successes in nanotechnology are significant, 

and I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to tell you about them.

Thank you.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Murday, for your insight, and I also like your enthusiasm. Some people may look at 

this and think, ‘‘Well, what is that? It’s a piece of pipe,’’ or whatever. But the specifics of it and the specifications and its longevity 

do mean a great deal, and it is—the way that we’re going to have 

to compete and succeed in the future, is with these sort of, while 

seeming mundane, very, very significant improvements. And thank 

you very much. 

Now we’d like to hear from Dr. Roberto. Dr. Roberto? 

10

STATEMENT OF JAMES ROBERTO, PH.D., ASSOCIATE

LABORATORY DIRECTOR FOR PHYSICAL SCIENCES, OAK 

RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. ROBERTO. Chairman Allen, Senator Wyden, I’m the Associate 

Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is a Department of Energy multi-program 

laboratory managed by UT/Battelle, a partnership of the University 

of Tennessee and the Battelle Memorial Institute. It is an honor to 

appear before the Committee in support of the 21st Century 

Nanotechnology R&D Act. 

In my role at Oak Ridge, I oversee the physical sciences, which 

includes nanoscale science and technology. This includes the development of ORNL’s Center for Nanophased Materials Sciences, one 

of DOE’s five planned nanoscale science research centers. These 

centers are state-of-the-art user facilities that we have located at 

Argonne, Berkeley, Brookhaven, Los Alamos, and Sandia, and Oak 

Ridge National Laboratories. Each center will focus on nanoscale 

research and development that leverages the unique capabilities of 

the host laboratory, including major synchrotron, neutron, and 

microfabrication facilities. The DOE nanotechnology centers will 

help fulfill a presidential priority of providing American researchers with the foremost capability in this breakthrough technology. 

Not only DOE researchers, but also other agencies, U.S. industry 

and universities will benefit from these centers. 

The excitement surrounding nanoscale science and technology is 

real. Recently, we held a DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers 

workshop in Washington. We attracted more than 400 scientists 

and engineers from 94 universities, 40 industries, and 15 federal 

laboratories. More than 2,000 researchers have attended regional 

and national workshops for these centers. In fact, it’s difficult to 

find a month without a national or international meeting in this 

field. 

Nanoscale science and technology crosscuts the traditional disciplines of material science, chemistry, physics, biology, computational science, and engineering. It occupies the frontiers of these 

fields and includes some of the most challenging research problems. 

The solution to these problems offer a line of sight to technical advances of enormous potential in materials, information technology, 

health care, and national security. Many see nanotechnology as the 

basis of the next industrial revolution. 

For the Department of Energy, the opportunities that are afforded by nanoscale science and technology are unprecedented. Research on the synthesis and properties of nanoscale systems consisting of tens to thousands of atoms underpins progress in a multitude of high-impact fields, including catalysis science, photovoltaic, sensor technology, high-performance alloys, and advanced 

materials for fuel cells and hydrogen storage. Applications include 

low-cost, high-efficiency solar cells, materials that are 10 to 100 

times stronger than steel at one-sixth the weight, energy-efficient 

smart coatings for windows, high-efficiency solid-state lighting, and 

new catalysts for energy conversion and chemical processing. These 

applications offer enormous energy, national security, environmental, and economic benefits. 

11

John Marburger, the Director of OSTP, describes the 

nanotechnology revolution as one in which the notion that everything is made of atoms has a real operational significance. This has 

been made possible by extraordinary tools, such as synchrotron 

light sources, neutron sources, electron microscopes, scanning probe 

microscopes, and high-performance computers. These tools have enabled the atomic scale characterization, manipulation, and simulation of complex assemblies of atoms and molecules. This bottomsup view of the physical world embraces breathtaking complexity 

and seemingly endless possibilities. 

We are now at a crossroads in the physical sciences. The boundaries between the scientific disciplines are disappearing at the 

nanoscale. The study of simple isolated systems is giving way to 

complex assemblies. We are moving from atomic-scale characterization to atomic-scale control, from miniaturization to self assembly. 

This paradigm shift for the physical sciences rivals other revolutions in science, such as the revolution in biology following the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. 

It is this opportunity and the technological impact that will result that underpins the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and 

Development Act. This act is an important element of the strategy 

to strengthen the physical sciences in the United States. Other 

components include the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, the Energy Research Development, Demonstration, and 

Commercial Application Act, and Energy Science Research Investment Act. 

The traceability of advances in the physical sciences to economic 

growth, new medical technology, energy independence, and enhanced national security is very strong. As you know, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has given 

high priority to strengthening the physical sciences, including 

nanoscale science and technology. 

I appreciate the committee’s leadership in this area. I firmly believe that the future of our Nation depends on continued leadership 

at the scientific and technological frontier, a frontier that includes 

nanoscale science and technology. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Roberto follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES ROBERTO, PH.D., ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR

FOR PHYSICAL SCIENCES, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

My name is James Roberto, and I am the Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL is a Department of 

Energy multiprogram laboratory managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, a partnership of the 

University of Tennessee and Battelle Memorial Institute. It is an honor to appear 

before the Committee in support of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and 

Development Act. 

In my role at ORNL I oversee the physical sciences, including nanoscale science 

and technology. This includes the development of ORNL’s Center for Nanophase 

Materials Sciences (CNMS), one of DOE’s five planned Nanoscale Science Research 

Centers. The Nanoscale Science Research Centers are state-of-the-art user facilities 

for nanoscale science and technology that will be located at Argonne, Berkeley, 

Brookhaven, Los Alamos and Sandia, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Each 

Center will focus on nanoscale research and development that leverages the unique 

capabilities of the host laboratory including major synchrotron, neutron, and microfabrication facilities. The DOE nanotechnology centers will help fulfill a Presidential 

12

priority of providing American researchers with the foremost capability in this 

breakthrough technology. Not only will DOE researchers benefit from these centers, 

but also other agencies, U.S. industry and our universities will benefit from these 

new capabilities. 

The excitement surrounding nanoscale science and technology is real. The recent 

DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers Workshop and National Users Meeting in 

Washington, DC, attracted more than 400 scientists and engineers from 94 universities, 40 industries, and 15 federal laboratories. More than 2000 researchers have 

attended regional and national workshops for the DOE Nanoscale Science Research 

Centers. It is difficult to find a month without a national or international meeting 

in this field. 

Nanoscale science and technology crosscuts the traditional disciplines of materials 

science, chemistry, physics, biology, computational science, and engineering. It occupies the frontiers of these fields and includes some of the most challenging research 

problems. The solutions to these problems offer a line-of-sight to technical advances 

of enormous potential in materials, information technology, healthcare, and national 

security. Many see nanotechnology as the basis of the next industrial revolution. 

For the Department of Energy, the opportunities provided by nanoscale science 

and technology are unprecedented. Research on the synthesis and properties of 

nanoscale systems consisting of tens to thousands of atoms underpins progress in 

a multitude of high-impact fields including catalysis science, photovoltaics and 

thermoelectrics, sensor technology, high-performance alloys, advanced materials for 

fuel cells and hydrogen storage, and membrane technology. Applications include 

low-cost high-efficiency solar cells, materials 10–100 times the strength of steel at 

1/6th the weight, energy-efficient ‘‘smart’’ coatings for windows, high-efficiency solid 

state lighting devices, and new catalysts for energy conversion and chemical processing. These applications offer enormous energy, national security, environmental, 

and economic benefits. 

John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, describes 

the nanotechnology revolution as one in which ‘‘the notion that everything is made 

of atoms has a real operational significance.’’ This has been made possible by extraordinary tools such as synchrotron light sources, neutron sources, electron microscopes, scanning probe microscopes, and high-performance computers. These tools 

have enabled the atomic-scale characterization, manipulation, and simulation of 

complex assemblies of atoms and molecules. This is a ‘‘bottoms up’’ view of the physical world—Mother Nature’s view—that embraces breathtaking complexity and 

seemingly endless possibilities. 

We are at a crossroads in the physical sciences. The boundaries between scientific 

disciplines are disappearing at the nanoscale. The study of simple, isolated systems 

is giving way to complex assemblies. We are moving from atomic-scale characterization to atomic-scale control, from miniaturization to self-assembly. Change is opportunity, and this paradigm shift for the physical sciences rivals other revolutions in 

science, such as the revolution in biology following the discovery of the molecular 

structure of DNA. 

It is this opportunity, and the technological impact that will result, that underpin 

the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. This Act is an important element of the strategy to strengthen the physical sciences in the United 

States. Other components include The Nanotechnology Research and Development 

Act of 2003 (H.R. 766), the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and 

Commercial Application Act of 2003 (H.R. 238) and the Energy and Science Research Investment Act of 2003 (S. 917 and H.R. 34). The traceability of advances 

in the physical sciences to economic growth, new medical technology, energy independence, and enhanced national security is strong. As you know, the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has given high priority to 

strengthening the physical sciences, including nanoscale science and technology. I 

appreciate the Committee’s leadership in this area, and I firmly believe that the future of our Nation depends on continued leadership at the scientific and technological frontier, a frontier that includes nanoscale science and technology.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Dr. Roberto, and we’ll have questions 

for you later, because I’m all intrigued by some of those great advancements you’re talking about there at Oak Ridge. 

Now we’d like to hear from Dr. Clayton Teague, director of the 

National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. 

Dr. Teague? 

13

STATEMENT OF E. CLAYTON TEAGUE, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY COORDINATION OFFICE 

Dr. TEAGUE. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, and Senator Sununu, I am 

pleased and honored to have this opportunity to appear before you 

today to address the plans for the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and the Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology, or the NSET Subcommittee, of the National Science and 

Technology Council. 

I believe strongly in the potential and the importance of 

nanotechnology for the security, the economic prosperity, and the 

welfare of our Nation. I also share this Committee’s belief that federal support for nanotechnology R&D is essential for the nation to 

realize the full benefits of this emerging field. 

I’ve submitted my written testimony for your consideration, so 

here I would just emphasize three important points from that 

record. 

The first one, nanotechnology is practically limitless in its potential for creating new materials, new devices, and systems. The initial commercialization and economic impact that we’re just beginning to see is only a hint of what I think is to come. Let me illustrate. 

There are 6,720 ways to permute the six different letters among 

the eight characters or places in the name of the Chairman’s State, 

Virginia. There are 6,720 ways to permute the six different letters 

among the eight characters or places in the name of the Chairman’s State, Virginia. So if you took the six different characters 

and you looked at all the possible ways that you could relocate 

them, you would find there are 6,720 different ways that you could 

do that. 

So now if you imagine the huge number of possible permutations 

of the 91 atoms that make up the periodic table among the millions 

of places in a small nanostructure, what we can build, if you think 

about all of those possibilities, will really be limited more by our 

creativity and our imagination than by the laws of physics. However, the great promise that we’ve just talked about, in terms of 

that rich area, must be tempered with the realization that our 

nanotechnology capabilities are in a very embryonic and infant 

stage, as Dr. Murday had talked about. 

As someone who was involved in it for many years, it’s sort of 

surprising to realize that it’s taken us 20 years to progress from 

the ability to see atoms, and then to manipulate them, and finally, 

a few years ago, to build a simple three-atom structure. Twenty 

years. So to build a nanostructure large enough to observe in an 

optical microscope, about one micrometer, would require assembling millions of atoms. I hope that talking about that in that sense 

would give you a sense of the amazing potential that nanotechology 

has and also a sense of the tasks remaining for us to realize that 

potential. 

My second point, nanotechnology research has potential applications in all the multiple-agency mission areas, and the NNI and 

the NCET were created to ensure coordination to ensure federal 

funding and to engender the rapid development of nanotechnology 

in the United States. 

14

Technology transfer and commercialization have been the key 

elements of the NNI plan from its inception. The NCET and members agencies have responded by designing industry outreach activities into their NNI-related programs. Some specific examples 

are given in my written testimony, and I believe if you examine 

those that you will see that their impact is evidenced by the exponential growth over the past several years in the number of technical papers and articles that have been written on 

nanotechnology, the number of U.S. patents that have been filed, 

nanotechnology companies formed, and products brought to the 

market. 

Nanotechnology-based products that have become available, just 

even over the last year, range from water filters for removing 

harmful microorganisms to protective and glare-reducing coatings 

for eyeglasses and cars to stain-free clothing and mattresses. For 

the future, nanotechnology promises a lot of the things you’ve already heard about today, but breakthroughs in biomedicine, sensor 

technologies, and energy production and storage. 

My third and final point, the NNI has grown in scope and scale 

over the last four years, and it’s now in a stage for refocusing and 

strengthening, including a review by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the PCAST. 

PCAST will serve as the independent-standing nanoscience and 

nanotechnology advisory board called for in the recent NRC report 

that Senator Wyden mentioned. The PCAST is well-suited to conduct this review since its members have extensive expertise in 

technological developments, the operation of federal R&D programs 

and technology transfer. The PCAST panel also has the seniority 

and the visibility that will assure that its findings have impact. 

PCAST and co-chair Floyd Kvamme have already begun their review and planning processes. 

PCAST’s work plan focuses on first refining the grand-challenge 

topics to guide the NNI program; and, second, assisting in the development of an NNI strategic plan that was also called for in the 

NRC report. These two tasks are complementary to the activities 

of the NCET toward formulating a new NNI strategic plan. 

In summary, nanotechnology is still at a very early stage of development, and there are tremendous opportunities and challenges 

before us. The NNI has, for almost five years now, served as an effective means for coordinating federally funded activities in 

nanotechnology. As this initiative matures and grows, the NNCO 

is scaling up to meet the additional responsibilities that this entails. 

We greatly appreciate the endorsement of the NNI’s achievements and potential that was implicit in the language of the proposed 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development 

Act. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Wyden and Senator Sununu, we 

thank you, again, for your support in bringing this bill forth. The 

NNCO staff and I look forward to working with the other members 

of the NCET, PCAST, and the legislative branch to move the NNI, 

hopefully, into the next stage of the maturing era of the 

nanotechnology program. 

Thank you. 

15

[The prepared statement of Dr. Teague follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF E. CLAYTON TEAGUE, PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

NANOTECHNOLOGY COORDINATION OFFICE

Chairman Allen, Senator Wyden, Members of the Committee, I am pleased and 

honored to have this opportunity to appear before you today in behalf of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). I, and all agency representatives on the NSET Subcommittee, believe strongly in the tremendous potential and importance of 

nanotechnology for the security, economic prosperity, and general welfare of our nation. We also share this Committee’s belief that federal support for nanotechnology 

R&D is essential for efficient development of the scientific understanding, advanced 

facilities, education, and standards necessary for timely translation of R&D in 

nanotechnology into true economic development. 

As the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has defined it, nanotechnology 

is the ability to work—to see, measure, and manipulate—at the atomic, molecular, 

and supramolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1–100 nm range, 

with the goal of understanding and creating useful materials, devices, and systems 

that exploit the fundamentally new properties, phenomena, and functions resulting 

from their small structure. So, nanotechnology is not just the study of small things. 

Nanoscale research and development is the study of materials, devices, and systems 

that exhibit physical and chemical properties quite different from those found in 

larger scale systems. Take the semiconductor cadmium sulfide as an example. In its 

large-scale form, it is typically used as a material for constructing detectors of light. 

But, when it is formed as small crystals of less than 10 nm—termed quantum 

dots—the material as a nanostructure has the property of fluorescing with a color 

dependent on the size of the crystal. In a demonstration accompanying this testimony, I would like to show the Committee this nanoscale size-dependent phenomenon. When illuminated with near-ultraviolet light, five vials of liquid containing cadmium sulfide quantum dots ranging in size from 3 nanometers to 7 

nanometers will be shown to fluoresce with colors ranging from blue to red, the blue 

light being produced by the 3 nanometer quantum dots and the red light being produced by the 7 nanometer quantum dots. Such size-dependent quantum dots and 

nanorods promise to have a wide range of applications in improved solar cells, biological imaging of cells, and faster DNA testing. 

This NSET focused definition of nanotechnology, along with the NNI vision and 

program elements, were carefully prescribed in the basic research directions document for the NNI, drafted in 1999. The definition, vision, and program elements 

have served the program as guiding principles for the NNI since that time. More 

than thirty other countries have also modeled their nanotechnology programs on the 

NNI. 

As a scientist who has worked for over twenty-five years in some of the fields now 

included in nanotechnology, I’d now like to offer my perspective on how this technology is developing. Then, I’ll describe plans for the NNCO and the interactions 

underway between the NNCO, the NSET Subcommittee, and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). 

I had the privilege early in my career of observing the phenomenon of quantum 

mechanical tunneling between two small gold spheres spaced about one 

nanometer—ten atomic diameters—apart. In classical physics no current flow would 

occur between metals not touching. But in quantum mechanics, the electrons ‘‘tunnel’’ through this potential energy barrier produced by the physical gap. With a 

small voltage applied between the spheres, changing the spacing between them by 

only one atomic diameter would cause the current flow to change by a factor of ten, 

an extraordinarily large change. This characteristic of quantum mechanical tunneling between two closely spaced metals—known and predicted by theory—proved 

to be the basis for the totally unexpected discovery later by Gerd Binnig and 

Heinrich Rhorer that by carefully moving a sharpened metal tip about one 

nanometer above a surface one could resolve and draw images of the individual 

atoms constituting the surface. For the first time in scientific history, we could virtually reach down and touch the very rudiments of all matter—the atoms! Nothing 

in my career has generated as much sustained excitement and stirred as much 

imagination and creativity as did this discovery. That was twenty years ago, and 

I still marvel at the beautiful and refined images of atoms obtained with this instrument, the scanning tunneling microscope. 

16

About ten years later, Don Eigler and colleagues demonstrated that using a scanning tunneling microscope they could not only reach down and touch the atoms but, 

in addition, could controllably move individual atoms around on a surface and build 

atomic structures they designed—atomically precise letters of the alphabet and 

quantum corrals for electrons. There have been many other developments since then 

leading to the current rapid development of nanotechnology, but these two demonstrations are clearly the events that energized the scientific community to begin 

thinking seriously about the real possibility of atom-by-atom structuring of matter. 

Parallel to these developments in the direct mechanical manipulation of atoms 

with the scanning tunneling microscope, similar exciting things were taking place 

in other fields now included in nanotechnology. The discovery of fullerene molecules—buckyballs and nanotubes—sprang from the study of small clusters of carbon; ultra miniaturization of microelectronics produced the burgeoning field of thin 

film superlattices and quantum dots; DNA and other biomolecules emerged from 

biotechnology as unique building blocks; the study of very large or supramolecules 

produced surprisingly efficient catalysts. This is only a small number of the fields 

overlapping with the field now termed nanotechnology; each has its own exciting 

story of discovery and rapid development over the last ten years or so. 

With all these approaches and processes, just imagine the astounding number of 

structures one can build with the 91 atoms of the periodic table. The rich possibilities may be appreciated by considering the large number of atoms in typical 

nanoscale sized structures. Nanoscale structures with dimensions of 1 nanometer 

can contain up to about 100 atoms; those with dimensions of 2 nanometers, up to 

about 1000 atoms; and those with dimensions of 100 nanometers, up to about 100 

million atoms. The number of possible structures within this nanoscale size range 

isn’t infinite but it is huge. The structures that we can build will be limited more 

by our creativity and imagination than by the ultimate bounding of possibilities 

posed by the laws of physics. 

So where are we in our abilities to realize all these wonderfully rich possibilities, 

and why is there a need for so much research and development? First, even with 

the rapid progress made in scanning probe techniques for assembling atoms, the 

first assembly of atoms involving true molecular bonding was only achieved in 2000 

and that was assembling a three-atom structure. Currently, we have an inadequate 

degree of control at the nanoscale and our tools and processes for assembling atoms 

are very slow. We still do not have the understanding, the tools, and processes for 

the full control of assembling reasonably large numbers of atoms into desired structures. As an example, we cannot form single wall nanotubes with a known twist or 

chirality. This is critical because depending on the twist of the nanotubes; they may 

be metals or semiconductors. Speed in forming a macroscopic quantity of these 

nanostructures, say enough for a drug tablet, is critical because it requires assembling about a million, billion, billion, atoms! Innovative combinations of top-down 

tools such as lithography with methods of directed self-assembly of atoms and molecules have provided means to overcome some of the speed limitations yet with 

some resultant loss in ultimate control of the atomic and molecular form of the resulting structures. 

This gives you a sense of the task remaining before us and the amazing potential 

for making new materials, devices and systems as we continue to engage the challenges. 

In the Marketplace Today 

Relative to the long-range potential just outlined, nanotechnology is truly in its 

embryonic stage of development. Yet, many important nanotechnology-based products are already in use today. Few people are aware of these first commercial nano 

products because they are more incremental than revolutionary. 

Some applications of nanotechnology have been in use for many years, and we can 

now begin to appreciate their economic impact. The U.S. oil industry saves an estimated 400 million barrels of oil each year, representing some $12 billion, through 

the use of nanoparticles called zeolites, which act as molecular sieves. Zeolites extract up to 40 percent more gasoline from crude oil than the catalysts that were previously used. Recently, the automotive industry was able to substantially reduce the 

amount of precious metals used in its catalytic converters and extend the longevity 

of the converters, in part due to advancements in nanostructured catalysts. These 

examples show how significant a contribution nanotechnology can make to our economy, environment, and natural resources management. 

Other nanotechnology based products that have become available over the last 

year or two include:

• Nanoparticle filters for removing viruses, bacteria, and protozoa such as hepatitis A, E-coli and giardia from water

17

• Nanocomposites in running boards and bumpers on automobiles to decrease 

weight and improve corrosion resistance

• Thin layers engineered at the nanoscale to produce protective and glare-reducing coatings for eyeglasses and cars

• Transparent sunscreens with superior UV protection

• Longer-lasting tennis balls due to decreased gas permeability of nanoclay coatings

• Stain-free clothing and mattresses due to nanostructured fiber coatings. In addition, exciting new applications are in the product pipeline, with patents already licensed, and partnerships sealed between product developers and manufacturers. But these near-term applications are modest in comparison to the potential applications of research now being conducted under the auspices of NNI 

funding. Examples include the following:

• Microcantilever arrays incorporating nanostructured coatings that will enable 

detection of multiple chemical warfare agents, explosive vapors, and biological 

agents on a single chip (A. Majumdar, U.C. Berkeley)

• Dip-pen Nanolithography: Use of atomic force microscopes as ‘‘ink pens’’ for use 

in nanolithography for low-cost, ultra high resolution chip manufacturing (C. 

Mirkin, Northwestern University)

• A variety of potential applications of carbon nanotubes, including electrical 

interconnects for nanoscale electronics, hydrogen storage, and even structural 

applications such as nanotube-reinforced composites (R. Smalley, Rice University)

• Digital logic and memory devices manufactured on the molecular scale from 

rotaxane molecules using nanowire interconnects (J. Heath, Caltech)

• Novel antibiotics based on peptide nanotubes that punch holes in bacterial cell 

walls (A. Olson, Scripps Research Institute)

• Low-cost, ultra lightweight, and flexible nanorod-polymer photovoltaic cells (P. 

Alivisatos, UC Berkeley)

• Metallic iron nanoparticles for low-cost, high-efficiency remediation of groundwater contaminated with heavy metals (W. Zhang, Lehigh University)

Nanotechnology is highly interdisciplinary. It is not just chemistry, molecular biology, medicine, physics, engineering, information science and metrology; it is all of 

these fields at once. R&D efforts, accordingly, require extraordinary coordination 

and cooperation within the scientific community, among federal, state, and local 

agencies, and with industry. Further collaboration with industry in particular is 

necessary to commercialize scientific discoveries. 

Technology transfer and commercialization have been key elements of the NNI 

plan from its inception. NSET member agencies have responded to this challenge 

by designing industry outreach activities into many of their funding programs within the NNI. Some examples are included below: 

1. Several agencies (e.g., NIH, NSF and DOE for example) have put out special 

nano SBIR solicitations or have included language specifically encouraging 

nanotechnology-related SBIR proposals. NSF hosted an NNI SBIR workshop in 

March 2002 reporting on the results of initial FY01 SBIR funding in 

nanotechnology. Six agencies (NSF, NIST, NIH, USDA, EPA, and NASA) presented 

information on nanotechnology-related SBIR funding activities at that workshop. In 

data later provided to NNCO, these agencies reported a total of over 65 nano-related 

SBIR awards made in Fiscal Year 2001, with a total funding of over $11 million. 

This figure is not known in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, but the overall NNI budget 

has grown dramatically since FY 2001. 

2. While some NSET agencies are restricted from funding R&D activities in companies (SBIR excepted), other agencies do not have such restrictions. Within the 

NNI, agencies that primarily fund academic research are partnering with agencies 

that can fund industrial development to assure the timely transfer of basic research 

developments into industry. For example, the Department of Defense plays a key 

role in carrying nanotechnology innovations all the way from basic research funded 

at agencies such as ONR and DARPA into industrial practice. Thus, ONR was able 

to accelerate the application of wear-resistant nanostructured coatings developed 

under its basic research funding, and these coatings are now deployed in some Navy 

ships, reducing wear in turbine shaft bearings, in turn reducing the need for major 

propulsion systems overhauls, and thus reducing costs and increasing readiness of 

the Navy fleet. DOD research agencies frequently work with NSF and other basic 

research agencies to co-fund promising academic research, and DOD can pick up the 

18

results and promote the accelerated development of military applications through 

development work funded at major defense contractors. 

3. The Department of Energy’s Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) are 

designed to be ‘‘user facilities’’ open to researchers from U.S. industry. Depending 

on intellectual property rules the industry researchers may be working under, the 

use of the DOE facilities may be free, or may entail the payment of a modest fee. 

DOE held a large meeting on Feb. 26–27, 2003, to formally initiate the NSRC program; the first annual users’ meeting was held on Feb. 28. Members of Congress, 

nanotechnology researchers, and industrialists participated in the meeting, which 

was designed to highlight the opportunities that the new DOE facilities will afford 

to researchers from both academia and industry. 

4. Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers funded by NSF require industrial 

interest and effective plans for cooperation with industry. The focus for FY 2003 is 

on manufacturing processes at the nanoscale, so industrial participation is all the 

more important as NSF reviews the new proposals that will be submitted in response to this year’s solicitation. 

5. Industry participation is required in the NSF program entitled, ‘‘Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI).’’ Several of the GOALI awards 

that were made by NSF in FY02 were closely related to nanotechnology. 

6. The U.S. Army’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at MIT reflects a partnership among MIT, the Army, and private industry. Currently active industrial 

partners include Dupont and Raytheon. 

7. Similarly, the DARPA/DMEA Center for Nanoscience Innovation for Defense 

(University of California at Santa Barbara) maintains close industrial ties, with industry representation on the technical advisory committee and with participation by 

Rockwell Scientific and Motorola. 

8. NSF’s National Nanofabrication Users’ Network (NNUN) provides 

nanofabrication and other research infrastructure at 5 universities around the country, available for use by either industrial or academic researchers. Each year industry researchers conduct hundreds of research projects that involve use of NNUN facilities. NSF plans to re-organize and roughly double the size of the NNUN program 

in the coming year. 

9. The Department of Commerce has assisted the NNI in organizing workshops 

in Los Angeles and Houston aimed at building local and regional alliances between 

researchers, local businesses, and entrepreneurs and investors to promote the commercial development of nanotechnology. Additional workshops are planned in the 

coming year for the Boston and Chicago areas. Reports from these and many other 

nanotechnology-related workshops are available at http://wtec.org/nanoreports/.

10. NSF held a special workshop for public and industry outreach at the Reagan 

Bldg. in Washington, DC on March 19, 2002. Entitled, ‘‘Small Wonders: Exploring 

the Vast Potential of Nanoscience,’’ the meeting featured presentations on promising 

applications of nanotechnology in a wide variety of economic sectors, including materials, medicine, instrumentation, and electronics. Industrial participation included 

representatives from IBM, Lucent, Eastman Kodak, the Semiconductor Research 

Corporation, Motorola, the California Molecular Electronics Corporation, and Digital 

Instruments. 

11. For the past two years running, the NNI has co-sponsored a large annual NNI 

meeting at which representatives of NSET agencies have explained the NNI programs, and at which leading NNI-supported researchers present their most promising findings. There has been significant industry participation in these meetings, 

which have provided yet another forum for building connections between researchers and industrial practitioners. 

12. NNCO is now planning a workshop to enhance coordination between federal 

NNI and state and regional nano initiatives that target economic development and 

commercialization. Key objective of this workshop are to find ways to better promote 

economic development through commercialization of nanotechnology breakthroughs, 

and to leverage the expertise and resources of existing state and local 

nanotechnology efforts. Another objective is to assure the broadest possible geographical distribution of the benefits of nanotechnology development—the meeting 

will feature presentations from states that have established nanotechnology initiatives for the benefit of states and local governments that are hoping to establish 

such programs in the future. We have been working closely with Dr. Nathan Swami 

of the Virginia Nanotechnology Initiative, Sean Murdoch of Atomworks, and Mark 

Modzelewski of the Nanobusiness Alliance to plan and carry out this activity. 

13. Industry leaders are participating in a series of workshops being organized 

this year by the NNCO to help establish detailed research plans corresponding to 

the NNI’s nine grand challenge topics. One example is a workshop held in September of 2002 entitled, ‘‘Vision 2020 for the Chemical Industry.’’ A chemical indusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
19

try group manages the Vision 2020 exercise in cooperation with the DOE/Office of 

Industrial Technologies. This workshop was particularly targeted at identifying 

nanotechnology research opportunities that would benefit the chemical industry. 

Not all of the grand challenge workshops planned for the coming year will be industry-led in the way Vision 2020 was, but all will include representation from key 

companies in the relevant industries affected by the respective grand challenge topics. 

14. A new research and education theme on ‘‘manufacturing at the nanoscale’’ has 

been added to the NSF’s Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE) program solicitation in Fiscal Year 2002, and the program element ‘‘Nanomanufacturing’’ has been 

established in the Directorate for Engineering. NSF invested about $22 million in 

manufacturing research and education in Fiscal Year 2002, and two Nanoscale 

Science and Engineering centers with a focus on nanoscale manufacturing will be 

funded in Fiscal Year 2003. Also, SBIR nanotechnology investment has reached $10 

million in Fiscal Year 2002. 

Because of the complexity, cost and high risk associated with nanotechnology research, the private sector is often unable to assure itself of short- to medium-term 

returns on R&D investments in this field. Consequently, industry is not likely to 

undertake the basic research investments necessary to overcome the technical barriers that currently exist. The traditional government role of supporting basic research is thus particularly important in this case. Additional basic research will be 

needed to make these innovations ready for industry to develop and market. 

The National Nanotechnology Initiative 

The National Nanotechnology Initiative is a critical link between high-risk, novel 

research concepts and new technologies that can be developed by industry. Since the 

creation of the NNI in October 2000, federal funding for nanotechnology has been 

coordinated through the NNI. The NNI has continued to the present time as a successful interagency program that encompasses and promotes relevant 

nanotechnology R&D among the participating federal agencies. The federal agencies 

currently participating in the NNI research budget are as follows:

• National Science Foundation

• Department of Defense

• Department of Energy

• National Institutes of Health

• Department of Commerce

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• Department of Agriculture

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Department of Homeland Security

• Department of Justice

Funding for the NNI provides support for a range of activities, which include: 

basic research on fundamental nanoscale science; focused efforts aimed to achieve 

major, long-term objectives of high significance—so-called ‘‘grand challenges;’’ and 

building research infrastructure (instrumentation, equipment, facilities) and centers 

and networks of excellence (larger, centralized facilities intended to provide sites for 

cooperative and collaborative efforts among distributed networks and groups of researchers at multiple affiliated institutions). Depending on the agency, funding supports research and applications of nanotechnology in support of the respective agency missions, research at national laboratories, and research at academic institutions 

and other research institutes. A portion of the funding is also dedicated to addressing non-technical research problems in a broader context, including societal implications and workforce and training issues. 

The NNI has benefited and grown under this Administration’s strong commitment 

to furthering nanotechnology research and development. Support for the NNI is evidenced by significant funding increases for this interagency initiative in each of 

President Bush’s proposed budgets. That trend continues this year, with a 10-percent increase over last year’s request for nanotechnology (to $849 million) in the 

President’s FY 2004 Budget. In addition, last year the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and OSTP Director Marburger issued a memo to the heads of 

executive departments and agencies identifying nanoscale science and technology as 

one of six interagency research and development priorities. 

20

Nanoscale Science and Engineering Technology Subcommittee 

The research agenda for the ten agencies currently participating in the NNI is 

coordinated by the NSET Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology 

Council (NSTC). As you know, the NSTC is a cabinet-level interagency body through 

which interagency science and technology issues are discussed and coordinated. The 

NSET Subcommittee is staffed by representatives of the participating agencies, 

OSTP, and OMB. It also includes other federal agencies that do not fund 

nanotechnology R&D but nevertheless have an interest in these technologies—agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of the Treasury. There are now 17 agencies participating in the NSET Subcommittee. NSET 

members meet on a monthly basis to measure progress, set priorities, keep abreast 

of nanotechnology R&D being proposed and conducted in the agencies, plan and organize workshops, and plan for the coming year. The agency representatives to the 

NSET, typically program officers, and researchers, have extensive knowledge of and 

experience with nanoscale R&D. This expertise has been of critical importance to 

the success of the initiative, providing a necessary link to nanotechnology researchers in industry and academia. 

Because the cost of nanotechnology instrumentation, equipment and facilities is 

rather high, government funding of such research infrastructure can provide a great 

benefit to both academic and industrial research. An important focus of the NNI, 

for instance, is to develop measurements and standards, research instrumentation, 

modeling and simulation capabilities, and R&D user facilities. Current examples of 

how this type of funding is used are the National Nanofabrication Users Network 

(NNUN), the modeling and simulation Network for Computational Nanotechnology 

sponsored by NSF, and a group of five user-facility Nanoscale Science Research Centers being created by DOE. 

The need for this type of infrastructure is so great that federal agencies are committing additional resources to support the NNI’s efforts. These include a dedicated 

nanoscience facility at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and portions of the 

new Advanced Measurement Laboratory at the NIST. 

The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office 

The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) assists NSET-participating agencies by: (1) serving as secretariat to the NSET Subcommittee, providing 

technical and administrative support, (2) supporting the NSET Subcommittee in the 

preparation of multi-agency planning, budget, and assessment documents, (3) acting 

as the point of contact on Federal Nanotechnology activities for government organizations, academia, industry, professional societies, foreign organizations, and others 

for technical and programmatic information, and (4) developing and making available printed and other communications materials concerning the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative including maintaining a Web site for the Initiative. As 

part of this support, the NNCO produces annual supplements to the President’s 

Budget explaining the NNI portion of the budget request. It also coordinates and 

assists in the conduct of regular workshops based on grand challenge areas. The 

NNCO assists and coordinates the conduct of regional workshops that explore commercialization opportunities for nanotechnology discoveries. These conferences bring 

together scientists, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and large businesses for discussion and exploration of partnerships. Reports produced by the NNCO provide a 

permanent record of conference proceedings and are used by those not in attendance 

to learn more about developments in the field. Under the auspices of the NSTC, the 

NNCO also contracts for periodic program reviews to provide feedback on the NNI. 

The annual budget of the NNCO is approximately $1 million. Three years ago, 

the NSET subcommittee and NNCO coordinated the efforts of six agencies involved 

in nanotechnology R&D. Today, through the NNI, the NSET and NNCO coordinate 

the efforts of 17 participating agencies. The scale of the workload for the NNCO parallels this increase in participating agencies. The NNCO staff is coordinating an increasing stream of workshops proposed by the agencies, and prepares the post-conference reports. Planning and administrative functions have expanded, as will reporting requirements resulting from the pending legislation. 

With an increased number of discoveries and acceleration of commercialization activities here and abroad, staff tracking and reporting to the scientific community 

and government agencies must keep pace. Increased activity at the state and regional levels has brought welcome support for commercialization and another level 

of involvement for the NNCO. 

Current high-priority NNCO projects include the following:

(a) NNCO is working with OSTP and OMB to finalize a supplement to the President’s FY 2004 Budget to explain the NNI activities within the request. 

21

(b) NNCO will follow this with a more detailed report this year, the revised Implementation Plan for the NNI. This will be an update of a similar detailed plan that 

was submitted in July of 2000. 

(c) An interagency workshop being led by the Environmental Protection Agency 

will address environmental implications as well as applications of nanotechnology. 

The purpose of this September workshop is to define the future research agenda for 

EPA and other agencies in the NNI that support nanotechnology research aimed to 

enhance environmental quality through pollution detection, prevention, treatment, 

and remediation. 

(d) The National Institutes of Health is taking the lead in organizing a workshop 

to explore opportunities for supporting more research at the intersection of 

nanotechnology and biology, as recommended in the NRC report. This is tentatively 

scheduled for October. 

(e) Another workshop scheduled for September will facilitate collaboration and 

best practices among state and regional initiatives. 

(f) NNI and the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) are organizing a 

workshop this Fall on nanoelectronics. 

(g) A workshop is tentatively scheduled for this December to assess broader societal implications, including ethical, economic, education/workforce, medical, and national security implications. This is follow-on to a workshop held in September 2000 

on these same subjects. 

(h) A project is underway to produce a brochure for industry, explaining the state 

of nanotechnology, R&D opportunities and resources toward commercialization of 

nanotechnology discoveries. 

(i) Following from all the above activities, NNCO will be coordinating a large 

workshop in early 2004 to integrate inputs from all the grand challenge workshops, 

PCAST suggestions, new legislation, and recommendations of the NRC report and 

produce a new ‘‘crisp, compelling plan’’ for the NNI. This will be a reprise and 5-

year update of the January 1999 workshop that produced the first detailed technical 

plan, the report entitled, Nanotechnology Research Directions.

Recognizing the growing complexity of this multi-agency effort, OSTP asked me 

to begin serving on April 15 of this year as the full-time Director of NNCO. (In the 

past, Dr. James Murday had served as the Director of the NNCO in a half-time capacity.) Among my specific charges are increasing communications between the 

OSTP, NNCO and the NSET; promoting a higher level of coordination of 

nanotechnology R&D among the Departments and agencies participating in the 

NSET; and providing an increased level of support for the NSET Subcommittee in 

preparation of planning, budgeting, and assessment documents. Recognizing the increasing need for public outreach for greater understanding of nanotechnology and 

its societal implications, the NNCO has hired a full-time communications director 

and will be undertaking an array of communication tasks, including enhancing the 

NNI Web Site. 

NSET and NNCO Interactions with PCAST 

Relevant to the legislation before the committee is the report of the National Research Council (NRC) following their study of the NNI. Entitled Small Wonders, 

Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the report, 

published in the summer of 2002, highlighted the strong leadership of the NNI, 

praised the degree of interagency collaboration, and lauded the early successes of 

the research programs. 

As you know, the National Research Council (NRC) recommended that the federal 

nanotechnology research program would benefit from an outside review. As noted 

in the President’s FY04 Budget, the Administration concurs that an independent review is warranted, and has asked the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology (PCAST) to undertake this effort. 

PCAST has already begun its work in this regard, and the NNCO staff is excited 

to be working with the PCAST membership on this task. PCAST is well suited to 

conduct this review, as its members have extensive experience and expertise in technological developments, how federal R&D programs operate, and how R&D effectively translates to the economy. This type of broad experience offer perspectives on 

how nanotechnology can address key issues facing industries today (e.g., the ‘‘red 

brick wall’’ referred to in the recent ‘‘International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors’’ report). 

The preliminary PCAST work plan for its role in advising the NNI, approved at 

the March 3 PCAST meeting, sets out as one of its first tasks the review and assessment of the NNI’s ‘‘grand challenges’’—the nine areas where nanotechnology can 

make significant contributions to national goals and priorities outlined in the current NNI program plan. The industrial backgrounds of many PCAST members are 

22

particularly appropriate to this role, providing a broader perspective beyond laboratory research. 

PCAST also offers the benefits of timeliness and effectiveness. PCAST already exists, and has already begun its nanotechnology work with the intent on providing 

some recommendations by late summer, in time for the FY05 budget process. Importantly, too, PCAST is an established and well-regarded entity within the Administration. Its advice will be well-received. 

The PCAST review of the NNI will be an ongoing project that provides continuing 

recommendations to the President on how to improve the program. PCAST will 

work in coordination with the National Science and Technology Council, as well as 

the NNCO. PCAST’s initial effort will be assisting in the development of a crisp, 

compelling and overarching strategic plan, and refining the list of specific ‘‘grand 

challenge’’ topics to guide the NNI program. NSET and NNCO are working with 

OSTP already in organizing a series of workshops aimed at setting specific objectives within those grand challenge topics and clarifying the research agendas for 

NSET member agencies that will lead to the achievement of those objectives. 

PCAST then intends to explore additional issues, such as program metrics, and also 

to monitor the response to the guidance it provides. 

To assist in these activities, PCAST has formed three internal task forces—one 

on materials, electronics and photonics, one on energy and the environment, and one 

on medical, bio and social issues. In addition, PCAST is forming an external technical task force to gain input on technical nanotechnology issues as may be needed. 

Additional consultations will naturally occur as well. At its March 3rd meeting, for 

example, PCAST met with three leading nanotechnology scientists—Richard 

Smalley, Richard Siegel, and Samuel Stupp (who led the NRC review). PCAST coChair Floyd Kvamme also met with the NSET members at NSETs last meeting in 

early April and I, as the new NNCO coordinator, have already met with Mr. 

Kvamme as well. 

The NNCO is pleased to have PCAST’s experience available for counsel, and looks 

forward to working with PCAST in the months and years to come. 

In another structural change, the OSTP has proposed that the NSET Subcommittee be re-constituted with higher level agency membership to enable enhanced coordination and priority setting. We at the NNCO recognize the importance 

of high-level agency involvement in the NNI. For the active support of planning and 

conducting workshops and generally tracking technological innovations, we will rely 

on the current membership of the NSET, which under the OSTP plan would be reformulated as an interagency working group. The members’ extensive knowledge of 

and experience with nanoscale R&D has been and will continue to be of critical importance to the success of the initiative, providing a necessary link to 

nanotechnology researchers in industry and academia. 

Summary and Final Comments 

In summary, nanotechnology is still at a very early stage of development, and 

there are many challenges and opportunities before us. The NNI has for almost five 

years now served as a very effective means for coordinating federally funded activities in nanotechnology. As this initiative matures and grows in scope and scale, the 

National Nanotechnology Coordination Office is also scaling up to meet the additional responsibilities that this entails. We greatly appreciate the endorsement of 

the NNI’s achievements and future potential implicit in the language of the proposed 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you again for your support. 

The NSET, NNCO staff and I look forward to continuing to work with you and your 

staff to refine and improve the program and the legislation currently under consideration.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Dr. Teague. 

Thank you, all doctors, here. I’ll go, perhaps, a line of questioning 

here. I’ll begin and then turn it over to Senator Wyden, and Senator Sununu may also, I’m sure, have some insightful questions of 

you, as well. 

Listening to you all, you all talked about all these different developmental levels. They’re something tangible, which is good. A lot 

of this, again, is very early. There is much research and development going on in a variety of ways, some at colleges and univerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
23

sities, clearly in the private sector, some in your variety of perspectives in governmental agencies. 

I’d ask each one of you, what—and I was thinking, looking at 

each of you is—what are the greatest barriers today for the application for the variety of these very exciting opportunities of 

nanotechnology and a variety of disciplines and getting the applications of this into the commercial sector? Now, some of it is research. But, more importantly, could you share with me, and share 

with the Committee, what’s the biggest barrier, what is, let’s say, 

the greatest challenge for the transfer of these advances of 

nanotechnology to the commercial sector? 

And I’ll go with you, Drs. Murday, Roberto, and Teague. 

Dr. MURDAY. Okay, you’ve identified a problem that I’m sure 

you’re well aware is not unique to nano——

Senator ALLEN. Right. 

Dr. MURDAY.—how you get something out of science and discovery into technology is a never-ending challenge, and so this is 

just one variant on it. 

There are a couple of things that I think that need to be addressed. One is, we are just now opening up these nanostructures 

that Dr. Teague talked about. Their quality factor, to be able to 

manufacture on the large scale in a cost-effective fashion is still 

somewhat limited. We’ve got to address manufacturability, especially to get the reliability and cost improvements that are necessary. 

Second, we’ve got to look to moving ideas out of universities, 

since most of the funding out of the NNI is in the universities, by 

intent. We have the science discoveries happening there and the 

mechanisms to move the ideas out of the universities and into the 

commercial sector is the challenge, as it is for the other discoveries 

in science, as well. But we’re trying to work with the States and 

local bodies to help that process to create, through NSF, in particular, the NSECs, which have university involved directly with 

industry. Within the DOD, there has been a UARC, a university 

affiliated research center, for soldier nanotechnologies up at MIT. 

So deliberately reaching out into the university community and 

helping them form alliances with companies. 

We’ve also tried to pay attention to the SBIR programs, because 

that is a mechanism to reach out and push new ideas into new 

businesses. And a number of the State, both private and public, 

universities are creating science parks where you can get these 

SBIRs nurtured and the SBIR provides some of the funds that’s appropriate to it. 

Finally, we’re trying to reach out into the venture-capital community, as well, keep them aware of what are the true opportunities, trying to be careful not to over-hype the area to lead to unrealistic expectations. But I have a viewgraph that I sometimes use 

that says ‘‘nanotechnology is the real dot-com,’’ as opposed to the 

bust of 10 years ago. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Dr. Murday. 

Dr. Roberto? 

Dr. ROBERTO. I guess I’d like to say three things. First of all, the 

line of sight from the scientific discoveries in nanotechnology and 

applications is a lot clearer than many other areas of science, and 

24

so, in this sense, I think that a very difficult job is made a little 

bit easier in this field. 

Second, certainly coming from a DOE national laboratory, I’m 

aware of the level of effort that goes into technology transfer and 

into bringing in the university partners and to identifying opportunities into the effort to get technology out into the marketplace. I’m 

also aware that many research universities have similar efforts underway. And my general feeling is that, in the area of nanoscale 

science and technology, that we are finding there’s a very significant interest, and we are making those partnerships in a more productive or easy fashion, not that it is ever an easy task bringing 

these various parties together. 

Finally, the DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers really are 

developed to help enable this process. These will be state-of-the-art 

centers. They will be located at laboratories. We’ve already made 

a billion-dollar level investments in neutron sources or synchrotron 

sources or micro-fabrication equipment. And they will be available 

to universities and industry, and will provide an opportunity for 

labs and universities and industries to work together in areas that 

can help bring the science into the marketplace. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you. 

Dr. Teague? 

Dr. TEAGUE. I guess I’d like to comment on it, first, from a scientific standpoint, in terms of taking things from the research laboratory to the commercialization. But I think one of the things that 

you probably have heard some other people say, but just to re-emphasize it, is that I think that, following up on Dr. Murday’s comments about the manufacturability and the manufacturing process, 

is that one of the things that is so needed, in almost all the different many processes that you were referring to when you talked 

about how we make nanotechnology products, is the degree of control of the processes that are being used. 

Probably you’ve heard many times about nanotubes and how important and how valuable the nanotubes are. And it’s hard to realize that as much as we had them and as much as you hear about 

them being manufactured as products and things like that, we 

have a very, very loose control over the properties of the nanotubes 

which are manufactured. 

If you’ve looked at—maybe you saw that there’s a pencil that 

some people have that has the nanotube structure printed on the 

surface of the pencil, and it shows you two different ways in which 

you can construct a nanotube. One of them is called the way that 

you—it’s made out a sheet of carbon, and if you roll up a sheet of 

carbon, you have a nanotube. And depending upon the twist that 

you put into it as you roll it up, it totally changes the properties 

of the nanotube. In one way of it being twisted, it’s almost like a 

conductive of metal. If you twist it a slightly different way, it’s like 

semiconductor. If you twist it a slightly different way, it’s an insulator. 

Professor Smalley, several times he said, ‘‘If I had one big challenge right now, it would be how could we manufacture nanotubes 

with a known twist so that I could predict, when I made a 

nanotube, that it would be a metal, a semiconductor, or an insulator?’’ And if you look at a lot of the other products that are 

25

nanotube-based, their structure and their properties are so dependent upon the exact atomic structure of the materials, until that degree of control is absolutely essential for being able to produce, in 

quantity and at low cost, the wonderful things that we can produce 

in ones and twoseys in the laboratory and say, ‘‘Look at these neat 

things.’’ Until you can have control, it’s hard to go from ones and 

twos in the laboratory to something that you can produce as a 

manufacturable product at a good cost. 

And how do you get that better control over the processes? I 

think that that’s the essential part of the federal funding for R&D. 

I think one of the absolutely key parts of the whole nanotechnology 

program in the United States is a very firm realization that there’s 

a lot of investment and a long time of R&D, probably as long of 

an R&D investment to bring something to this high degree of control as has been with almost any other technology. So I think one 

of the ways to bring something to market is to realize that it’s 

going to take good support at the federal level to carry out and 

complete the really underlying fundamental research and development so that companies can pick it up at a level that is economically viable for them to move into the marketplace and make good 

production. 

Senator ALLEN. First to Dr. Murday. The answer to my question 

really is nothing new. That’s the—basic economics, commercial application, no matter what’s coming out of universities, the commercialization or obviously protecting the intellectual property, whatever the method of—or whatever the nanotech application may be, 

venture capital opportunities, all of that really is just basic economics that we’ve seen before with any sort of advancement in any new 

idea or process. 

The same applies to what you were saying, Dr. Roberto, although 

you’re saying that the applications are more clear in nanotech, and 

to the extent that those applications are more clear, that does help 

with the venture capital. It all then comes back to standard and, 

probably by analogy, making sure that the methods or standard or 

control of processes——

Dr. ROBERTO. Yes. 

Senator ALLEN.—in what you talk about. Again, I guarantee you 

there’s some analogy. This is not the first time. This is not an issue 

of first impression. 

Dr. ROBERTO. Right. 

Senator ALLEN. And I’m sure this applies to extrusion and the 

manufacturing of all sorts of material——

Dr. ROBERTO. Yeah. 

Senator ALLEN.—plastics, metals, and films, where there needs 

to be that standard or that grading or the method of production 

that has that quality that is desired by whomever the ultimate 

user may be. 

So, fortuitously, we’re at the early stages, but none of these are 

never considered problems. Again, you may have to just use some 

common sense and creativity. And the best of all with this is that 

we’re only limited by our imagination. All of the challenges you all 

brought up here are easily—I shouldn’t say easily surmountable, 

but have been faced before and certainly can be—the challenges 

can be surmounted in the future. 

26

Thank you all. Thank you so much. 

And I’d like to turn it over to Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was really excellent. That was almost like a teach-in on nanotechnology, and I 

thank you for it. 

The panel is just terrific, and I thank you all. And let me get into 

a couple of nuts-and-bolts issues that we’re going to have to work 

out to wrap this up. 

Dr. Teague, on the advisory panel you were quite passionate 

about PCAST, in effect, being the lead, and Senator Allen and I 

have already had all kinds of people lobbying us and jockeying with 

respect to this whole issue. And let me get a sense, a bit, of your 

reaction to how I come at it. 

I mean, if you look at the President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology, this is an extraordinary group. I have 

worked with many of them myself. This is not—in questioning, I 

mean, people like Dr. Healy, Floyd Kvamme—I mean, these are 

people I’ve known for years and I have looked to for help on technology questions. That is not what’s at issue. 

What is at issue is, at first impression, this does not look like a 

group that has a history of involvement in the nanotechnology 

area. This looks like a group of incredibly dedicated, thoughtful 

people, who are going to be coming to nanotechnology for the first 

time. 

So what we did in the last Congress, when I put this legislation 

together with Chairman Allen again now, is we said, what we need 

to do is follow the recommendations of the National Research 

Council, which is, from the get-go, go out and find the very best 

people who, on day one, are going to have some history and some 

involvement with respect to nanotechnology. 

My question to you is—I’d like to hear your reaction to, sort of, 

how I approach this and also your thoughts on how we figure out 

how to work this out and get it resolved, because it—I mean, this 

is a terrific bill. Chairman Allen and I have spent a ton of time on 

it. I’ve already gotten the sense from the House, there’s been a 

dust-up a bit on this issue, and we’re not going to let that happen. 

Chairman Allen and I have worked out much tougher issues than 

this. So let us see if we can have your great minds give us your 

insight on this, and your thoughts, Dr. Teague, with respect to how 

I’ve come to my assessment of this, and what you think we might 

do to make sure we just get this to the President’s desk quickly. 

Dr. TEAGUE. Well, I could certainly concur with that last sentiment. And relative to PCAST, and one of the reasons I guess I was 

very enthusiastic about it is, is that I think that there are members, and some of the ones you mentioned, certainly, who have 

some experience with nanotechnology——

Senator WYDEN. Tell me who, of the PCAST membership now, 

has experience with nanotechnology. I’m not aware that they do, 

and that’s what’s in question, and we need experts like you—I 

mean, just, if you would, Charles Arntzen, Norm Augustine, Carol 

Bartz, Kathleen Behrens, Eric Bloch, Stephen Burke, Wayne 

Clough, Michael Dell, Raul Fernandez, George Scalise, Luis 

Proenza, Steve Papermaster—tremendous group. Who has background today in nanotechnology? 

27

Dr. TEAGUE. Well, the two, I guess, that would come to mind 

most immediately would be the president of the Georgia Institute 

of Technology, Wayne Clough, and the president of MIT, Charles 

Vest. I think certainly both of those have a lot of nanotechnologyrelated activities within their universities. Certainly they are the 

highest level of the administration of their institutions. But I think 

both of them would have a great deal of knowledge of what would 

be going on in the field of nanotechnology, just from interacting 

with, I would say, the physics departments, the chemistry departments, the material-science departments within their respective institutions. So I would think they would be quite informed relative 

to that. 

Gordon Moore, certainly in terms of looking at the ultra-miniaturization of microelectronics, I would think is definitely familiar 

with the extreme miniaturizations that one might achieve down to 

the nano-electronics and the molecular-electronics level. I would 

think that he, in his many years of experience with electronics, 

would have a very good perspective on the basic understanding of 

what would happen to electronics at the nanoscale level. 

So some of the other ones, I think even if you look at—I forget 

one of the Members of the Committee also had a lot of background 

in the bio area, and I think that the biotechnology aspect and its 

heavy overlap with nanotechnology is going to be very crucial in, 

again, having the proper perspective on what’s happening in the 

area of nanotechnology. 

Finally, I guess, relative to that, the PCAST itself is—they’ve decided, in their proceeding of their assessment, that they’re going to 

obtain additional technical expertise through the formation of different technical task forces to assist them in their assessment. So 

they’re not going to do it just on their own; they’re going to be actually forming and pulling task forces of experts in the field, very 

much as you’re indicating is being needed, and I would agree that 

there are some additional possible inputs needed onto it. 

I guess two other points that I think are so important about 

PCAST. The first one is that relative to the question that Mr. 

Chairman was asking, in terms of the technology transfer, I think 

the business acumen and the experience of many people on the 

PCAST would be tremendously valuable in understanding the transition of the technology out into the commercial and into the economic factors that would be involved in that. 

And, finally, I guess, from my perspective, one of the greatest assets of the PCAST so far is that they’ve become engaged, and they 

are taking—they’re really taking action relative to trying to understand and to do some real assessment of the NNI. I think that, to 

me, is one of the most important aspects of any kind of council or 

any kind of Committee of this nature, is that they really do engage 

with whatever their charge is. And, so far, PCAST has indicated 

very good interest and very good action in tackling the problem. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, again, I can’t say enough good things 

about PCAST, generally. This is not what the discussion is about. 

But there are 25 people on there, and you mentioned three who you 

thought had some involvement in nanotechnology, and I want to 

make sure that, on day one——

Dr. TEAGUE. Okay. 

28

Senator WYDEN.—we’ve got everybody with some proven expertise and a track record in this area, and we’re going to work this 

out. This is too important, and the bill is too good to have this be 

an issue it flounders on. And, by the way, I agree with your point 

with respect to technology transfers——

Dr. TEAGUE. Yes. 

Senator WYDEN.—as well. We’re going to hear from another witness—I noted, Mr. Chairman, we have another private sector witness who points out something you and I have talked about, which 

is that Bayh-Dole has not worked as well as it needs to, neither 

for industry, universities, or taxpayers. And the point that Dr. 

Teague is making with respect to how important it is to improve 

tech transfer is one that I very much share, and that involves getting the private businesses in early with their suggestions for how 

to do it. 

A couple of other quick questions, and then I know Senator 

Sununu’s got a great interest in this, too. I want to let him get at 

it. 

Gentlemen, how are we doing with respect to the global competi- tion? Last year, Japan spent $650 million on nanotechnology research. Europe was at $400 million. A host of other countries have 

spent substantial sums. Really the two areas that I want to touch 

on—maybe you can talk about them together—one was, how do we 

fare with respect to global competition? And the second is, what 

needs to be done with our universities and particularly the multidisciplinary approach that’s going to be so important. And so perhaps, in the interest of time, maybe you could take both of those 

two together for our other witnesses. 

The question, global competition, where we stack up, and what 

do we need to be doing with our universities to foster a multi-disciplinary approach? 

Perhaps, you start Dr. Murday. 

Dr. MURDAY. Okay. With respect to the global competition, I did 

take a quick look earlier this year at the science literature. There’s 

about 18,000 articles that came out in 2002, to put some numbers 

behind your concern. They’re roughly divided; one-third in the 

Asian theater, one-third in the U.S., and one-third in Europe. That 

says, in terms of quantities, we are one-third. 

Then there is always the concern that maybe the quality—maybe 

we’re ahead on quality, if not quantity. So I did another search on 

some key journals that are considered high-impact journals and 

looked at that. And there, if you look at it, the U.S. has got about 

50 percent of the articles. So we’re fairing a little better in the 

quality war, if you want, but there is a clear trend for the other 

nations to be growing. So we’re presently at 50, but that’s a diminishing fraction. 

So the concern about global competition is a real one, and one 

of the aspects that we need to be very careful—as we go in this 

process of developing a crisp, compelling strategic plan, one of the 

recommendations from the NRC is, part of that has got to be, how 

do we incorporate the global perspective and invest more smartly? 

We’re clearly not going to outspend any longer, so we have to spend 

more smartly. And that’s part of what’s got to be built into this 

strategic process. 

29

It’s quite clear—you had asked about multi-disciplinary, and Jim 

Roberto commented on it, and maybe at this high a scale essentially all the disciplines sort of blur into one. But it’s important to 

get these different perspectives, because it’s the boundaries between traditional perspectives where you get the most frequent and 

scintillating advances. 

Now, there, I believe the U.S. has still got a clear lead, compared 

to other nations. Where I would be more concerned in our university environment, not can we out-compete them in that aspect of 

it, but, rather, we’re drawing a significant fraction of our students, 

our graduate students, from other nations. And as their research 

investment goes up, as their capabilities grow, there will be less 

likelihood we’re going to attract those students here to the U.S. 

That means we’d better have our own pipeline stoked to replace 

them. And that is a very daunting challenge for us, and it goes—

as we commented in terms of being able to transfer into technology—this is not unique to nano—getting American students into 

science and engineering is not unique to nano, but maybe nano’s 

enough interesting, enough scintillating that, you know, we can get 

some people really excited about it. I know I am. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, without letting the hearing divert, Senator 

Allen’s been very supportive to me on another one of my crusades, 

which is getting more women into these fields, and even looking at 

Title IX, which many people think is a sports statute, but was—

its origins are really academics, using Title IX as a lever to do it. 

So your point about students is a good one, as well. 

Dr. Roberto? 

Dr. ROBERTO. Yes, I think that we are in a tough fight. I think 

the kind of investments that you all are talking about making in 

the various bills that I talked about in my remarks are, sort of, 

what’s needed in order to keep us abreast and moving ahead. I 

don’t think there is a clear leadership in the world now in this 

field. I think that the leadership is ours, in many respects, to win 

or lose, depending on the kind of investments that we make as a 

nation. This is a field that I think is very important to have leadership, because I think it is going to be the basis for a new industrial 

revolution. 

With respect to the issue of whether we’re going to have the scientific person-power for the future, I guess I’d like to add that I 

go out in the community and give a lot of talks at schools and in 

public forums, and often those talks are on nanotech. And the response that I usually get, whether it’s the third grade or whether 

it’s the grandmother, is, ‘‘Can I come work for you?’’ I mean, they 

really get excited when we talk about nanoscience. 

And I think that one thing that we could do is, we could use 

nanoscience as a way to catalyze interest in our secondary-school 

students in science and technology. And I think the kinds of investments that we’re talking about making provide a path that can 

then keep them interested in science as they go through college 

and graduate school. 

So I think there’s an opportunity here not only on the technology-transfer side, but also on the human-capital side. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

30

Senator ALLEN. Thank you. They’re very good questions, Senator 

Wyden. 

At the outset, I was talking about competition, and I guess the 

summary is, we’re in competition, and we were more preeminent 

than we are now. 

Again, the issue in the science—and we’ve run into this in a lot 

of areas in technology, in the H1B visas and the issues associated 

also in aeronautics—there’s a lot of areas where we do need to 

somehow motivate and excite more Americans, whether they’re—

all genders, all races, all ethnicities, all Americans, regardless of 

their background, to get involved in it. 

So thank you all. 

I’d like to turn it over to Senator Sununu, who may have some 

questions, I suspect. 

Senator ALLEN. Senator Sununu. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m pleased that you’re having the hearing. This is obviously an 

extraordinary area of investigation and research, just as evidenced 

by the amount of resources that have already been dedicated, at 

least at the federal level, toward this type of research across a 

number of different agencies. I think well in excess of $500- or 

$600 million last year, over $800 million proposed in the President’s budget across a good handful of different research areas. 

NSF, even the Department of Commerce, HHS, have their own initiatives investigating opportunities in nanotechnology. So it’s an 

exciting area. It really does require some continued support and investment. 

I want to begin by talking a little bit about the exchange between 

Dr. Teague and Senator Wyden on the advisory group. But, first, 

I think it’s important to note that—Dr. Teague mentioned three or 

four people with some background, experience, expertise, knowledge about nanotechnology, its potential applications, even some of 

the scientific principles, and I would venture that the list goes even 

a little deeper than that. I mean, we have individuals that were 

former directors of the National Science Foundation, that were directors of the Brookhaven and National Laboratories. We have—

Mr. Kvamme, in his role as a venture capitalist, you know, if he 

doesn’t have experience working with people that are interested in 

laying out their own risk capital in areas involving nanotechnology, 

then we can certainly find a venture capitalist that has. But I 

think that Kleiner Perkins has dealt with more than one potential 

application involving nanotechnology. 

So I think there’s a wealth of experience and understanding of 

how this technology may affect research in scientific institutions or 

institutions of learning. You mentioned Georgia Tech, and another 

smaller school in Cambridge, I think——

[Laughter.] 

Senator SUNUNU. MIT, that was it. 

But this is, from my perspective, very much the kind of background we would want, for a couple of reasons. One is the understanding of how this technology can fit into these different areas—

31

education, research, of course, the business world, you mentioned 

Intel, there’s a representative from—who’s done some work with 

IBM, Lockheed—not that these companies are any more unique 

than many others, but there’s that private sector perspective, as 

well. 

But if you look at the other side of the coin, I would also like 

to have, ultimately, a review board, an advisory board, that doesn’t 

have an interest that is vested solely in nanotechnology. 

Now, academics are wonderful people, but I’m sure that once in 

a while you can find an academic that’s a little bit parochial, you 

know, that is very particular about funding for their area of interest. I saw a few of those, you know, as an undergraduate trying 

to do research. And they don’t necessarily have the best perspective 

when it comes to allocating scarce resources into different areas of 

interest or research. 

The same principles may be at stake in nanotechnology, but, as 

was pointed out, some of these fundamental areas of investigation 

might affect biotechnology, they might affect material science, they 

might affect construction. And I think it serves us very well to have 

a slightly broader perspective on the advisory board. 

Naturally, there’s also the concern about creating yet another 

layer of bureaucracy. There’s nothing wrong with bureaucracy 

when it’s properly utilized, but advisory boards are—it’s the bureaucracy. And the more advisory boards you have, the more layers 

of advice and consent and review. Obviously, that carries with it 

an expense; not necessarily in dollars, but in time and certainly in 

effort of those that are involved. 

And I note, given the background of some of our witnesses today, 

we already have a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. I 

think that’s important to have an office that’s focused in a professional way on trying to make sure information is appropriately 

shared, that there’s some coordination going on. We have the Subcommittee, the NSTC, that is also fulfilling an important role. And, 

of course, then we have PCAST. 

I would be very concerned about creating another layer of bureaucracy and then not taking advantage of a board that already 

exists and that I think can lend a great deal of value and substantive advice when it comes to these issues of nanotechnology. 

A few other concerns that I have, or caveats, and not specifically 

with the legislation. Obviously, this is an issue that the Subcommittee Chairman and the ranking Member are aware of, and 

I trust you to work this through, not just here in the Senate, but 

with our counterparts in the House, so that we end up with a 

structure that works. But I do have a couple of other concerns 

where this kind of research is—where we make investments in this 

kind of research. And I want to share that with the panel and with 

my colleagues here, as well. 

I noticed, first, with regard to applications, that we come to these 

hearings, and we want to talk about the future and about the potential growth and economic benefits and returns and job creation 

and such. But I always get nervous when I hear anybody in government talking about doing scientific research with the express 

objective of creating a certain number of jobs or a quantifiable benefit to the economy. Because if you can tell me what the economic 

32

value of your research is, then I’ll ask you to leave the room, and 

I’ll call Mr. Kvamme, because he can, as well as anyone, evaluate 

what the net-present value of that—if you can tell me what the 

net-present value, the economic benefit of your research is, he certainly can, and he’ll go out and find somebody to put $1 million or 

$10 million or $50 million or whatever the warranted investment 

is. 

I believe, as a society and as a country, we should be investing 

in research, because, societally, it creates very significant benefits. 

But the kind of research that we should be investing in is precisely 

that research for which the time horizon is so long or the benefits 

are spread over such a large number of areas that you cannot 

quantify the economic benefits. Physics and chemistry, computational mathematics, obviously the very areas that I hope the bulk—

I would hope that all of our National Science Foundation funding 

is being invested in. And nanotechnology is one such area. You 

know, nobody knew what a Bucky ball could be used for when the 

concept was first developed and there wasn’t a venture capitalist 

that was looking at this, you know, wringing their hands and excited about the prospects. 

That’s where we should be making investments. So I look at the 

list of products that have become available over the last year or 

two, and this is certainly interesting, but I guess, in clearest terms, 

the caveat is, we should not be making investments with the specific goal of strengthening our nation’s tennis ball industry or mattress industry or sunscreen industry or automotive industry. Those 

are great industries and great companies that populate them, and 

I’m pleased that nanotechnology has provided them with exciting 

and lasting benefits to their product-development areas. But that’s 

not why we invest the money, that’s not why we do the research; 

not for any specific benefit, but because we know that, in the longrun, the scope and the breadth of the benefits will be significant 

even if we can’t quantify them today. 

And, finally, with regard to global competition, I think that the 

last point that was touched on is an extraordinarily important one, 

and that is the strength of our Nation’s education system. And one 

way to measure that is the number of advanced degrees in science 

and mathematics that we’re turning out. And the statistics have 

probably been touched on in here before by this Subcommittee, and 

I won’t belabor them. I think that’s extremely important. 

But there was another discussion about the global competition 

and some interesting statistics given about this. You could look at 

patents or papers published or—I like the quality measurement, 

too. And I believe that to be absolutely accurate. But we shouldn’t 

allocate funds to any area of research just because some other 

country is doing the same. Now, if there’s significant value, longterm value, societal value, to the area of research, I’m sure there 

are many countries that will be pursuing it. But if just did what 

all of our competitors do—in fact, the notion that we should do 

what our global competitors are doing is what nearly drove our 

Government to invest several billion dollars, maybe $10 billion, in 

the HDTV market and HDTV technology about, oh, 12 years ago 

now. We chose not to do that, and that was $10 billion or so that 

was very, very well spent on other things in this country. 

33

So, you know, the Japanese, I think, in retrospect, made an enormous mistake in thinking that they needed to, you know, make 

this investment so that they could keep their television industry 

healthy. I love the television industry, too. They make good products, and I’ve used them from time to time. But we need to be very 

careful about just making an investment because somebody else is 

putting money in the same area. 

So this is a wonderful opportunity. I’m excited that we’ve made 

so much progress over just a few years with the Nanotechnology 

Coordination Office, that we have senior Members of the Senate 

here that are great advocates for these programs, with a President 

who has put in his budget over $800 million, and I think, with this 

legislation, as it’s developed and as it’s refined, we can be confident 

that the programs will remain strong. And I do hope that the 

money will be put to very good use. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator ALLEN. Yes, thank you, Senator Sununu. 

Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Just so I can make one quick point very clear, 

since we’re having this discussion, about the advisory panel. The 

advisory panel was never, neither as originally envisioned or today, 

to be made up solely of academics, and that’s made very clear at 

page 17 and 18 of the bill, where we call for those with a reasonable cross-section of views and expertise and make it clear that recommendations from industry are invited, which is at the top of 

page 18. So just since we’re talking about the nature of the advisory—having this debate, I want to be clear that, as the lead author of this now for two sessions of Congress, with the help of 

Chairman Allen, it has never been my desire to just go off and 

bring together a handful of academics and to have them go sit in 

a corner, but to make sure that we are getting the cross-section of 

views that I think’s important to develop this, and that’s outlined 

on page 17 and 18 of the bill. 

Thank you. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Wyden. 

As a practical matter, it’s going to be PCAST anyway, who we’re 

seeming to evolve to in that respect. 

I want to thank all our doctors. Thank you so much for your expert advice, your enthusiasm, and your leadership in this area in 

a variety of ways. You’re articulate, you’re smart, and I also like 

the fact that you’re competitive and recognize that it’s just basic 

market forces and issues that none of us in government can solve, 

nor should we, but make sure that those creative, innovative ideas 

can start improving our lives, whether it’s in health care, materials 

sciences, energy, or a variety of other ways. 

So, again, thank you all so much for your testimony and answering our questions. 

I’d like to have our second panel please come forward. 

Thank you, Doctors. 

I want to thank our second panel for joining us today. We look 

forward to your testimony. I’ll make a brief introduction of each of 

our witnesses on the second panel. 

34

First, Dr. Davis Baird, who’s a professor and chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina, a fine institution. My wife is a graduate of the University of South Carolina, the real USC. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALLEN. And Dr. Baird is now leading a National Science 

Foundation-funded interdisciplinary team of Researchers from 10 

Departments in 6 colleges at USC and is working in cooperation 

with USC’s Nanocenter on the societal implications of 

nanotechnology. One of the concerns are that a lot of the limits we 

have here are simply in our imagination, but ethical limits and values still do apply; legal, as well. And so we look forward to hearing 

from you. 

And then we have Dr. Jun Jiao—am I saying it close enough? 

Dr. JIAO. Yes. 

Senator ALLEN. Senator Wyden got to meet Dr. Jiao just before 

the meeting, and she’s a wonderful doctor and person. She’s co-director of the Center of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology and a professor of physics at Portland State University. Dr. Jiao’s principal 

research interests concern nanoscale materials and the application 

of analytical techniques of electron——

Dr. JIAO. Microscopy. 

Senator ALLEN.—microscopy, thank you. These are not words we 

normally use, but I guess we will as we become more familiar. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALLEN. In the last 10 years, Dr. Jiao has proposed and 

conducted several studies on the preparation and properties of carbon-related nanometer-scale materials, including carbon nanotubes, 

which we heard about earlier, and carbon-coated magnetic 

nanoparticles. 

Next, we have Dr. Kent Murphy, who is the founder and president of Luna Innovations. Luna Innovations is located in 

Blacksburg, Virginia. They have over 180 employees working in the 

technology sector in biotechnology, nanomaterials, optical-fiber telecommunications and instrumentation, and control and predictivebased maintenance, as well as other key technologies of the future. 

Thank you for being with us, Dr. Murphy. 

And, finally, James Von Ehr II, is the founder and Chairman and 

Chief Executive Officer of Zyvex Corporation, which I’ve had the invigorating pleasure of visiting. As we were talking about where employees are coming from and where the talent is, I did observe that 

I think you had employees that must have been—you might not 

have had anybody from Australia, but you certainly had them from 

every continent of the world, as it seemed. You may have had an 

Australian in the midst. No Australian, all right, every continent 

except Australia. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. VON EHR. We have a New Zealander on our advisory board. 

Senator ALLEN. New Zealander, close. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALLEN. Well, I will say Mr. Von Ehr is also the founder 

of the Texas Nanotechnology Initiative, a nonprofit organization 

dedicated to establishing Texas as a world leader in the discoveries, 

development, and commercialization of nanotechnology. Mr. Von 

35

Ehr is also co-founder of the Feynman Grant Prize, a $250,000 

prize for a particular embodiment of nanotechnology. 

I welcome all these esteemed witnesses, and we look forward to 

hearing your testimony this afternoon. 

If you’ll please proceed, we’ll start with you, Dr. Baird. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVIS BAIRD, PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, 

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

Dr. BAIRD. Well, thank you, Chairman Allen, Senator Wyden. I 

wish to thank you both, and the Committee, for inviting me to testify about the need for social and ethical dimensions research on 

nanotechnology. 

At the University of South Carolina, I’m leading a broadly interdisciplinary team of researchers working in cooperation with the 

Nanocenter. Our mission is to examine the societal implications of 

nanotechnology. It’s a topic I feel strongly about, and I’m happy to 

speak to you about it here. 

And this is my primary point. It’s essential that research into the 

societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology be undertaken. 

It’s essential because nanotechnology presents itself as a transformative discipline. So these are the words of the 2002 National 

Nanotechnology Initiative Report, and I quote, ‘‘The impact of 

nanotechnology on the health, wealth, and lives of people could be 

at least as significant as the combined influences of microelectronics, medical imaging, computer-aided engineering, manmade 

polymers developed in the century just past.’’ We would be foolish 

not to investigate the human implications of such a fundamental 

technology. 

Research into the societal and ethical implications is essential 

also because of the nano size that we’re dealing with. Immediately, 

privacy issues come to mind, but there are also important issues 

concerning toxicity, about environmental uses and abuses of 

nanotechnology. Possible military uses of nanotechnology raise concerns. 

Beyond these concerns about specific nano-size products, we need 

to think carefully about how nanotechnology is framed. Ray 

Kurzweil, in testimony to the House on their version of this bill, 

about, oh, a few weeks ago, spoke of conquering aging. Were we to 

do so, it would be a societal nuclear bomb, and we need to think 

this through. 

Ideas about nanotechnology come to the public through two main 

avenues, science fiction—Michael Crichton’s ‘‘Prey,’’ for instance—

and what I call ‘‘science faction,’’ meaning more than fiction, but 

less than fact—for instance, Bill Joy’s ‘‘Why the Future Doesn’t 

Need Us.’’ If we’re not careful, we’ll have a real political football 

on our hands. Already, we can see resistance building. 

For all of these reasons, I think it’s imperative that we undertake research under the societal and ethical dimensions of 

nanotechnology. 

Targeted funding is necessary here. Funds for research into the 

societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology need to be targeted to those with the expertise, training, and interest to focus on 

these issues. If they’re not, the funds will be gobbled up, reasonably 

36

enough, by hungry scientists and engineers. This much has been 

said by the recent National Research Council’s 2002 Review of the 

National Nanotechnology Initiative, the ‘‘Small Wonders’’ book 

that’s been referred to. 

A center for research is necessary. In order for the promise of the 

work on societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology to have 

a significant impact, the work needs to be concentrated in one or, 

preferably, more than one center. There are numerous science and 

technology centers, a veritable juggernaut. Such centralization is 

needed for the societal and ethical voice to be heard above the roar 

of the scientific and technological excitement. In addition, a center 

can help coordinate and assess the various approaches to these 

problems that we attempt. So I was pleased, and I underline that 

Section 4 (c)(5) of the bill you’re considering, S. 189, is very important. 

Interdisciplinary research is necessary. The research must be 

done in a broadly interdisciplinary way. We need to draw on the 

full spectrum of voices—the humanities, arts, social sciences, the 

legal and medical professions, and, of course, the scientists and engineers. 

Productive work on societal implications needs to be engaged 

with the research from the start. Ethicists need to go into the lab 

to see what’s possible. Scientists and engineers need to engage with 

humanists to start thinking about this aspect of their work. Students need training now that will take their understanding of 

nanotechnology from laboratory to society. These students today, 

trained in the right interdisciplinary setting, will become a cadre 

of scientists, engineers, and scholars used to working together, 

thinking about the societal and technical problems side by side. 

Only thus, working together in dialogue, will we make genuine 

progress on the societal and ethical issues that nanotechnology 

poses. 

We have a real opportunity here. Instead of calling on ethicists 

to patch things up as best they can after the fact, if we start now, 

bringing social scientists, humanists, legal and professional scholars to the table, our understanding of the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology can co-evolve with the technology itself. 

This will make for better, more socially responsive work in 

nanotechnology and for few problems to patch up later on. 

Nanotechnology can avoid the fate, most recently, of the genetically 

modified organisms. 

Thank you for considering my testimony. In my written comments, I map out, in somewhat more detail, the kind of interactive 

interdisciplinary model that we’re building here at USC. I should 

also note similar work being done at the University of Virginia. But 

it’s a big country and there’s lots to do. And I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DAVIS BAIRD, PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF

PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

I wish to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify about the need for research on the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. At the University of 

South Carolina I am leading a broadly interdisciplinary team of researchers working 

in cooperation with the USC NanoCenter. Our mission is to examine the societal 

37

1 National Science and Technology Council 2002, National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan. http://www.nano.gov/nni2.pdf, p. 11. 2 House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Hearing, April 9, 2003, on H.R. 766, ‘‘The 

Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003,’’ (the House version of S. 189). The 

quoted material is from the transcript p. 3. 3 An April 14, 2003 news release from the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration [ETC Group]: ‘‘Size Matters: New Information Provides More Evidence for Mandatory 

Moratorium on Synthetic Nanoparticles,’’ available for download at http://www.etcgroup.org/

search.asp?theme=11. 4 In the National Research Council’s words: ‘‘There appear to be a number of reasons for the 

lack of activity in this [societal and ethical] area. First and foremost, while a portion of the NNI 

support was allocated to the various traditional disciplinary directorates, no funding was allocated directly to the Directorate of Social and Behavioral and Economic Sciences, the most capable and logical directorate to lead these efforts. As a consequence, social science work on societal 

implications could be funded in one of two ways: (1) it could compete directly for funding with 

Continued

implications of nanotechnology. It is a topic I feel strongly about, and I am happy 

to speak to you about it. 

I have one primary point, and three follow-up clarifications. 

Primary point: It is essential that research into the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology be undertaken. 

Targeted Funding Necessary: Adequate funding for this research must be specifically targeted for investigating nanotechnology‘s societal and ethical dimensions. 

Center for Research Necessary: It would be more productive for some of the 

research to be concentrated in one—or preferably more—centers. 

Interdisciplinary Approach Necessary: This research should be conducted in 

a broadly interdisciplinary way that includes humanists, social scientists legal and 

medical professionals and nano scientists and engineers. 

Primary point: Research into the societal and ethical dimensions of 

nanotechnology is essential for many reasons: 

(1) Nanotechnology presents itself as a fundamentally transformative technology, 

with changes promised in nearly every important sector of human endeavor. According to the 2002 report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative: ‘‘The impact of 

nanotechnology on the health, wealth, and lives of people could be at least as significant as the combined influences of microelectronics, medical imaging, computeraided engineering, and man-made polymers developed in the century just past.’’ 1

We would be very foolish not to research carefully the potential societal and ethical 

consequences of nanotechnology. 

(2) In virtue of its defining characteristic—nano size—nanotechnology immediately raises several social and ethical concerns. Privacy comes quickly to mind, but 

also the human and environmental toxicity of manufactured nanoparticles. 

Nanotechnology will be important for other environmental issues including waste 

disposal and the remediation of natural sites. Potential military uses of 

nanotechnology raise concerns. 

(3) Beyond concerns about such concrete products of nanotechnology, we need to 

consider how the goals of different segments of society for the use of nanotechnology 

are framed. In oral testimony to the House of Representatives Ray Kurzweil said, 

‘‘Nanotechnology and related advanced technologies of the 2020s will bring us the 

opportunity to overcome age-old problems, including pollution, poverty, disease, and 

aging.’’ 2 Problem or not, ‘‘overcoming’’ aging would be a societal nuclear bomb. Such 

goals need careful reflection, not ‘‘damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead’’ technical 

pursuit. 

(4) Information about nanotechnology is coming to the public through two main 

avenues science fiction—Michael Crichton’s Prey—and, what I call ‘‘science faction’’ 

(more than fiction, less than fact)—Bill Joy’s ‘‘The Future Doesn’t Need Us.’’ Without some serious reflection on the genuine opportunities and risks posed by 

nanotechnology, this field could very easily become a political football. Already one 

can see resistance building in, for example, the efforts of the ETC group.3

For all these reasons, and others as well, it is imperative that we undertake research on the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. 

Targeted Funding Necessary: Funding for this research needs to be specifically 

targeted to societal and ethical work. When this doesn’t happen hungry scientists 

and engineers—reasonably and appropriately enough—gobble up all the funds. They 

may add some words to a largely scientific or engineering grant application that 

suggest an interest in societal implications, but if the work is not organized and led 

by those for whom societal and ethical concerns are the focus, the words will only 

be window dressing. This much has been reported in the National Research Council’s 2002 review of the NNI.4 Philosophers, ethicists and social scientists are 

38

physical science and engineering projects through a solicitation that was primarily targeted at 

that audience or (2) it could be integrated within a nanoscience and engineering center. 

There are a number of reasons both funding strategies failed to promote a strong response 

from the social science community. First, given the differences in goals, knowledge bases, and 

methodologies, it was probably very difficult for social science group and individual proposals 

to compete with nanoscience and engineering projects in the NIRT and NER competitions. 

(Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2002, 

p. 34). 

trained—variously in different ways—to think through ethical and social issues. 

Furthermore, they are well situated to mediate between the scientists and engineers 

working on nanotechnology and the broader public. 

Center for Research Necessary: In order for research on the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology to have significant impact, some of this research 

needs to be concentrated in a center—or better several centers. Already there are 

numerous well-funded state and university centers for the pursuit of the scientific 

and technical challenges posed by the nanoscale. NSF has funded six nanoscale 

science and engineering centers [NSECs]. Similar centers have been funded by 

NASA, DOE and DOD. There is a scientific and engineering juggernaut here, and 

some concentration will be necessary for the societal and ethical dimensions voice 

to be heard. Section 4 (c)(5) of the bill you are considering, S. 189, is important. 

Interdisciplinary Approach Necessary: Investigations into the ethical and societal implications of nanotechnology must be done in an interdisciplinary collaborative way, drawing into dialog the full spectrum of perspectives on this work—the 

humanities, arts, social sciences, the professions and, of course, the various scientific 

and engineering disciplines that are jointly pursuing nanoscale research. Productive 

and useful social and ethical considerations of nanotechnology cannot occur outside 

the research and development itself. We will be much better off integrating such 

concerns into the research from the ground up. To do this we need to establish channels of communication between and among the various stakeholders in 

nanotechnology. We need to bring humanists and social scientists into the lab so 

they can begin to grasp what is genuinely possible at the nanoscale, and then it 

will be possible for the scientists and engineers to hear and to begin to engage social 

and ethical concerns. Students, who will be developing the nanotechnology for the 

next generation need to be broadly educated now in the whole picture of 

nanotechnology, laboratory to society. None of these groups has a monopoly on what 

is right and true, and only through careful open dialog can we hope to make meaningful progress reconciling different viewpoints and building societal and ethical 

concerns in at the beginning. 

Let me close by saying we have a real positive opportunity here. In contrast to 

the typical case where ethical and social consequences are dealt with after the fact, 

patching up problems as best as we can, in this case research into the social and 

ethical dimensions of nanotechnology can co-evolve with the technology itself. This 

will make for better, more socially responsive work in nanotechnology and for fewer 

problems to patch up. Nanotechnology can avoid the fate of genetically modified organisms. 

Thank you for considering my testimony. In my written comments I sketch out 

in somewhat more detail the kind of interactive interdisciplinary model I have in 

mind. I would be happy to entertain any questions you may have. 

Appendix 1: USC NIRT ‘‘From Laboratory to Society: Developing an

Informed Approach to Nanoscale Science and Technology’’ as a Model for 

Developing a Center of Ethical and Societal Implications of 

Nanotechnology 

1. Background 

On June 15, 2001 the NanoCenter at the University of South Carolina was founded. But the pursuit of nanoscale research here—and elsewhere—takes on a particular intellectual risk. Gary Stix characterizes it in a recent issue of Scientific 

American: ‘‘Any advanced research carries inherent risks. But nanotechnology bears 

a special burden. The field’s bid for respectability is colored by the association of 

the word with a cabal of futurists who foresee nano as a pathway to a technical utopia: unparalled prosperity, pollution-free industry, even something resembling eternal life.’’ Caught between nano-visionaries and nano-skeptics, ‘‘the nanotech field 

struggles for cohesion’’ and a clear definition. Even serious publications and reports 

about the totally new promise of research at the nanoscale echo many of the nanovisionaries’ predictions. Though they indirectly profit from, and are to some extent 

inspired by the ‘‘hype’’ surrounding nanotechnology, the serious scientists at USC 

39

need to distance themselves from such overreaching claims. They need to do so not 

only for reasons of intellectual honesty, but also because overstated technological 

promise has a flipside: It can easily engender irrational fears that undermine public 

acceptance. The field’s bid for respectability therefore concerns not only its standing 

in the larger scientific community but also its perception by those who shape public 

understanding of science and technology. 

In July 2001, a number of humanities scholars at the University of South Carolina formed a Working Group for the Study of the Philosophy and Ethics of Complexity and Scale [SPECS]. Their goal is to develop a scientifically, philosophically 

and ethically informed understanding of the critical developments of the sciences 

and technologies that are set to define and transform the 21st century: nanoscience 

and nanotechnology, robotics, genetic engineering, earth systems science, the study 

of complex and autocatalytic systems. One of the group’s first topics for discussion 

was Bill Joy’s ‘‘Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.’’ Joy moves far too hastily from 

contentious predictions to a sweeping call for a moratorium on many kinds of basic 

research. Nonetheless, his dystopian vision should stimulate careful scrutiny of how 

basic research takes shape in the wider context of the university, the economy, and 

contemporary culture. This is SPECS’s task. A search of databases in the history 

and philosophy of science and technology revealed that nanoscale science and technology had received only limited attention. This also held in the area of legal studies. The March 2001 NSF report, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and 

Nanotechnology, produced a template for discussion but left particular investigations 

for the future. SPECS was therefore the first university-based interdisciplinary initiative to bring close scrutiny to this new area of science and technology. In August 

2001 SPECS received seed funding from USC’s Office of Research for AY 2001/02. 

By December 2001 SPECS had consolidated as a Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team, and had submitted an application to NSF for a NIRT grant. Our NIRT 

grant was partially funded for 2002/03, and we were encouraged to reapply in 2002 

for a full four-year award, which we did with a research proposal entitled ‘‘From 

Laboratory to Society: Developing an Informed Approach to Nanoscale Science and 

Technology.’’ The final decision is still pending, but we are optimistic that our 

project will be recommended for an award. 

In the following I provide an outline of our research fields as well the infrastructure that we use to perform research in a truly interdisciplinary manner, with currently 17 faculty members from 10 departments involved. I suggest that this might 

be taken as the beginning structure of a model for a Center of Ethical and Societal 

Implications of Nanotechnology. 

2. Research Fields 

Our interdisciplinary research team is divided into four smaller sub-teams, each 

devoted to a specific Task Area of research. These Task Areas are structured to 

focus attention on how our understanding and control of nanotechnology moves from 

the laboratory to society. Before we debate the ethics of ‘‘assemblers,’’ for example, 

we should be clear just how understanding and control is achieved at the level of 

basic research, and then how this hard-won mastery can structure and inform a 

broader public and political understanding and control of nanotechnology. Three 

kinds of collaboration result from the manner in which we have structured these 

research Task Areas: (1) collaborations among the members of each Task Area as 

they prepare joint seminar presentations, workshops, publications; (2) collaborations 

between these sub-teams and members of USC’s NanoCenter; and (3) the collaboration among the participants of all four Task Areas as the results of various researches are brought together and presented for general discussion. Underlying the 

research in all of these Task Areas is an interest in working out a shared language, 

a joint appreciation of the scientific and cultural/societal issues involved, and a desire to articulate the background assumptions and models used to address these 

issues. 

Task Area 1: Ideas of Stability and Control in the Theory and Practice of Nanoscale 

Research 

Ota ́vio Bueno (Philosophy, USC) joins Davis Baird (Philosophy, USC) and R.I.G. 

Hughes (Philosophy, USC), who continue here an earlier collaboration. They undertake a systematic philosophical examination of nanoscale research. To this end, the 

projects in this task area examine nanoscience from three different philosophical 

perspectives. Two projects provide complementary analyses of nanoscale research as 

it is currently practiced. Baird examines the instruments that allow nanoscience to 

exist, and Hughes the theoretical tools that the science employs. What Ian Hacking 

said about science in general applies also to nanoscience in particular: ‘‘In nature 

there is just complexity, which we are remarkably able to analyze. We do so by disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
40

tinguishing, in the mind, numerous different laws. We also do so by presenting, in 

the laboratory, pure, isolated phenomena.’’ In other words, as the sciences mature, 

theory and instrumentation work together to produce stable facts and a stable grasp 

of the facts. Stable facts trump fantastic visions and defeat skeptical doubts. In 

their collaboration (which involves close interaction with the scientists at USC’s 

NanoCenter) Baird and Hughes explore the various ways in which nanoscale research can itself become the inherent source of stability and trust. In contrast, Bueno’s project deals with one of the forerunners of nanoscience, John Von Neumann. 

Not only does it add a historical dimension to our understanding, but it also provides an exploration of the limits of physical and mathematical possibility within 

nanotechnology. 

The members of task areas engage in a close collaboration with Alfred Nordmann 

and his collaborators at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany. Together 

they produce a monograph on ‘‘The Philosophy of Nanoscience.’’ This includes chapters on (1) nanoscale research between science and technology, (2) the role of instrumentation in the development of nanoscale research, (3) experimental and technological control of interventions at the nanoscale, (4) historiography and the self-definition of the nanoscale research community, and (5) disciplinary issues of 

nanoscience. This collaboration furthers the establishment of the Center for the Philosophy and Ethics of Complexity and Scale [CPECS] at the University of South 

Carolina and a corresponding program on the Philosophy and History of the 

Technosciences at the Technical University of Darmstadt. The long-term interdisciplinary collaboration between these two Centers serves researchers and students alike. 

(1) Extending Eyes and Hands to the Nanoscale: Bringing previous experience developing a philosophy of scientific instruments, Davis Baird (Philosophy, USC) here 

focuses on the instruments used in nanoscience, in particular on the scanning tunneling and atomic force microscopes [STM and AFM]. These instruments establish 

a central node in a network of relations between scientists and engineers from various disciplines. USC’s NanoCenter represents one such network, but the USC Electron Microscopy Lab represents a different node. Baird investigates how data are 

produced in these overlapping networks and how data are then differently interpreted in their various ‘‘home disciplines.’’ To borrow a metaphor from Peter 

Galison, data move in and out of ‘‘trading zones,’’ they are framed differently by people working in different institutional and disciplinary contexts. But the instabilities 

produced by these differences are counterbalanced by the stability of the phenomena 

observed and produced by these instruments. Baird is pursuing three specific areas 

of research. (1) According to a widely reported ‘‘standard story,’’ nanoscience has 

been propelled by improvements in microscope technology, in which early electron 

microscopes were supplanted by STM and AFM. This story is examined to see if it 

is accurate and, if not, why it remains so compelling. (2) How has the commercialization of the STM and the AFM impacted their development? (3) The relation 

between two different kinds of imaging used in nanoscience—electron microscopy 

and probe microscopy—is explored. One is analogous to seeing, the other analogous 

to feeling—though even in the latter case the data obtained is made to yield a visual 

representation (see also Task Area 2). 

(2) The Disciplinary Reconfiguration of Nanoscience: Having recently finished a 

manuscript on theoretical practice in science, R.I.G. Hughes (Philosophy, USC) 

adopts a complementary approach. Instead of focusing on instrumentation and experimentation, he considers how theoretical representations are reconfigured in the 

newly emerging ‘‘trading zone’’ of nanoscale science and engineering. Theoretical 

practice at the nanoscale uses a great diversity of theoretical tools. The NSF description of them lists ‘‘techniques such as quantum mechanics and quantum chemistry, multi-particle simulation, molecular simulation, grain and continuum-based 

models, stochastic methods, and nano-mechanics,’’ and there is no reason to think 

that this list is exhaustive. Investigators study: (1) the tasks that these various tools 

perform, and the sub-disciplines within nanoscience that employ them; (2) the extent to which different theoretical approaches are integrated, and the problems that 

can make such integration difficult; (3) the interaction between theoretical and experiment work; and (4) the narratives that nanoscientists employ, and which make 

interdisciplinary communication possible. Additionally, (5), the topic of theoretical 

representation provides a bridge to Task Area 2. 

(3) Precursors to Nanotechnology, Feynman and Von Neumann: Ota ́vio Bueno

(Philosophy, USC) focuses on the forerunners and immediate antecedents of 

nanoscale research. He is investigating the limits of both physical possibility and 

mathematical possibility in this domain, examining how the interaction between 

what is physically and mathematically possible has shaped the constitution of 

nanoscale phenomena. In ‘‘There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,’’ Richard Feynman 

41

outlined a vision for the development of nanoscience, advancing for the first time 

the idea that it should be possible to build objects atom-by-atom. Not surprisingly, 

the nanoscience community has taken this work as a founding document. In it 

Feynman was concerned with what it was physically possible to do at the nanoscale, 

and he outlined the benefits that should be expected from such a research. In contrast, in a series of seminal papers on the theory of automata, John Von Neumann 

explored what was mathematically and logically possible—but also what was mathematically impossible—to do in the process of building reliable organisms from unreliable components. Although there has been a considerable amount of research on 

Feynman’s contribution, especially by those in the nanoscience community, Von 

Neumann’s work has received significantly less attention. A focus on Von Neumann’s contribution sheds light on nanoscience in two ways. (1) It provides a better 

understanding of the emergence of the theory of automata and self-reproduction, 

and in this respect, Bueno’s work connects with the work undertaken in Task Area 

3. (2) It allows a new perspective on the role played by this theory in the constitution of the field. 

Task Area 2: Imaging and Imagining the Nanoscale: From Atomic Force Microscopic 

Topographies to Science Fiction Utopias and Dystopias 

Task Area 2 aims at developing a comprehensive understanding of how images 

and imaginings of the nanoscale work, and how they might work better. How we 

see the nanoscale, both with our (aided) eyes and in our mind’s eye, has a powerful 

impact both on the science and technology of the nanoscale and on the public reception to nanoscale research and its fruits. Indeed, it is widely argued that the development of our ability to produce images of nanoscale objects has been the sine qua 

non of any serious understanding and control of the nanoscale. The concerns of Task 

Area 2 thus reflect back on those of Task Area 1. But our ability to image and imagine the nanoscale drives more widely held popular understandings—and misunderstandings—of the nanoscale, and it is here that debate over the societal impact of 

technology takes place. For this reason Task Area 2 concerns also reflect forward 

to the concerns of Task Areas 3 and 4. It is through the images and imaginings of 

the nanoscale that understanding and control of the nanoscale moves from the laboratory to society. 

The issues raised in Task Area 2 do not fit any single discipline, and our approach 

to these issues is multi-disciplinary and collaborative. Five team members work in 

Task Area 2, two philosophers, Davis Baird and Otμvio Bueno (both Philosophy, 

USC), an engineer, Richard Ray (Civil Engineering, USC), an expert on science fiction, Steven Lynn (English, USC) and a conceptual artist, Chris Robinson (Art, 

USC). Together they examine the variety of ways we image and imagine the 

nanoscale. They approach the concerns that Task Area 2 embraces in four areas of 

study. 

(1) A Taxonomy of Kinds of Representation of the Nanoscale: The first area of 

study, fundamental to the rest, aims at articulating the nature and domain of application of the various different kinds of representation of the nanoscale. Furthermore, it aims to identify the gaps that exist between the different levels of representation:

• Quantum mechanical representations of individual atoms;

• Molecular models (of various sorts);

• STM/AFM/EM images of nanoscale material;

• Scientific representations of bulk matter;

• Nano-visionary designs (e.g., for ‘‘molecular assemblers’’);

• Artist renderings of the nanoscale;

• Science fiction that uses textual descriptions of the nanoscale;

• Creative works of art inspired by the nanoscale.

These different ways of representing the nanoscale differ from one another, both 

logically and rhetorically, and these differences need to be articulated. Only then 

can we begin to appreciate how different ways of representing the nanoscale should 

be used in the various contexts in which they are needed, how, for example, an 

image of the nanoscale developed for one context may be misleading or ineffective 

in another context. 

Work at this first stage, crossing as it does from largely technical issues—about 

quantum mechanical and molecular models of atoms—to largely cultural issues—

about science fiction and visual art—involves a collaboration of all Task Area members. Bueno brings a background in the philosophy of physics to bear on quantum 

mechanical and molecular models of atoms. Baird brings a background in the philoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
42

sophical study of scientific instrumentation to bear on the STM/AFM/EM images of 

the nanoscale. Ray, with a background in computer-aided design for structures, joins 

Baird and Bueno to examine how scientific representations of bulk material can 

work with nano-visionary designs. Robinson, with a background as a creative artist, 

and Lynn, with a background in the study of science fiction, contribute an understanding of how these more popular genres draw from and contribute to the scientific and technological images, and how the more popular understanding of the 

nanoscale is thereby established. 

(2) Better Images: The second area of study aims at improving images of the 

nanoscale. The images that we use to ‘‘see’’ the nanoscale are produced using a variety of different technologies. Sometimes the same image combines data from (e.g.) 

atomic force microscopy, quantum molecular simulations and artist’s renderings. 

These different visual techniques work differently, and these differences need to be 

appreciated, and ultimately deployed to make better images. Drawing on the work 

done at the first stage, our team works with scientists and science journalists to develop better images, images that communicate without misleading, and that can do 

so while moving from one context of use to another. Robinson leads work on this 

stage, bringing his expertise as a visual and conceptual artist to bear on developing 

better ways to use the visual medium to communicate ideas. 

(3) Scaling Up, Images Crossing from the Nanoscale to the Macroscale: The third 

area of study examines, first, the gap between the possible manipulation of matter 

atom-by-atom as it is painstakingly done in the laboratory and as it is rather more 

easily imagined by nano-visionaries, and, second, the unavoidable engineering difficulties that scaling up to humanly useful dimensions encounters. Here we confront 

the differences between representations that work in the laboratory and those that 

work for manufacturing. Ray, with his expertise in computer-aided design for structures, leads work on this stage. 

(4) The Nanoscale in Art: The fourth area of study both examines and produces 

art inspired by the nanoscale. Lynn, with a background in the study of science fiction, examines the history of the incorporation of nanotechnology into science fiction, 

and relates this history both to simultaneous developments in scientific research at 

the nanoscale and to cultural aspirations for and concerns with this research. Robinson creates and exhibits visual artworks inspired by his encounters with the research done by members of USC’s NanoCenter. This work is open for public viewing, 

and serves to provoke its viewers to think about how nanotechnology will impact 

their lives and society. 

Task Area 3: Problems of Self-replication, Risk, and Cascading Effects in 

Nanotechnology: Analogies between Biological Systems and Nanoengineering 

Another area of collaboration, involves Robert Best (School of Medicine, USC), 

George Khushf (Philosophy & Center for Bioethics, USC), Loren Knapp (Biological 

Sciences, USC), and Walter Piegorsch (Statistics, USC), and explores the models and 

cultures that inform risk assessment of nanotechnology. In both the visionary and 

dystopian literature are arguments that nanotechnology, genetics, and robotics, 

when taken together, involve new ethical issues, qualitatively different in scope and 

character from those associated with previous technologies. The visionaries highlight the potential and promise, and suggest there is an ethical obligation to accelerate development. The anti-utopians argue for a moratorium, fearing a ‘‘brave new 

world.’’ At the heart of the more negative assessment is the assumption that these 

technologies can produce ‘‘cascading effects,’’ which have the potential to alter the 

environment on a massive and unprecedented scale. The fear is that a new technology such as nanotechnology will introduce a precursor stimulus or hazard, which 

will lead to other more substantive hazards, and thence to detrimental hazards, catastrophic hazards, on and on. In ‘‘Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,’’ Bill Joy speaks 

for all those who are worried that we will always be one step behind in our capacity 

to respond. 

In order to properly put these concerns into perspective, Task Area 3 team members engage with team members working in Task Areas 1 and 2. Our ability to 

produce new nanoscale phenomena in the laboratory may unleash a cascade of irreversible hazards that spiral out of control. Task Area 1 considers how stable phenomena and a stable understanding of the phenomena might serve as a deterrent 

to such risks. Task Area 2 considers how our abilities to image and imagine the 

nanoscale provide the tools to consider these risks. Members of Task Area 3 take 

these considerations further to consider the management of risk in three clusters 

of investigation. 

(1) Models of self-replication and self-regulation: Most important is the need to articulate the range of meanings encompassed by self-replication and self-regulation, 

from a simpler, bench-oriented model to the vision associated with assemblers, and 

43

everything in between. Nanoscientists have already developed a variety of new materials that show promise for nano-engineered products—nanotubes, electrically conducting compounds, quantum dots, etc. Now, they need ways to organize these materials into larger structures that might be useful to society. In order to do this, they 

have focused upon mechanisms of replication and the regulation of these mechanisms. But, as the complexity of a self-replicating process increases, the possibility 

of an undesirable medical or environmental outcome seems likely to increase as 

well, and there are additional concerns about potential mutations of the original 

process. In order to help anticipate and prepare for such possibilities, Task Area 3 

team members seek to identify the multiple models and meanings of self-replication 

and self-regulation, ranging from current techniques (e.g., for growing nanotubes) to 

universal assemblers. In between, we consider possibilities on the near horizon (e.g., 

the use of viruses to engineer at the nanoscale) and the more distant horizon (e.g., 

limited assemblers, the stated goal of the company Zyvex). 

Task Area 3 members approach this work by drawing on analogies between these 

engineered mechanisms and those found in natural biological systems. In order to 

appreciate the challenges involved in designing and manufacturing nano-structures 

capable of self-replication and correction without loss of control, they examine the 

properties of natural self-replicating systems. What methods does nature use for 

self-replication? Will nanotechnologies resemble genetic systems in such a way that 

an understanding of the natural principles governing the latter might guide the development and application of the former in safe and controllable ways? In what 

ways will they differ? Armed with this understanding we will be able to explore the 

philosophical and ethical implications of aspects of self-regulation. 

(2) Taxonomy of Risk Assessments for Nanotechnology: Scientists know that complex, non-linear, self-replicating systems can produce unanticipated medical and/or 

environmental harm. In some cases statisticians can quantify risks associated with 

such systems, but in many other cases the uncertainty is too great, and the best 

that can be done is to provide a less precise qualitative analysis. Along these lines, 

Task Area 3 team members develop a taxonomy of the kinds of risk assessment that 

could be used in ethical debates on nanotechnology. They do so in the following 

manner. First, they identify risk paradigms for possible medical and environmental outcomes (e.g., the way a new virus can pose a public health risk). Then they consider 

whether the associated risks could have been anticipated and quantified in a risk 

analysis. They examine cases where established methods of quantifying risk worked 

well and cases where the outcomes could not have been anticipated and quantified. 

Next they draw on their earlier work, developing the analogy between engineered 

and natural nanosystems, and they extend this analysis to consider the possibilities 

of quantifying risks associated with the types of self-replicating, artificially engineered nanosystems identified earlier. The goal is to identify and structure the variety of cases posed by nanotechnology in terms of the degree to which the risks can 

or cannot be quantified. Finally, within this structure they consider how such risks 

can and should be incorporated into ethical analysis and communicated to the public. 

(3) The literature and culture informing ethical analysis of nanotechnology: There 

are several new areas of research that involve significant challenges to our understanding of ourselves and our prospects in the world. These include, (1) robotics/cybernetics, (2) genetics, and (3) nanotechnology. In most of this literature, these three 

technologies are considered in isolation. However, some of the most troubling ethical 

issues occur where all three technologies intersect. Task Area 3 members explore 

analogies, similarities, and differences between the ethical discussions in each of 

these areas and then consider how their combination could raise issues that have 

been insufficiently considered when viewed in isolation. The focus here is not only 

on the substance of the issues, but also on the climate and culture that frames the 

way the issues are addressed and resolved. 

All phases of work in Task Area 3 is fully collaborative, bringing together the 

science (Best and Knapp), probability theory (Piegorsch), and the philosophy/ethics 

(Khushf). Best is trained as a toxicologist, with research in environmental hazards 

and genetics; he currently directs USC’s program in clinical genetics. Knapp is a developmental and evolutionary biologist. Together with faculty in the USC 

NanoCenter, they identify the paradigm medical/environmental cases, explore the 

analogies between natural and artificial nanosystems, and provide the scientific expertise to assure that the statistical and ethical analysis is appropriately scientifically informed. Piegorsch has extensive practical experience in quantitative risk 

analysis, including work in environmental hazards and toxicology. He directs the development of taxonomies of risk, assessing the degrees to which quantification is 

possible. Khushf guides the review of the literatures and cultures informing ethical 

44

analysis of nanotechnology, exploring the ways risk analysis is integrated into ethical and policy debate, and addressing the conceptual and philosophical issues of 

complexity, scale, and self-replication. 

Task Area 4: Moving Nanotechnology into the Public Sphere 

At the end of the day, all the advances in our understanding of nanotechnology 

that work in Task Areas 1–3 provide are of little value if they are not integrated 

into the public, political and legal discussions of nanotechnology. Task Area 4 is concerned both with developing models for how to accomplish this, and with bringing 

the insights from all Task Areas to the public sphere, drawing on the collaborative 

infrastructure established by our project (see below). In this way Task Area 4 ties 

together all of the separate strands of work that make the project a conceptual 

whole. 

The first stage of this work is itself conceptual. Each of the five members of Task 

Area 4 considers how nanotechnology might best be brought to the public. Each of 

them comes at this issue from a different point of view, and as their collaboration 

develops over the course of the project, these differences inform each other, as together they model the various ways nanotechnology can be taken up by the public 

sphere. 

(1) Rhetorical Analysis: David Be ́rube ́ (English, USC) focuses on the analysis of 

the structure of discourse about nanotechnology. He brings an extensive background 

in debate and a long-running interest in the visionary rhetoric found in some work 

on nanotechnology. He pursues two projects. The first, building on earlier work, is 

an analysis of the rhetorical place of nanovisionary contributions, mostly that of 

Eric Drexler and the Foresight Institute, in the development of nanotechnology. The 

second is an empirical study of how the inclusion into USC’s NanoCenter of scholars 

with a primary focus on the philosophical and societal impact of nanotechnology—

the members of our team—alter the structure of discussions at the NanoCenter. 

This work is pursued in a process of cooperative inquiry aimed at uncovering the 

dynamics of an organizational culture that facilitate or impede communication 

across disciplines, and it starts with the assumption that communication between 

members of the NanoCenter changes when the members our team are part of the 

mix. The procedure begins with a Likert scale (e.g., 1. Agree; 2. Somewhat Agree; 

3. Not Sure; 4. Somewhat Disagree; 5. Disagree) survey of NanoCenter members on 

a series of questions concerning the societal place of nanotechnology to establish a 

baseline. As the work proceeds Be ́rube ́ develops analyses of communication protocols, observing and recording outcomes. His findings, following the protocols of cooperative inquiry, are added to the dialog among members of the NanoCenter. Followup data accumulation may include collection at locations beyond USC and with different populations. Quantitative and qualitative findings will be published. 

(2) Science Journalism: Lowndes Stephens (J. Rion McKissick Professor of Journalism, USC) pursues an experimental study of ways to improve science journalism, 

particularly that covering nanotechnology. The experiment will be conducted during 

summer 2004 on a group of experienced science writers who have a weeklong training course in Newsplex, a $2 million state-of-the-art multi-media, micro newsroom 

laboratory at the University of South Carolina. Using information from other team 

members and from members of USC’s NanoCenter, the subjects will be asked to research, source and write news stories on several significant advances in nanoscience 

and nanotechnology. The subjects and their stories will be examined both before and 

after their experience in Newsplex, as a way to determine the degree to which this 

experience improves their ability to write about nanotechnology. Results will be analyzed during summer 2005. The project contributes to our understanding about how 

recommendations in the academic literature might be used to improve the quality 

of science reporting. An important possible outcome of this work may be that we 

can train journalists in the manner used during the week at Newsplex to improve 

the accuracy of media portrayals of the flaws and promises of scientific innovations 

in nanoscience. 

(3) Politics: Ed Munn (Philosophy, USC). As nanotechnology emerges into the 

public’s consciousness, discussions about the desirability of emerging technologies 

that nanotechnology is making possible become more common and tendentious. 

Within a democratic society these discussions are pivotal in setting both public policy and the social and ethical guidelines for the use and pursuit of nanotechnology. 

Munn studies the emergence of these discussions using the approach favored by the 

proponents of deliberative democracy. Richard Sclove writes, ‘‘If citizens ought to be 

empowered to participate in determining their society’s basic structure, and technologies are an important species of social structure, it follows that technological design and practice should be democratized.’’ Munn explores what this view of democracy implies for the development of nanotechnology. In particular he looks at the 

45

role of ‘‘the expert’’ in both communicating and guiding the development of 

nanotechnology. Munn argues that the expert’s appropriate role is as a facilitator 

for the creation of an analogue to Jurgen Habermas’ ideal speech situation that allows for effective citizen participation in decisions about nanotechnology. 

(4) Law: Robin Fretwell Wilson (School of Law, USC) is an expert on the regulation of new technologies. She brings her experience in health law and biomedical 

ethics, areas in which new technologies challenge traditional notions of regulating 

behavior, to develop a model for how best to facilitate nanotechnology. The aim is 

to do so while preserving a role for the incorporation of democratic values input into 

this emerging technology, and in doing so allowing for appropriate state oversight. 

Consistent with her examination of past efforts to regulate emerging technologies—

ranging from our experiences with allocation of scarce life-saving technologies, like 

organs, to mapping the human genome and human cloning—she draws on and integrate all of the various insights produced by other members of her Task Area, and 

those from the other Task Areas into discussions in the policy forum. Because the 

best possible course for the regulation of nanotechnology necessarily requires deliberative and engaged debate between all the stake-holders involved—journalists, educators, industrialists, scientists, funding and government agencies and citizens, 

groups—the policy forum brings together these stakeholders and members of the 

nanotechnology community. 

Here, then we reach the second stage of Task Area 4’s work: Actually engaging 

the public sphere in discussions of nanotechnology. The first stage provides three 

conceptual and two empirical studies of how to take nanotechnology into the public 

sphere. The results of these studies may differ, but the fundamental assumption of 

our interdisciplinary research team is that only by bringing such divergent approaches to the study of nanotechnology are we able to find a model for constructive 

debate concerning nanotechnology in the public sphere. But a model for debate is 

not enough. Our project aims to produce informed constructive debate itself, and 

here the key element is the active participation of all the members our project’s research team, the members of the NanoCenter, and other members of USC’s faculty, 

student body and staff. The divergent contributions of the members of Task Area 

4 are essential to developing genuinely useful discussion of nanotechnology, a discussion that is particularly important in the final conference planned for the project, 

‘‘Nanotechnology in the Legal and Political Sphere.’’ Wilson will organize this conference. She will structure discussion between national, international and local 

stakeholders by acting as a reporter for the conference participants, circulating 

drafts, and mediating between academics and other stakeholders. With this conference we will have taken our understanding and control of nanotechnology from 

laboratory to society. 

3. The Collaborative Infrastructure 

A variety of events and publications stimulate informed and integrative dialogue 

about the significance of nanoscale research, and thereby promote the goal of what 

we call, ‘‘the nano-literate campus.’’

I. Annual Summer Workshops 

These weeklong workshops bring together all investigators. They are joined by scientists at USC’s NanoCenter, graduate and undergraduate students, as well as a 

small group of interested academics and non-academics. Each workshop features 

contributions by invited experts on various aspects of nanoscience and 

nanotechnology; these contributions serve to structure the task-oriented collaborations of all participants. Our inaugural workshop took place on August 5–9, 2002: 

‘‘Reading NanoScience.’’ The next four workshops (2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006) are 

organized around selected research questions from the four Task Areas:

2003 [TA 2]: ‘‘Imaging and Imagining NanoScience,’’ 

2004 [TA 1]: ‘‘Self-Assembly and the Construction of Nanostructures;’’ 

2005 [TA 3]: ‘‘Biological Machines, Genetic Engineering, and Nanobiotechnology;’’ 

2006 [TA 4]: ‘‘Nanotechnology and Its Publics.’’

II. Annual Spring Conferences & Monthly NanoCulture Colloquia Series 

Spring Conferences: The Spring Conferences aim at promoting dialogue between 

national and international scholars. Since our interdisciplinary research team raises 

new questions for science and technology studies, these conferences are to foster disciplinary interest in these questions. The first of these, ‘‘Discovering the Nanoscale,’’ 

was held on March 20–23, 2003. Its discussions will be deepened and continued on 

October 10–12, 2003 in Darmstadt, Germany. Together, both meetings feature about 

40 presentations that will be collected in a volume of proceedings. The conferences 

are free and open to the public. Plans for future conferences are as follows: 

46

2004, organized by Davis Baird: ‘‘Tools for Imaging and Imagining the Nanoscale;’’ 

2005, organized by George Khushf: ‘‘The Philosophy and Ethics of Emerging Technologies: Nanotechnology, Cybernetics, and Genetics;’’ 

2006, organized by David Be ́rube ́: ‘‘Visionary Rhetoric Confronts Real Science;’’ 

2007, organized by Robin Wilson: ‘‘Nanotechnology in the Legal and Political 

Sphere.’’

NanoCulture Colloquia Series: Each semester our group organizes and hosts a series of colloquia featuring issues associated with our project’s four Task Areas. The 

NanoCulture Colloquia Series is open to the public, but our target audience includes 

scientists at the NanoCenter, other USC faculty, and interested graduate and undergraduate students. Their themes are generated as research on the four task 

areas progresses. 

III. Educational Outreach 

Research Based Learning: In coordination with USC’s Honors College, Loren 

Knapp (Biological Sciences, USC), with the cooperation of other team members, develops a research-based learning course for undergraduate honors students at USC. 

In a case-oriented manner, it explores the relations between what is theoretically 

possible, technologically feasible, and ethically defensible. Historically, how has this 

balance been struck? In the case of a newly emerging science and technology, such 

as nanotechnology, how can it be found? The course focuses on biological systems 

and biotechnology as they become fused in the concept of biological machines. It 

therefore considers how nanoscale science and engineering challenges the traditional separation of nature and culture by using biological systems and processes 

as models for engineering. Along with an extant course on ‘‘Ultramicroscopy,’’ this 

new course will be part of our Honors College ‘‘Nano Semester’’ (see below). In addition it will afford several undergraduate research assistants the opportunity to gain 

the technical skill and theoretical perspective required to produce a research-based 

Honors Thesis. 

Textbook, Understanding Nanotechnology: This volume is aimed at introducing an 

undergraduate audience to the full spectrum of societal issues raised by nanoscience 

and nanotechnology. It consists of selected primary readings, with substantial introductory essays for each section, and brief introductions for each essay. Team member, Steven Lynn (English, USC) coordinates the editing of the volume drawing on 

the efforts of other team members to write all introductory material. The volume 

has the following structure: 

Section 1, Nano Fundamentals: Background readings explaining what 

nanotechnology is, what its current state of development is, and what it may make 

possible; 

Section 2, Nano Science: Annotated excerpts from science journals that show how 

the science of nanotechnology is being conducted; 

Section 3, Nano Fiction: Short stories that indicate how nanotechnology has been 

represented in science fiction; 

Section 4, Nano Publics: Readings and illustrations from newspapers and magazines that show how nanotechnology is being presented to the public; 

Section 5, Nano Politics: Readings the engage the ethics and politics of potential 

uses and abuses of nanotechnology. 

Nano Semester: During the spring of 2005, the Honors College will host a collection of coordinated, interdisciplinary courses, each concentrating on a different aspect of nanoscience and nanotechnology. These will follow the pattern of previous 

semesters fielded by the Honors College—spring 1999: ‘‘Darwin across the Disciplines,’’ spring 2003: ‘‘The Sustainable Futures (on environmentalism).’’ Catherine 

Murphy, working in cooperation with other team members, will coordinate this set 

of courses. In addition to the Research Based Learning course (see above) planned 

courses include ‘‘Ultramicroscopy,’’ ‘‘Chemistry and nanotechnology,’’ ‘‘Post-humanism and nanotechnology,’’ ‘‘Philosophy at the nanoscale: Creating a new reality.’’ In 

addition, we will use one or more of these courses to help us develop our reader, 

Understanding Nanotechnology, on the multiple aspects of the cultural significance 

of nanoscale research. 

IV. Publications, Website and Archive 

All of the various collaborative ventures involve an exchange of ideas and manuscripts among investigators. These culminates in a collection of papers that brings 

together the work of the research on the four Task Areas that we will publish in 

a peer-reviewed academic press. As a matter of course, the preparation of scholarly 

manuscripts and the participation in the workshops and colloquia leads to a variety 

of other publications in peer-reviewed academic journals and in other outlets, aimed 

at a more general readership. Given the current state of the field, we expect the 

47

collection of papers that flow out of this project to provide a foundation for this 

emerging important field of research. 

The project’s webmaster manages the website and archive of our research team 

http://www.cla.sc.edu/cpecs/nirt/. This website features the general outline, scheduled events and specific projects included in this proposal. It includes a searchable 

and expanding database of abstracts of research materials for people interested in 

doing research on the societal implications of nanotechnology. Links to each investigator provide access to their research projects. Website also points to a moderated 

listserv on the philosophical and social dimensions of nanoscale science and technology, with about 200 subscribers from all over the world. The listserv also allows 

investigators to present new ideas and arguments for consideration by this audience. The website also includes a collection of ‘‘works in progress,’’ available for further public consideration and comment. One team member, Ed Munn, is fluent in 

Spanish, and is translating much of the website to make our work accessible in 

Spanish. 

V. Engaging USC’s NanoCenter 

At every stage of our research, we are looking for ways to integrate our critical 

reflections with the interests and concerns of the scientists and engineers at USC’s 

NanoCenter. Over the course of the grant, the science/humanities collaboration between the NanoCenter and our research team takes a variety of forms: (1) 

NanoCenter scientists are instructing humanities scholars in the fundamentals of 

nanoscience and engineering; (2) members of USC’s NanoCenter have introduced 

members of the team to the instruments on which their work relies; (3) the opinions 

and contributions of NanoCenter researchers are solicited at monthly colloquia; (4) 

members of the NanoCenter have helped us to compile a collection of classical readings, used in our August 2002 workshop: ‘‘Reading Nanoscience.’’ Similar collaborations are envisaged for the future. In addition, (5) claims about the philosophical 

significance of bottom-up nano-engineering are checked against the insights and assessments of engineers themselves; (6) the laboratory work and disciplinary interactions at the NanoCenter are observed by members of our team; (7) all research 

produced by the team are made available to the scrutiny and criticism of 

NanoCenter researchers; (8) members of the NanoCenter are invited to participate 

in our listserv discussions; (9) in the annual assessment phase, members of the 

NanoCenter are asked to comment on our activities and to suggest future activities 

or topics for discussion; (10) Richard Adams, Director of the NanoCenter, is a member of our Advisory Board. Finally (11) we aim to encourage the scientists and engineers at the NanoCenter to more fully examine the hidden societal assumptions behind their research, and to see how the research projects they pursue may be integrated into the broader society they serve. 

Appendix 2: Ethical and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology: A 

Research Agenda 

Reflecting the goals of nanotechnology 

Nanotechnology is frequently presented as improving wealth, health, environment, and security. While all these four values are, each in their own way, compelling, detailed studies need to analyze (1) if there are possible conflicts between these 

values, (2) if there are conflicts with other culturally embedded values, and (3) if 

there are consequences that may arise when the goals would be really achieved. For 

instance, creating a perfect health control system by nano-bio-information technology may raise issues of privacy and informational autonomy. Or, improving 

health condition to the state of overcoming aging, as some have promised, would 

cause radical societal and cultural changes and would also require rethinking individual life plans. 

Identifying possible moral issues 

Moral issues of new technologies usually arise (1) if the applications have either 

unintended bad consequences or (2) if the benefits are distributed unjustly. For instance, new kinds of risks might arise from nanoparticles if they have unpredictable 

catalytic effects in the human body or the environment, or if their built-in capacities 

to self-assembly or to replicate get out of control. Or, new nanotechnologies, because 

of their improvement of human performances, might cause or increase a social divide between the privileged and skilled who can use these technologies and the underprivileged and less educated who are not able to use them. 

48

Identifying possible gaps in the legal regulation of nanotechnology 

Once moral issues of nanotechnology are identified, juridical analysis is required 

to check the present regulation system whether it is sufficient to cope with them 

or not and to develop suggestions for additional regulatory instruments. 

Distinguishing the critical from the uncritical fields of nanotechnology 

Current definitions of nanotechnology are so broad and vague that a vast field of 

hardly related scientific and engineering research is included and, given the present 

trend, much more will be included in the future. Should public concerns about single 

moral issues ever grow to the condemnation of whatever is labeled nanotechnology, 

the effect on science and technology could be disastrous. It is imperative, therefore, 

to clearly distinguish between critical and uncritical fields of nanotechnology and to 

mediate this distinction to the public. 

Analyzing the implicit moral messages of metaphors and images 

From media reports to visual images and fiction writing, representations of 

nanotechnology convey implicit values and moral messages that can powerfully 

shape the public opinion. It is therefore important to analyze the metaphors and visual images used in communications about nanotechnology, with respect to their normative implications, the fears and hopes they raise, and their cultural roots. 

Studying how ideas about nanotechnology transform cultural belief systems 

The promises and far-reaching scenarios of nanotechnology, from longevity/immortality to the intimate entanglement of the human body with machines and computers, are able to undermine and transform traditional cultural belief systems, regarding the physical, mental, and social nature of human beings, and the distinction 

between nature and technology. It is important to study this interaction in order 

to understand the public reception of nanotechnology, either as extremely conservative reluctance or as quasi-religious embracement, such as in ‘‘transhumanism’’ or 

‘‘extropianism.’’

Observing the public attitudes toward nanotechnology 

In the long run, nanotechnology will flourish only if the public supports it. It is 

therefore imperative to understand not only the public concerns but also on what 

moral basis such concerns are grounded and whether conflicts can be reconciled or 

not. To that end, a detailed apparatus for sociological investigations needs to be developed and applied, from classical instruments such as questionnaires and oral 

interviews to more participatory models such as consensus workshops or science 

cafe ́s. 

Studying how nanotechnology transforms the traditional scientific landscape 

Nanoscale research is currently about to transform the traditional scientific landscape, in which researchers as a subsystem of the society are involved. The success 

of nanotechnology will essentially depend on the researchers’ willingness to take an 

active part in that process. The transformation particularly regards the disciplinary 

structure of the sciences, the science-technology relationship, research values, and 

methods. Since it is likely that these changes affect our scientific and educational 

infrastructure overall, it is important to study these impacts in detail and to understand its positive and negative consequences as well as potential obstacles.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Dr. Baird. 

And every one of our witnesses’ written testimony will be put 

into the record in its totality. 

Thank you, Dr. Baird. 

Dr. Jiao? 

STATEMENT OF JUN JIAO, PH.D., CO–DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY, PORTLAND STATE 

UNIVERSITY 

Dr. JIAO. Yes, good afternoon, Chairman Allen and Senator 

Wyden. 

As Chairman Allen mentioned, I have been working in the field 

of nanotechnology for more than 10 years, and I have made significant advances in this area. So I serve as the co-director of the Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology and the Director of the 

49

Electron Microscopy and the Microanalysis facility, both at Portland State University. I have received the fundings from the government agencies and private foundations and high-tech companies 

for the research, including the development of nanofabrication techniques for carbon nanotubes and nanowires and the investigation 

of carbon nanotubes and semiconductor nanowires as the new generation of electron emitters. 

I’m pleased to appear before you today to discuss nanotechnology 

and this landmark legislation, S. 189. There is great excitement 

about nanotechnology on college campuses. Before I could confirm 

that I would appear today, I asked my students for permission to 

reschedule a class that I missed on Thursday. They said yes. They 

want me to tell you how important this legislation is to their future. 

Portland State University has made a tremendous commitment 

to nanotechnology research. We have built a first-class 

nanocharacterization and nanofabrication facility, which is unique 

in the Pacific Northwest. This enables researchers to study the materials’ properties at the atomic level and to create novel materials, 

as well as nano-devices. 

Nanotechnology research allows us to have unprecedented control over the electronic, magnetic, optical, and thermal properties 

of nanoscaled materials. Consequently, the resulting nanomaterials 

are stronger, lighter, and have better quality. This will improve our 

lives in the future—from safer airplanes to cars and to reduce the 

power consumption in more miniaturized electronic products, such 

as cell phones and computers. 

I have tremendous excitement about the possibility of new discoveries that can happen as a result of the S. 189. Existing industries, including those not typically characterized as high-tech, will 

see their production lines and they manufacture influenced by our 

growing capability in nanotechnology. The business-development 

progress will be even more rapid as the relative risk from investing 

in nanotechnology becomes lower. 

I wanted to emphasize that the research being done today in 

nanotechnology is producing exciting results, but the cost of production of innovation is beyond the reach of today’s consumers. 

Therefore, research has to be done to optimize those processes. 

As a scientist who has received significant support from our 

work, I know that federal funding is highly competitive. At the 

same time researchers in this area are compelled to present their 

proposals that are, by their nature, high risk, but they have potentials for high gains. The result is that few proposals are funded, 

thereby limiting the work that can be done in universities throughout the United States. 

S. 189 will ensure that U.S. scientists receive reasonable funding 

for research to compete with their Asian and European counterparts, which has been strongly supported by their nations. 

S. 189 supports long-term nanotechnology research and development leading to potential breakthroughs in areas such as materials 

and manufacturing, medicine, environment, biotechnology, agriculture, information technology, and homeland security. I support 

this broad-based approach because nanotechnology cannot be advanced without an interdisciplinary focus and federal support. 

50

History has shown us that without the Federal Government providing long-term funding, there are fewer breakthroughs to translate into products and economic prosperity. 

Another important aspect of this legislation is that it also focuses 

on our promising scientists and engineers of tomorrow. These 

young people know that investment in nanoscale research is the 

key to their future. 

Over the past several years, I have been involved in an outreach 

program called the Apprenticeship of Science and Engineering organized by the Saturday Academy of Oregon. This program aims 

at—encourages high-school students to pursue higher education in 

science and engineering. My experience with those young students 

suggests that we need an imperative such as S. 189 to ensure that 

our scientists of the future have a firm training ground with consistent financial support. 

In closing, thank you for the invitation to testify today. It is an 

honor to be asked to participate in this crucial national discussion. 

My colleagues and I strongly believe that nanotechnology will lead 

to a new and improved future. S. 189 is the commitment we needed 

to continue American leadership and innovation in the latest 

nanotechnological frontier. I urge the Committee to pass this bill. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Jiao follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUN JIAO, PH.D., CO-DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR NANOSCIENCE

AND NANOTECHNOLOGY, PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

Good afternoon, Chairman Allen and Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I am Jun Jiao, Assistant Professor of Physics 

at Portland State University. I have been working in the field of nanotechnology for 

more than 10 years and have made significant research advances in this area. My 

original contributions in the area of nanomaterials growth and characterizations 

have been documented in more than 60 publications. My carbon nanotube work has 

been granted patent protection. In 1993, I was selected as a Presidential Scholar 

of the Microscopy Society of America. I serve as co-director of the Center for 

Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, and director of the Electron Microscopy and 

Microanalysis Facility both at Portland State University. I have received funding 

from the National Science Foundation, Petroleum Research Foundation, FEI Company, and Intel Corporation for research including the development of 

nanofabrication techniques for nanotubes and nanowires and the investigation of 

carbon nanotubes and semiconductor nanowires as the new generation of electron 

emitters. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss nanotechnology and S. 189. 

I want to thank Senator Wyden and Members of the Committee for introducing this 

landmark legislation. There is great excitement about nanotechnology on college 

campuses and before I could confirm that I would appear today, I asked my students if they would give me their permission to reschedule a class that meets today. 

They said yes—because they wanted to make sure I told you how important this 

legislation is to their future. They are excited about the possibilities S. 189 presents 

and want you to know that they stand ready and willing to be a part of this important national initiative. 

Portland State University’s Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology is 

Key to Oregon’s Economy

Portland State University, Oregon’s only urban university, located in the heart of 

the silicon forest and Oregon’s largest economic center, has made a commitment to 

building a world-class program in nanotechnology. Portland State University has 

formed an interdisciplinary research center on nanoscience and nanotechnology. The 

Center involves faculty from Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Biology, Engineering, and 

Environmental Science. Funding and equipment for the Center has come from the 

University, industry partners, government, and private foundations. The support 

PSU has received has allowed it to establish a first class, state-of-the-art electron 

51

microscopy and microanalysis facility including an ultra highresolution transmission 

electron microscope equipped with various analytical capabilities and a high-resolution scanning electron microscope capable of nano-characterization and electron 

beam lithography nano-fabrication. Both microscopes were made by the FEI Company, which is located in Hillsboro, OR. Portland State University is the only educational institution in the Pacific Northwest having such comprehensive 

nanostructural characterization and nanofabrication capabilities. This enables researchers to study the materials’ properties at the atomic level and to create novel 

materials as well as nano-devices. 

Portland State University has made a tremendous commitment to this area of research in part because it is essential not only to the future of the economy of the 

Pacific Northwest but to the global economy. The University faculty’s research in 

the areas of carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, ultra high-resolution near-field microscopy, bio-physics, nano-imprinting, and fabrication of nano-devices is strong and 

carries national and international reputation. Many faculty research groups have 

engaged in collaborative research endeavors with local high tech industries such as 

Intel Corporation, FEI Company, LSI Logic, and Boeing Company, to mention just 

a few. 

Academic and industrial research teams know that joint academic-industry partnerships on nanotechnology will make our economy stronger. Nanotechnology as 

currently practiced by scientists and engineers in the academic sector is not just an 

exercise in pursuing sophisticated science, it will have a significant impact on industry and society as a whole. The research in these areas allows us to characterize 

and structure new materials with precision at the level of atoms and to have unprecedented control of their electronic, magnetic, optical, and thermal properties—

in fact, any property that we want to enhance. Consequently, the resulting 

nanomaterials have stronger, lighter, and better quality than conventional materials. This will have innumerable beneficial effects on our lives in the future—from 

safer airplanes and cars to low-power consumption and higher application efficiency 

of miniaturized electronic products, such as cell phones, computers, and other instruments. 

Additionally, Portland State University is part of a collaborative request to the 

Oregon State Legislature by the Oregon University System to support a signature 

research center in multiscale materials and devices development. This proposal involves Oregon State University, the University of Oregon, the Oregon Health and 

Science University, and Portland State University. It has received favorable support 

from Oregon’s Governor and key legislative committees and is awaiting final approval and funding. 

All of this demonstrates that Portland State University and Oregon recognize that 

the impact nanotechnology currently has on new and existing industries is significant, but the potential for the future will be even greater. Therefore, significant investment in research and development in nanotechnology is essential and especially 

needed in the academic sector. 

Nanoscale Research is the Foundation for the Next Generation of New

Scientific Discoveries and Engineering Developments

Nanotechnology is concerned with materials and systems whose structures and 

components show significantly improved physical, chemical and biological properties 

because of their nanoscale size. Structural features in the range of a nanometer dimension, which is 10,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair, exhibit 

remarkable novel phenomena as compared to the behavior of bulk materials. We can 

exploit the novel properties and phenomena of nano-based entities as we learn to 

manipulate structures and devices at the atomic, molecular and supramolecular levels, and as we develop techniques to efficiently manufacture and use them. Important changes in their behavior are caused not only by the order of magnitude size 

reduction, but also by new phenomena such as size confinement, predominance of 

interfacial interaction, and quantum effects. Such new forms of materials and devices herald a revolutionary age for science and technology provided that we can discover and fully utilize the underlying principles. 

As a materials scientist, my research focus is on the development of carbon 

nanotubes and nanowires as new generation of electron field emitters as well as 

building blocks for nanoelectronic devices. As individual nanoscale molecules, carbon 

nanotubes are unique. They have been shown to be true molecular wires, and have 

already been assembled into the first single- molecule transistor ever built. In the 

future, we will see our current silicon-based microelectronics supplanted by a carbon-based nanoelectronics of vastly greater power and scope. I have developed 

strong partnerships with local high tech companies such as Intel, FEI Company, 

and LSI Logic because of their interest in the research developments in these areas. 

52

Some midsize and small size companies are initiating active conversations with 

Portland State University’s Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology and exploring partnerships with us for some specific nanotechnology investigations. Portland 

State University’s President Daniel Bernstine has made business development and 

job creation a key element in our mission. The University is a hub for faculty expertise, specialized facilities, and highly-talented students who become leaders in the 

workforce. 

I believe that current estimates suggesting that nanotechnology will have a one 

trillion dollar impact on the global economy throughout this century are reasonable. 

I have tremendous excitement about the possibilities of discoveries and innovations 

that can happen. For example, existing industries including those not typically characterized as ‘‘high tech’’, will see their product lines and the way they manufacture 

influenced by our growing capabilities in nanotechnology. Moreover, aspects of 

nanotechnology will help small companies whose products are developed for niche 

markets including sensors, bio- and chemical-analytical devices and chemical ingredients expand. These small businesses are not likely to require the multi-billion dollar investments that ‘chip’ manufacturers must face in re-tooling their plants to the 

new advances in technology. The progress will be even more rapid as the relative 

risk from investing in nanotechnology becomes lower. I want to emphasize that the 

research now being done in nanotechnology is producing exciting results, but the 

cost of production of innovations is beyond the reach of today’s consumers. Therefore, research has to be done to optimize those processes. 

The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act Will

Ensure That the Nation’s Work in This Area is Funded, Coordinated, 

and Focused. 

As an active researcher in the area of nanotechnology, I am very pleased by the 

findings, goals, and programs outlined in the ‘‘21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.’’ This Act will enable our nation to establish a comprehensive, intelligently coordinated program for addressing the full spectrum of 

challenges confronting a successful national science and technology effort. In particular, those related to funding, coordination, infrastructure development, technology transfer, and social issues. Currently the funding available through government agencies and private foundations and companies is limited. As a scientist who 

has received significant support for my work, I know that funding from federal programs is highly competitive. At the same time, researchers in this area are compelled to present proposals that are by their nature high-risk—but have the potential for high-gains. The result is that few proposals are funded, thereby limiting the 

work that can be done in universities throughout America. S. 189 will ensure that 

U.S. scientists receive reasonable funding for research to compete with their Asian 

and European counterparts, which have been strongly supported by their nations 

both financially and politically. 

I want to address two specific issues emphasized in the Act. First, S. 189 supports 

long-term nanoscale research and development leading to potential breakthroughs 

in areas such as materials and manufacturing, nanoelectronics, medicine and 

healthcare, environment, energy, chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture, information 

technology, and national and homeland security. I support this approach because 

nanotechnology offers great promise in diverse fields and cannot advance without 

federal support. The foundation of knowledge in this area is incomplete, and significant fundamental research is needed. Particularly, in the current competitive and 

economically-challenged climate, private sector investment will fall far short of what 

is needed. Therefore, a strong federal role will be necessary for the field to realize 

its full potential. Also, history has shown us that each of the critical breakthroughs 

in science and technology has been based on years of sustained federal funding for 

research. The breakthroughs funded by the federal government are the foundation 

that enables subsequent efforts by the business sector to translate that research 

into products for the marketplace. Without the Federal Government underwriting 

the long-term funding, there will be fewer breakthroughs to translate into products 

and economic prosperity. 

The Act also requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to collect 

data about the growth of the workforce that is anticipated as a result of expanded 

research in nanotechnology. This initiative will provide important information to 

workforce policy planners about the investment of key economic development and 

job training funding. I want to speak to this issue because I believe that 

nanotechnology has strong implications for high-wage jobs and will pay big dividends to communities that make this area of research and development a priority. 

By this I mean, we need to provide professional development and continuing education for those already working in this field, and make it a priority area of eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
53

cation for tomorrow’s workforce. Among three classes I teach each year, two of them 

are concerning transmission electron microscopy and scanning electron microscopy 

of nanomaterials. These classes attract students not only from our campus but also 

from local industry. The classes are full each time they are offered. Most importantly, through these classes as well as the hands-on laboratory experience, students are able to learn state-of-the-art materials characterization skills and are actively involved in the latest nanomaterials research. The students who are already 

working in the field leave the class prepared to tackle more challenging technical 

jobs. 

A Federal Investment in Interdisciplinary Research Centers Will Leverage 

Local, State, and Industry Support 

S. 189 authorizes $50,000,000 for Interdisciplinary Research Centers and provides 

grants of up to $5,000,000 to support geographically diverse centers that support the 

initiative priorities including those addressing the fundamental research, grand 

challenges, education, development and utilization of specific research tools, and 

promoting partnerships with industry identified in the legislation. These are exactly 

the missions that the Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology at Portland State 

University is pursuing. It is our long-term goal to secure additional federal funds 

and attract foundation and private contributions to expand the work we are doing 

and to build an internationally recognized multidisciplinary nanoscience and 

nanotechnology research center. 

Additional support from the Federal Government for research in this area will 

help programs like mine, and those around the country, lead the way for innovations and discoveries. I support the calls for interdisciplinary work and collaboration 

outlined in the legislation because most of today’s challenging problems in science 

and engineering are complex and will not be solved by investigators working within 

the borders of their own chosen fields. That is the philosophy that guides the work 

we do at Portland State University. Federal funding for nanotechnology will assist 

important interdisciplinary research efforts which may lead to curing cancer and 

AIDS, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, or building the next-generation of sensors 

to help safeguard our homeland. 

S. 189 is Legislation That Will Resonate With Young People Today—Tomorrow’s Scientists and Engineers Know That Investment in Nanoscale Research is Key to Our Nation’s Future 

My research laboratory is one of the areas of excellence at Portland State University. As a result, I host many visiting dignitaries to campus who are interested in 

learning about ways the University is addressing the workforce and research needs 

of the future. Many of those visiting truly understand the research area. Others 

don’t understand the specifics of the work we do, but have enthusiasm for its possibilities. For example, they may have grown up when the nation focused on the imperative of getting man to the moon. Or they have experienced the sophistication 

and evolution of computers from those that took up whole rooms to the pocket personal computer they carry. So, people of our generation typically have a general appreciation of why this area of research is important. 

I want to assure you though that young people today—those in middle school and 

high school—are truly excited about this area of research. Let me give you two examples. In the past several years, I have been involved in an outreach program 

called apprenticeship of science and engineering organized by the Saturday Academy of Oregon. This program aims at promoting high school students to pursue 

higher education in science and engineering. Each summer, I host one or two high 

school students selected among the high schools in Oregon and Washington to work 

with me on my nanomaterials research. For one position there are usually more 

than 40 applicants. In reading their application essays, I was amazed by the depth 

of the knowledge that young people have about nanotechnology. I was touched by 

their strong desire to participate in nanomaterials research. In my spare time, I also 

serve as a judge for the Intel Northwest Science Expo. This is an annual event designed to encourage middle and high school students to apply their interest in 

science and engineering to real world innovations. Each year, more than 500 students from Oregon and Washington participate in this event. The students present 

their own research at this event and every year I am encouraged by these young 

people who I know will become great scientists. These students are excited about 

nanotechnology, however we need an imperative such as S. 189 to ensure that our 

scientists of the future will have a firm training ground with consistent financial 

support. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for the invitation to testify today. 

It is an honor to be asked to participate in this crucial national discussion. My colVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
54

leagues and I strongly believe that nanotechnology will lead to a new and improved 

technological revolution. S. 189 is the commitment we need to continue American 

leadership and innovation in the latest technological frontier. I urge the Committee 

to pass this bill.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Dr. Jiao, for your enthusiastic testimony. I can see why your students enjoy your courses. 

Now we’d like to hear from Dr. Kent Murphy, from Blacksburg, 

Virginia Tech, Hokie country. 

Dr. Murphy? 

STATEMENT OF KENT A. MURPHY, PH.D., FOUNDER AND CEO,

LUNA INNOVATIONS 

Dr. MURPHY. Thank you very much. Thank you, again, for the invitation to speak today, Chairman Allen. 

Again, my name is Kent Murphy. I’m the founder and CEO of 

Luna Innovations, a research and development company located in 

Blacksburg, Virginia. We are a leader in nanotechnology production. We produce the largest, most pure quantities of carbon nanobased materials that there are; but, more broadly, we are a company that is specialized in technology transfer, bringing research to 

products. 

We have been a recipient of several NIST ATP awards, several 

SBIR programs, and have been able to utilize that to grow Luna 

to a little more than 200 employees at this point in a rural area 

in Southwest Virginia. And for that, we’d like to say thank you. 

Two major points that I hope to bring to your attention today. 

One is the importance of commercializing work at the university 

and government labs; and, two, the crucial role nanotechnology will 

play in our future. 

The investments our country has made in the past 50 years in 

our university and government-research labs has created an enormous potential. I was very fortunate in the seventies to work for 

a multibillion-dollar corporation with a team of people who focused 

on basic research, bringing research to products and handing it 

over to production crews. Later on, I accepted a position at Virginia 

Tech as a professor, worked there for 9 years. I was very excited 

to be in the university environment, but, after a few years of that, 

began to realize there was an enormous amount of potential—

many, many inventions, many publications, many opportunities 

and important technologies that were just left on the shelf. I took 

a leave of absence from my position at Virginia Tech, started Luna 

Innovations, and we began to try to transfer that technology out 

and, hopefully, create jobs from that. 

Our future economic growth in this country is going to be led by 

collaborative research, development, and commercialization efforts 

across universities, government labs, and corporations, both large 

and small. Large corporations have continued to cut back on their 

R&D budgets, based on quarterly earnings requirements. They’re 

looking more and more towards small companies for those innovations, and we hope to provide that. 

We must recognize the importance of these strategic alliances 

and continue to find ways to improve the efficient use of these national resources that we’ve created at our universities and governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
55

ment labs. The Bayh-Dole Act has been a great start, but we need 

to continue to do more. 

As we’ve heard today from many speakers, every facet of human 

life will be touched by advances in nanomaterial development. 

We’ve heard many different areas in medical, homeland defense, 

power generation and distribution, telecommunications, transportation, and things that we’ve never dreamed. Luna strongly believes this proposed legislation will help secure our country’s position as a leader in nanotechnology by funding this basic research 

and also the technology-transfer programs required to make them 

a reality. With this funding, we’ll also be able to move the discoveries of our greatest researchers to the marketplace and create 

high-quality jobs in the U.S. more rapidly. 

Nanotechnology, as we’ve heard, is not a specific technology or 

discipline. Instead, it’s a broad term used to define work conducted 

on the nanometer scale. True breakthroughs are often just accidental discoveries that happen when basic research has been funded, as Senator Sununu pointed out, but the majority of the progress 

towards problem solving is usually incremental work done on a collaborative effort across many different fields of expertise. 

We have listed, in the written testimony, many different applications that we, personally, are working on and others, and I’d like 

you to try to imagine the different areas of scientific and business 

expertise that will be required to bring some of the products from 

the laboratory to the consumer in a timely fashion. 

We are currently working on radio-pharmaceuticals, with cell 

targeting, that will deliver therapies directly to a cancer cell. They 

are carbon nanocages filled with radioactive materials 

functionalized with ligands that are searching out a particular cancer cell. Just in that alone, we need chemists, materials scientists, 

manufacturing experts to be able to manufacture these in large 

quantities, biologists, radiologists, oncologists, toxicologists, long 

lists, it goes on and on, of the experts that will be required to bring 

these products to a reality. 

Again, Luna Innovations’ business model is to license patents, 

we’ve licensed dozens of patents from universities in the U.S. and 

government labs and created a wide variety of products. We’ve currently licensed patents from Drs. Dorn and Stevenson, of Virginia 

Tech, who discovered a way to put materials inside of a buckyball. 

The fellow that discovered the buckyball and won the Nobel 

Prize actually wrote an article just last year and said—the title of 

the article was, ‘‘Why, After 18 Years, Is Bucky Still Out of a Job?’’ 

Well, it was basically because the carbon cage doesn’t interact with 

much. We’ve figured out a way to put things inside those cages and 

make products that will increase contrast agents for MRI scans, to 

diagnose disease, and other things 

I’d like to point out also that Virginia is a leader in collaborative 

nanotechnology research and development, with the CIT and the 

Secretary of Technology, the first of their kind in the country, also, 

INanoVA and VRTAC, who have also testified here before, and 

point out that the Federal Government must take a leadership role 

in funding these nanotechnology research and coordination efforts, 

and also point out that the economic success of our Nation is at 

stake. We must remain in a leadership position. And this legislaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
56

tion is necessary for the United States to ensure our future health 

and well-being and safety in this rapidly advancing global economy. 

And, again, thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Murphy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENT A. MURPHY, PH.D., FOUNDER AND CEO,

LUNA INNOVATIONS

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today regarding the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development 

Act. I am the Founder and CEO of Luna Innovations, a research and development 

company located in Blacksburg, Virginia. I also serve on Governor Warner’s Virginia 

Research and Technology Advisory Commission. 

Luna Innovations is an industrial leader in the area of nanotechnology, and technology transfer. I would like to recognize the support of the Virginia congressional 

delegation, especially Senator Allen, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Advanced 

Technology Program at NIST, and Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) programs from multiple agencies for helping Luna to achieve the level of success we 

have in our rural location in southwestern Virginia. It is these agencies that will 

benefit greatly from this legislation, giving them the ability to propel our country’s 

leading researchers in nanomaterial-related science and applications to great discoveries. 

There are two major points I hope to make clear today, 1) the importance of our 

investments in university and government labs and moving their ideas into the commercial sector, and 2) the importance nanotechnology will play in our future. 

Future economic growth around the globe will be led by collaborative research, 

development and commercialization efforts across university, government labs and 

industry both large and small. Investment in university and government research 

labs has placed the United States in a global leadership position in science and technology. We must recognize the importance of these strategic alliances and maximize 

the enormous investments made in our university and government labs by bringing 

their intellectual properties to the marketplace in the most efficient way possible. 

The Bayh-Dole Act has been a great start, and the work to facilitate technology 

transfer must continue to improve to utilize one of the greatest assets of our country. 

Every facet of human life will be touched by advances in nanomaterial development. These areas include medical, homeland security, power generation and distribution, telecommunications, transportation and applications never before conceived. To realize this potential, this country must improve the transfer of technology from our universities and federal laboratories to the commercial world. Our 

internal threat is not transferring great discoveries made in the U.S. from the laboratory to commercial products. These discoveries are far too important to leave on 

the shelf. And, we must do it now to protect our competitive advantage from external threats, as other countries continue to make even larger investments in 

nanotechnology. 

Luna strongly believes this proposed legislation will help secure the country’s position as a leader in the nanotechnology field. By funding basic research, and technology transfer programs we will move the results of our nation’s greatest researchers in nanotechnology to the market place creating higher quality jobs here in the 

U.S. 

While there may be revolutionary discoveries in the nanomaterial world, it is most 

likely to be evolutionary progress that requires extensive collaborative efforts working over extended periods of time to truly utilize the capabilities of nanotechnology 

to address the problems of the world. 

Nanotechnology is not any specific technology or discipline; instead it is a broad 

term used to define work conducted on the nanometer scale. True breakthroughs are 

often accidental discoveries while the majority of progress towards problem solving 

is incremental work done in a collaborative effort across many different fields of expertise. Try to imagine the different areas of scientific and business expertise that 

will be required to bring the following products from laboratory to consumer in a 

timely fashion:

Health

• Radio-pharmaceuticals which allow never before seen cell targeting giving 

‘‘magic bullets’’ for cancer therapy,

• Less toxic photo-therapy agents for advanced cancer treatment,

57

• Contrast media for greatly enhanced diagnostic imaging,

• Super sensitive detection systems for drug discovery tools, reducing time to 

market and costs of drugs,

Homeland Defense

• Nanotube-based sensing devices allowing single molecule/cell detection of chemical/biological warfare agents,

• Lightweight, durable protective materials for soldiers, and military vehicles,

Power Generation and Distribution

• Next-generation fuel cells with improved efficiencies for household, and 

handheld devices use,

• Solar cell improvements with increased efficiency,

Communication and Computing

• Quantum computing for future generation systems that calculate on a 

neverrealized- scale for defense systems,

• Molecular electronics for next-generation computing; single molecule transistors 

and storage devices,

• Optical devices using nano-structured materials for higher rate communications,

Transportation

• Superconducting compounds for higher strength magnets for transportation and 

medical imaging,

• Fuel cell improvements and safe hydrogen storage for automobiles,

• Catalysts for higher- efficiency, cleaner-burning, fossil-fueled engines, and

Other Applications

• Exotic teflon-like nanomaterials which provide a new class of lubricants for today’s applications and tomorrow’s nano and micro machinery.

Luna Innovations has recognized the enormous value of discoveries made at our 

research institutions and is continually improving the technology transfer process 

to move these innovative ideas from the laboratory setting to the marketplace. 

Through this business model, Luna has licensed valuable patents from universities, 

government labs and large industries and has created competitive products in telecommunication, power generation and distribution, transportation, manufacturing, 

and pharmaceutical industries. Luna currently has a significant focus on several 

nanomaterial-related technologies and applications. For example, Luna has licensed 

patents and transferred intellectual property from a major discovery made by Dr.’s 

Dorn and Stevenson both at Virginia Tech, and are beginning to produce revenues 

from sales of these novel nanomaterials. 

Virginia is a leader in this country in collaborative nanotechnology research and 

development. Virginia is one of the first states to establish a state-wide technology 

organization, the Center for Innovative Technology (CIT), focusing on the support 

of collaborative efforts and the creation of high-tech jobs. Also, Virginia was the first 

state to create the position of Secretary of Technology directly reporting to the Governor in order to enhance the climate for technology within the Commonwealth. 

Other Virginia organizations, such as INanoVA and VRTAC, complement this infrastructure allowing nanotechnology-specific communication to the upper levels of the 

state government. 

The Federal Government must take the leadership role in funding nanotechnology 

research and the coordination of technology transfer for our nation. The creation of 

a National Nanotechnology Coordinating office and National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, under the proposed legislation, will facilitate collaboration between federal and state government agencies, research universities and industry. 

The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, with new vision and leadership, will ensure the U.S. a leading position for growth in the 

nanotechnology sector, thus creating high quality jobs, increasing the tax base, 

while solving significant problems in our society. It will allow us to not loose ground 

to foreign competition seeking to overtake our current advantage. The economic success of our nation is at stake. We must remain in the leadership position. This legislation is necessary for the United States, to ensure our future health, well being and 

safety in this rapidly advancing global economy. 

Again, I would like to thank Senator Allen and the Committee for this opportunity to address you today.

58

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Dr. Murphy, for your very positive 

and cogent information and testimony. 

Now we’d like to hear from Mr. Von Ehr. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. VON EHR II, CEO, ZYVEX 

CORPORATION 

Mr. VON EHR. Well, thank you, Chairman Allen and Senator 

Wyden. 

I’m the Chief Executive Officer of Zyvex Corporation. I started 

Zyvex in 1997 to develop molecular and nanotechnology and revolutionize the quality and economics of how we make physical goods. 

We currently offer products in the area of tools and materials, and 

we’re working on nanomanufacturing systems. 

I commend you for your leadership on this important legislation. 

It’s leaders like Senator Allen and Wyden who make a difference 

by meeting with and listening to leading nanotechnology small 

businesses. 

Thanks to my previous business success, I’ve been able to generously fund Zyvex myself. Today, we employ over 50 people, and 

we’re one of the few nanotechnology companies generating revenue. 

I’ve also given nearly $4 million of my own money to a number of 

universities to help them enter this field. With that experience, I’d 

like to comment on technology transfer and commercialization, the 

two most important aspects of this legislation. 

Senators Allen and Wyden know this is an important time for 

nanotechnology. Actions taken today will decide who, 30 years from 

now, will be the leader in science, manufacturing, and technology. 

Will it be the United States or another country? 

The current bill calls for an advisory panel of scientists from academia and government. The voice of business is missing, and I’m 

really concerned about that. We need a business focus to ensure 

that the research we develop is commercialized in the United 

States. Therefore, I strongly recommend that representatives from 

both large and small businesses be included on the advisory panel. 

Without a commercialization focus, other nations may surpass us, 

become a dominant force in the global economy. Specific technology, such as the nanomanufacturing system, could be disastrous 

from the standpoint of national defense and economic competitiveness if it was in the hands of another nation. 

I used to oppose any government funding for any industry; however, our private sector has now gone global, and it can invest anywhere. It’s reasonable for the government to encourage economic 

competitiveness for national security reasons. And while I worry 

about the industrial policy implications of that, I worry even more 

about losing nanotechnology to nations able to invest for periods 

longer than 2 or 3 years. 

Today, it’s very difficult for small technology businesses to secure 

acceptable funding; however, small businesses employ 39 percent of 

high-tech workers and are responsible for 45 percent of the jobs in 

our nation. Small businesses also produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large firms. High-tech private-sector jobs 

benefit the economy with a return of over $3 for every dollar invested in research. 

59

The NIST Advanced Technology Program has been instrumental 

to Zyvex in overcoming this funding gap. It helps fund high-risk, 

high-reward projects and evaluates commercialization plans just 

like a venture capitalist would. An ATP award often requires cost 

sharing by the company, including ours. Thanks to our ATP, the 

impact of our nanomanufacturing effort will allow our nation to regain strength in manufacturing and bring jobs back to the U.S. 

I think the NIST ATP should take on an even larger role, similar 

to the role of the NSF, by commercializing nanotechnology research. It could be elevated to an office within the Technology Administration in the Commerce Department. More nanotechnology 

dollars allocated to the NIST ATP and the SBIR program would accelerate the innovation and commercialization of nanotechnology. 

As Senator Allen pointed out, 3 years ago I founded the Texas 

Nanotechnology Initiative to create a nanotechnology cluster. That 

has become a model for similar regional initiatives. It’s important. 

Good jobs are at stake in this field. I really think it’s our duty, as 

Americans, to assure these jobs stay in the United States. 

The National Nanotechnology Initiative defines nine grand challenges. But what if we had one or two that the American public 

could embrace, where government, universities, and industry 

worked together? These could address serious problems for our Nation, such as how the United States can regain our position as the 

world leader in manufacturing or how we can reduce our dependence on imported energy. In fact, with a major nanoenergy program, we would reduce our dependence on fossil fuel by over 50 

percent over the next 15 to 20 years. The economic benefit would 

be hundreds of billions of dollars per year. And nanomanufacturing 

could be part of the solution to both these problems. 

Now, much vision and foresight are at the core of this legislation, 

yet long-term fundamental research alone will not guarantee leadership in nanotechnology. It requires a balance of fundamental and 

applied research, support for our regional initiatives, a constant 

voice from industry, and a competitive process for awarding federal 

dollars. So I, once again, applaud your vision and foresight to ensure that the United States is the nation that brings this powerful 

technology to the world. The legacy you leave now will be remembered by future generations. Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, I 

thank you for your kind attention, and I appreciate being here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Von Ehr follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES R. VON EHR II, CEO, ZYVEX CORPORATION

Introduction 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this distinguished Committee for allowing me to address you on S. 189. I am Jim Von Ehr, Chief Executive Officer of 

Zyvex Corporation. I started Zyvex to develop molecular nanotechnology and revolutionize how we make physical goods. Today, we offer the promises of nanotechnology 

to our nation through tools, materials, and nanomanufacturing. As the founder of 

one of the first nanotechnology businesses, I am honored to share my unique perspective. 

First, I commend you for your leadership on this important legislation. It is leaders like United States Senator George Allen who make a difference by taking the 

time to really understand the issues and ensure the success of our nation by meeting with and listening to leading nanotechnology small businesses. 

Senator Allen, and other Members of this Committee know that we are at a pivotal moment that will decide whether thirty years from now, it will be the United 

60

States or another country that will be a world leader in science, manufacturing, and 

technology. S. 189 shows that our nation’s leaders understand the benefits of 

nanotechnology and the need to educate more scientists and engineers. However, it 

is also vital that we more effectively commercialize university research. International competitors are aggressively developing their own nanotechnology industry, 

quite often based on discoveries first made in our own university labs here in the 

United States. We want a healthy manufacturing sector in the United States to assure good jobs for these newly educated technologists. 

Thanks to my previous, significant business success, I’ve been able to generously 

fund Zyvex myself. Today, we employ over 50 people and are one of the few 

nanotechnology companies with revenue. I’ve also given nearly $4M of my own 

money to a number of universities to help them enter this field. With this experience, I feel entitled to comment on technology transfer and commercialization—the 

two most important aspects of this legislation. 

As my friend, Nobel Laureate, Professor Rick Smalley says, ‘‘Nanotechnology is 

the art and science of building stuff that does stuff on the nanometer scale. The ultimate nanotechnology builds at the ultimate level of finesse—one atom at a time—

and does it with molecular perfection.’’ I started Zyvex seven years ago to commercialize that level of control and perfection. 

The current Bill calls for an Advisory Panel staffed by academic and government 

scientists. The voice of business is missing, and I’m concerned about that. As you 

know, our nation’s record of commercializing research from universities and government labs is good in the biosciences, but disappointing in most other areas. 

The National Nanotechnology Initiative is inspiring competitive programs worldwide. The societal benefits of the NNI will come in the form of products. The role 

of business is to develop and sell products in a capital-efficient manner. We must 

have a business focus to ensure that the research we develop is commercialized in 

the United States. Therefore, I strongly recommend that representatives from both 

large and small businesses be included on the Advisory Panel. 

Competition 

Competition is a key reason U.S. business is the most competitive in the world. 

Competition is also important to science. Peer review is a powerful approach to filtering out junk science, but it also can filter out novel ideas from young researchers. 

We need ways to differentiate scientifically crazy ideas like building time machines 

from delightfully wild ideas like sequencing the human genome in three years. Of 

course, when Craig Venter decided that such a sequencing timetable was achievable, 

it probably would not have passed muster with a conservative peer review committee. He properly framed the issue as a business problem—not a scientific problem—and solved it. 

Our most competitive industries are also our least regulated—semiconductors, 

personal computers, software, and the Internet, to name just a few. S. 189 has a 

light regulatory touch, and I urge you to follow the example of the Internet, and 

avoid premature regulation while the industry develops. There will be pressures 

from the usual anti-technology voices to ban or limit nanotechnology, but we should 

continue on the path of progress that has always been our nation’s strength. 

We also need to inject private sector competition into our nanotechnology program. The current Bill calls for significant funding for government labs to build new 

user facilities. Providing shared access to exotic equipment is a smart way to stretch 

funds and accelerate overall development. These facilities will not be available for 

at least five years. This is too long to wait in this dynamic field. Awarding competitive contracts or grants to the private sector to upgrade and reopen surplus or shuttered facilities could achieve faster deployment at a lower cost. 

Barriers to Industry 

Applied Research 

While fundamental long-term research is a vital component of this legislation, nowhere is there a mention of the importance of funding applied research. I urge this 

Committee to consider this issue very carefully. Without a commercialization focus, 

other nations may surpass us and become a dominant force in the global economy. 

Specific technology, such as a molecularly precise nanomanufacturing system, in the 

hands of another nation would be disastrous from the standpoint of national defense 

and economic competitiveness. 

Technology Transfer 

The technology transfer programs at our nation’s leading universities have produced dismal results. The barriers for small and large industry to commercialize 

61

1Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy 

this ‘‘long-term’’ research performed under federal dollars have brought very little 

economic benefit to the American Public. Stan Williams of Hewlett Packard has addressed this issue in previous testimony, so I won’t belabor the point. 

Funding 

I used to oppose any government funding for any industry. The private sector is 

the most efficient way to make investment decisions. However, our private sector 

has gone global and can invest anywhere. The short-term economic decisions that 

make sense for a particular company might not be the best long-term decisions for 

our country. Perhaps it is reasonable for the government to encourage economic 

competitiveness for national security reasons. While I worry about the ‘‘industrial 

policy’’ implications, I worry even more about losing nanotechnology to nations able 

to invest for periods longer than two to three years. Nothing makes this point clearer to me than a recent trip to Taiwan where I witnessed, ITRI, a government/industry partnership staffed with 6,000 researchers developing an advanced technology 

base and focused on industrial competitiveness. 

Funding is vital for any enterprise. Private equity funding today is short-term oriented. Taking research from the lab into the marketplace is a long-term endeavor. 

The gap between lab and market leads to the ‘‘valley of death’’ funding crisis—it 

is rare to find investors willing to take the risk of an investment lasting five years 

or more. Today, it is more difficult for small technology businesses to secure acceptable 

funding. Small businesses employ 39-percent of high tech workers and are responsible for 45-percent of the jobs in our nation. Small business produce 13–14 times 

more patents per employee than large firms. These patents are also twice as likely 

to be among the 1-percent most cited.1

The Commerce Department has the NIST Advanced Technology Program, which 

has been instrumental to Zyvex in overcoming this funding gap. It helps fund highrisk, high-reward projects, evaluating commercialization plans as a venture capitalist would. The NIST-ATP program requires, in many cases, including ours, cost 

sharing by the company. The ATP helps put small companies on a more even research and development footing with large companies. The program wisely recognizes that small businesses are unable to afford the kind of R&D of an IBM or 

Lucent, yet are responsible for a majority of our nation’s innovations and technical 

advancements. 

Thanks to our ATP, we will have hired fifteen new employees in 2003; we also 

support researchers at two universities in Texas and one university in New York. 

We are developing a new manufacturing technology that will drive innovation in the 

silicon micromachine domain. The impact of parallel microassembly on the broader 

economy will be in the billions of dollars and will ultimately create thousands of jobs 

here in America. 

We should consider a nanotechnology initiative with a greater balance between 

university long-term fundamental research and applied research and industrial development. The Advanced Technology Program should take on a larger role, similar 

to the role of the NSF. It could be elevated to an office within the Technology Administration in the Commerce Department. Outside venture capitalists with a 

longer-term viewpoint would help review competitive business plans. The program 

would focus on commercializing nanotechnology research. More nanotechnology dollars should be allocated to flow through the SBIR program, which will also help accelerate the innovation and commercialization of nanotechnology. 

Components to Our Success as a Nation 

Society 

Studying the impact nanotechnology may have on the world is vital, and S. 189 

addresses this issue head-on. Those of us in the field believe that we will be able 

to manufacture products in a clean, environmentally sound manner, and welcome 

qualified people to review our technology. 

Three years ago, I founded the Texas Nanotechnology Initiative, a non-profit organization whose goal is to establish Texas as a world leader in the discoveries, development, and commercialization of nanotechnology. TNI has become a model for the 

NanoBusiness Alliance and other regional initiatives. We want to develop a 

nanotechnology cluster as an economic engine for the region. Good jobs are at stake 

here. While TNI is working to assure many of them are in Texas, it is our duty as 

Americans to do all we can to assure that they are in the United States. High tech 

private sector jobs benefit the economy, with a return of $3.32 for every dollar inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
62

2Office of the Texas Comptroller 

3 James R. Von Ehr II, ‘‘NanoEnergy Project—Vision 2020.’’ 2003. Publication Pending. (For 

a copy, please email kgreen@zyvex.com.) 

vested in research. 2 Funding and support for these statewide initiatives needs to 

be addressed in the Bill. 

Grand Challenge 

You already know that we have a problem in the number of Americans pursuing 

study in science and engineering. To turn this around, we need to get government, 

universities, and industry to work in partnership to achieve the great promises of 

nanotechnology. This would be a grand challenge similar to the ‘‘man on the moon’’ 

challenge. The National Nanotechnology Initiative defines nine ‘‘grand challenges,’’ 

but it is difficult to focus on nine things with undefined outcomes. What if we had 

one or two grand challenges? And what if these grand challenges were to solve serious problems for our nation? Such as how we reduce our dependence on imported 

energy. Or how the United States can regain our position as the world leader in 

manufacturing. Nanomanufacturing could be part of the solution to both of these 

problems. 

Energy 

With a major nanoenergy program—on the order of ten to twenty billion per 

year—we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuel by 50-percent over the next fifteen to twenty years. That would pay benefits of several hundred billion per year. 

It is hard to calculate the security benefits of being less dependent on energy imports. The nanotechnology that would come out of this program would provide multiples of that benefit in all the other areas identified as priorities.3

Nanomanufacturing 

Nanotechnology isn’t just about making small ‘‘stuff,’’ but includes interfacing that 

‘‘stuff ’’ to the real world. We must be able to manufacture with molecular precision 

at all length scales—from molecular to the size of a jumbo jet. A nanomanufacturing 

program would be complementary to the energy program, and would also result in 

technologies that could be applied to materials, medicine, and computing. 

Conclusion 

Much vision and foresight is at the core of this legislation. To truly ensure the 

success of our great nation, we must now have the courage and perseverance to take 

such visionary steps. Long-term fundamental research alone will not guarantee commercialization of nanotechnology. It requires a balance of applied and fundamental 

research, support for our regional initiatives, a constant voice from industry, and a 

competitive process for awarding federal dollars.

I once again applaud your vision and foresight to ensure that the United States 

is the nation that brings this powerful technology to the world. The legacy you leave 

now will be remembered by all our future generations. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee—thank you for your time and for 

this honor.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much for all your testimony. 

Senator Wyden and I will have a few questions here. 

I’d like to focus on Dr. Murphy and Mr. Von Ehr, since you’re 

in the private sector. You’re the ones trying to adopt, utilize, and 

find a marketplace, whether it’s the manufacturing or your ultimate nanoproducts, whatever they may be. And I was seeing yours, 

Mr. Von Ehr and Dr. Murphy. I’ve talked in many occasions about 

the precision of medical treatment. And with your technologies, 

you’re killing the bad cells, so to speak, as opposed to just these 

shotgun blasts that weaken someone’s whole body while trying to 

kill off the bad or non-cancerous—they’re trying it kill off the cancerous cells. And I think there’s just tremendous opportunities 

there for better application of pharmaceuticals and other aspects. 

What could you all share—and, Dr. Murphy, I’ll ask you first. 

Your business model is one that probably is similar to other professors or scientists that are in colleges and universities, where 

63

they’re saying, ‘‘Well, for whatever reason, things aren’t getting 

out, whatever is being developed.’’ So you set up your own company 

and obviously have been successful. What is in your business model 

or what lessons can you share with all of us, including—and when 

I’m talking about ‘‘us,’’ I’m talking about the government, but for 

other entrepreneurs, other scientists, whether in a university or a 

government, some other sort of government agency function—what 

could we learn from your success, both of you are successes here, 

as to how this can be approached? And I’m not talking about the 

specifics, ‘‘We did this, then we saw so-and-so, and then he had us 

go talk to this lady, and she then said, ‘Here, I have another friend 

who’ll invest,’ ’’ but what are the basic principles or lessons that 

you would see as applicable to others who would want to find the 

commercial applications of your research and your nanoscale products? 

Dr. MURPHY. In general, one of the things that we’ve found at 

university settings is there’s a lot of tendency towards being enamored with the technology rather than the application. Finding the 

end goal, finding a problem that you’re going to solve, and then 

coming back and looking at the technologies that are being developed—certainly, basic research needs to be funded. Those technologies need to be moving forward. But someone’s got to be in the 

go-between making sure that significant problems are being solved 

with those basic findings. 

And then, just within the university itself, some things that I encountered personally there was, in general, a split between the university community as to—was this activity beneficial or negative 

for the university trying to commercialize technology out of a university and looking into how we could possibly change the university culture? 

And I know this is not something that can be legislated, but 

something that can be discussed is the tenure and promotion process looks at teaching research and public service. Having the universities look towards technology transfer as something that they 

actually measure and pursue would be very, very beneficial. A lot 

of the folks that I ran into at the university saw what I was doing 

as something that tainted the university atmosphere, when I believe it actually brings real-life applications into the classroom. 

Senator ALLEN. I would think that that would interest students, 

that the research is interesting, all of that is, but then the actual 

application towards a beneficial utilization of that would, I think, 

make it more exciting, more tangible, more practical. 

Dr. MURPHY. Absolutely. 

Senator ALLEN. Mr. Von Ehr, you mentioned—both of you all 

mentioned the NIST and ATP grants. What would you say would 

be the keys to it? And you mentioned, insofar as awards are concerned, the competitive awards—would you have any suggestions 

as to what the standards of assessment would be? Because there’s 

so many people who have so many great ideas, and, you know, 

there’s just millions of them, and then you have to determine which 

of these have the greatest potential. 

Mr. VON EHR. Well, that is the crux of the issue. 

64

Senator ALLEN. Well, maybe you could give us some standards. 

Mr. Teague was telling us standards. I do want to ask you about 

standards, but——

Mr. VON EHR. Well, if venture capitalists, who are the best people at that job——

Senator ALLEN. Don’t want to invest. 

Mr. VON EHR.—if they could figure it out, they would all be rich 

and retired now. 

Senator ALLEN. Right. 

Mr. VON EHR. The fact that the venture capitalists lost a ton of 

money in the dot-coms and the telecoms——

Senator ALLEN. They’re a bit skittish these days. 

Mr. VON EHR. The best people we have are not perfect. But I 

think the benefits of the ATP are vast, in terms of bridging the 

gap, the Valley-of-Death funding between a good idea at a university and a product that a customer can buy. And there are few VCs 

that want to step up and invest in something that may be a multiple-year payback. Their time horizon got very compressed during 

the Internet days. It’s lengthening out slowly now; but still, they 

have been burned so badly, a lot of them are risk-averse. And we 

see that the ATP can help that. 

And in terms of the judgment, I think it’s just a matter of judgment again. They look at the business plan. They evaluate whether 

there’s some credibility the company can pull that off. It’s very 

similar to how peer review works for science. You know, you look 

at the scientists, you look at their track record, you look at what 

they’ve done, and you say, ‘‘Do I think they can do it again?’’

Senator ALLEN. What would you—back to my original question; 

I got you off on that tangent—and all of you all may, but particularly Dr. Murphy and Mr. Von Ehr. Dr. Teague mentioned the need 

for control of processes. And I forgot which one of you all brought 

up polymers and so forth. And, you know, there’s standardization 

of processes for that reliability, credibility, certification, so to 

speak. And having listened to you, Dr. Murphy, and learned about 

what Luna is doing and seeing what Zyvex is doing, as well, with 

the nanotubes, and actually seeing it on some of the amazing microscopes—they’re more than microscopes, but, at any rate, on the 

nanotubes and the different ways those are processed—and there 

are, there’s all those variables to it—would you agree with what 

Dr. Teague was saying, that there needs to be a standard or a control of processes—and I hate limits or controls; those are words 

that’s very hard for me to say in a positive way—I’m just saying, 

you know, standards, standards of quality, so to speak, of your 

processes, do you all share that concern? Because I think that does 

matter in the commercialization, the reliability, and people worrying about liability, if certain nanoproducts might not uniformly 

meet a standard of performance. 

Mr. VON EHR. Certainly, we are dying to start working on the 

process and make sure it’s a good process. But, frankly, a lot of 

nanotechnology now is still in the early stages, and it’s hard to put 

process control into something that has been demonstrated in the 

lab in milligram quantities or maybe with one experiment. So I’d 

say the technology has a little further to come, in our case, we’re 

working with nanotubes and polymer mixtures, and the nanotube 

65

process development is not nearly as far along as Luna Innovations’ process is. 

We certainly are going to have to put process controls in place 

when we get a process to control. 

Senator ALLEN. Understood. It’s still very early. 

Dr. Murphy? 

Dr. MURPHY. We’re very fortunate at Luna to have a product 

that is an extremely unique molecule and lends itself towards better process control. So, again, we’re able to make things that are 

99.99 percent pure materials and in kilogram quantities at this 

time. So, yes, it is going to be a very important factor. 

In fact, recent things that I’ve read about nanotubes is that when 

you purchase a quantity of nanotubes, it’s 40–45 percent of what 

you want and 50–55 percent of something else. So it is a very important point. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you both. 

Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Jiao, we’re thrilled you’re here and representing Portland 

State, and you’ve really sparked tremendous interest. And I’m curious, when you mentioned that your students were excited that you 

were coming and you, sort of, gave them the day off, what was particularly exciting to them about what you’re going to do and what’s 

ahead in nanotechnology? And what else can we do to get students 

even more involved, particularly in an earlier age in high school? 

And I thought that would be a good question for you, since you’ve 

obviously spent a lot of time with interns and a variety of ways to 

get the students involved. So why don’t you start us off? 

Dr. JIAO. Okay. If I’m allowed, I’ll tell you a little systematic 

story how this works. 

First of all, my master’s thesis in physics is about florins, which 

is buckyballs. I worked for a Professor Don Hoffman, who is the codiscoverer for the solid-state carbon 60 while the Professor Richard 

Smalley won the Nobel Prize for his discovery if it is a molecule 

in the—but the solid state is Professor Hoffman and his co-workers 

in the Max Planck Institute. They found a way how to extract 

those molecules to be solid state so that we can see them, touch 

them, and study them. 

So then my Ph.D. thesis is a systematic study of the carbon 

nanotubes made by different method. So I carried this enthusiasm 

then to Portland State, and then we went to the laboratory, which 

we synthesized those molecules and in the solid state. So then in 

order to see them, you have to have the high-power electron microscope, because you have to magnify them a million times to see 

what they look like. 

So by—why the students—seeing, how the seeing is believing. So 

under these high-power microscope, when they see the molecules 

and they see the atoms, they were just thrilled, they were excited. 

They said, ‘‘This is the science I want to go too.’’ So this is why it’s 

not, ‘‘I love it. Come to work for me.’’ They just—I have too many 

students to handle, because they see it and they really want—they 

understand, ‘‘Oh, this is how atoms viewed themselves in this 

way.’’ But then in working in a laboratory, when we change the parameters, which means we lower the temperature, then we mix 

66

something else, and then we change the fluoride to the gas, and 

they made the tube shorter or even longer, so by changing this 

process, then they look at it, then they said, ‘‘Okay, I can make a 

difference.’’ Okay? 

So this kind of process made us feel to educate those young people you have to have—let them to have the chance to have handson, also to let them understand. So the best way is to not only 

teach them in theory in the class, but also to show them what you 

can do and what it will look like. So this is why students think, 

you know, ‘‘If you understand this principle started from atomic 

level, definitely I can build these things one by one. I can be good 

architect,’’ and then just to build these atoms to be the different 

way, then test their electronic properties. 

So I think this process is a wonderful educational process so we 

can make them excited, and we feel like the future should be this 

way because you work it down to the level of atoms. And I think 

maybe the next level is to see the nucleus. But they feel like this 

is the way to go. This is why they are so excited. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, we should put you in charge of the whole 

Federal Government. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. JIAO. Thank you very much. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you for an excellent answer. 

A couple of issues for you, Mr. Von Ehr. You’re the second industry leader who’s basically talked about how Bayh-Dole is dysfunctional, and that’s something that I essentially hear everywhere. 

And, of course, when you bring this up, you know, most of the 

world has no idea what Bayh-Dole is, number one; and, even those 

who know what Bayh-Dole is, just sort of say, well, we’re glad that 

it’s there. But what I find is that it really doesn’t work very well 

for any of the stakeholders that it’s designed to serve. It supposed 

to, of course, be a great tool for private sector innovation that, in 

this technology treasure trove that the government runs with taxpayer dollars, it’s supposed to get technological development out to 

the private sector, and it doesn’t seem to. And somehow the universities seem snarled in red tape and frustration, and the private 

companies can’t get access to it. And, of course, you’re supposed to 

explain it to taxpayers. I have often though that if taxpayers knew 

what really goes on with these research dollars, they would show 

up in Virginia and Oregon and say, ‘‘Um, excuse me, you’re spending billions and billions of dollars for research that’s supposed to 

be transferred to the private sector, and, you know, why isn’t it 

taking place?’’ And I’d be curious if you could give us some specific 

examples of some of what has made you frustrated about BayhDole, Mr. Von Ehr. 

Mr. VON EHR. Well, I mentioned that I have given close to $4 

million—a lot of that has gone to the University of Texas at Dallas; 

and, while we love the people there, we love working with them, 

we have not succeeded in transferring any technology or having a 

blanket agreement to do so. The people at the university have to 

work through the people at the system level, and those people don’t 

have the same sort of drive that we do to productize what has been 

developed. 

67

I was in Houston last week talking with a professor who’s a 

friend of mine and he’s written a book on his experience starting 

up a company. And he has the wry observation that professors 

seem to value their stuff a lot higher than industry does; that the 

professor thinks it has an infinite value. And he’s a professor in 

this role, and he said, ‘‘They have no idea how much work it takes 

to actually turn it into a product and convince someone to sell it, 

to pay you money for it.’’

Senator WYDEN. Well, anything you’d like to furnish us for the 

record with respect to your frustrations on Bayh-Dole, I would be 

especially interested in. We’ve had Hewlett-Packard and others, 

where you are, and really it’s a story that needs to be told. Because 

this statute governs billions and billions of dollars of research 

funds, and I’m convinced it doesn’t work for the stakeholders, companies, universities, taxpayers, and society at large. So we’d welcome your examples. 

The only thing that I would differ on. You can probably tell I feel 

strongly about it, so I don’t take a back seat to anybody involving 

industry in these projects. The Advisory Committee, on page 17—

I’m looking at it—says, ‘‘The panel shall contain a reasonable crosssection of views and expertise.’’ And we wrote that specifically so 

as to involve industry. It comes from the High-Performance Computing Statute, which set up the Information Technology Council, 

which is just filled with industry people. And then on page 18, we 

talk about getting recommendations from industry, as well, with 

respect to this position. And I’d like to note, just for the record, 

that industry has a listing that comes before academia, with respect to the advisory council. So I know of your good work and do 

not want to jump you too much here this afternoon, but——

Mr. VON EHR. Okay, well, I thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. I feel very strongly that we do what it is you 

seek to have done, which is to make sure that industry has a very, 

very important place at the table. And as we thrash through this 

final effort, I want to assure you that we’re going to keep in mind 

what it is you desire, because you’re right, and we’ll make sure it 

gets done. 

Mr. VON EHR. Well, that’s excellent. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. 

The only other question I had, Mr. Chairman, was for Mr. Baird. 

On the ethics question, what Chairman Allen and I have done in 

an effort to try to get out this ethics debate is to establish a center 

to begin the discussion, and we think that makes some sense, and 

we heard about that from a host of experts. But my sense is—I 

note Chairman Allen shares this view, as well—people are talking 

about this without waiting for the divine wisdom of the United 

States Senate. In other words, people are talking about ethics and 

social questions even before some characters in the United States 

Senate come along to tell them, ‘‘Well, you’re supposed to have a 

big debate.’’

Tell us a little bit about the discussion that is going on today, 

absent any federal legislation, with respect to ethics and 

nanotechnology and some of which you and your colleagues are 

doing already to start looking at these issues. 

68

Dr. BAIRD. Well, there’s a lot of discussion about ethics, in general. But, in fact, I would say there is very little discussion by either trained ethicists or a fairly broad definition of ‘‘trained 

ethicists’’ about nanotechnology. I think, outside of the scientific 

and technical fields, people haven’t heard of this, by and large. 

There are a few places where that’s not true. South Carolina’s one. 

Virginia’s one. Illinois Institute of Technology is one. These are 

places I know of. They’re doing some of this at Rice, although that’s 

recent, I think. 

And so, I mean, nanotechnology is recent, so I would say the debate is early and raw at this point. We’re trying to begin to sort 

out what are serious issues for the near-term, what are serious 

issues for the longer-term. 

I guess, in my view, in the near-term, you have clear issues 

about toxicity and regulation that need to be thought through carefully. I also think in the near-term, and this bears on the longerterm, it’s really important to think about what are the—how are 

people constructing the goals and aims of nanotechnology as we 

build a National Nanotechnology Initiative? How, when we think 

about those goals, you know—what’s the adage, you’ve got to be 

careful what you hope for—if we actually achieve them, what will 

really be the impact of achieving them? So we want to think about 

what are, as it were—the goals, if we actually achieve them, what 

will be the impact of them? That can be done now. 

And then there’s a fairly extensive, but, I think, at this point, difficult-to-assess debate about issues about the very important, but, 

as of yet, unrealized potential for nanotechnology in the form of assembler/assembly, as it were, nanotechnology assembler/assembly. 

I think it’s probably early to really engage that, because we don’t 

know really what’s going to come of that. 

That’s a case where I think it’s crucial that the people who are 

doing this debate are talking to the scientists. I think, to leave you 

with one thought, the most important thing that we need to have 

happen in this debate is to have engagement between the scientists 

and the ethicists. They have to talk to each other, they have to 

learn each other’s language, they have to start, as it were, exchanging each other’s views. And only in that way are we going to have 

some kind of positive move ahead. 

Senator WYDEN. I agree with everything you said. I just want to 

add a lot more people to the debate, beyond the scientists and the 

ethicists. 

Dr. BAIRD. Oh, I——

Senator WYDEN. Because if we don’t, Michael Crichton will drive 

the debate. That’s what people will remember, in a sense. 

You all have been a terrific panel, between the two panels. 

Under Chairman Allen’s leadership we’ve had a good cross-section 

of views. I also regret that we have now made it impossible for Dr. 

Jiao to get the one non-stop flight to Portland——

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN.—which all of us just pray for in terms of Oregon 

logistics. 

But we welcome your counsel as we try to move forward on this 

legislation. Nanotechnology is so exciting, and, at the same time, 

all of you, as witnesses, and Senator Allen and myself, as legislaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
69

tors, have known about things that have come along in the past 

that sounded exciting, and a variety of things happened along the 

way, and it never really reached its potential. 

I think nanotechnology’s going to be different. I think that this 

is a field where we have not overstated the potential. And by listening to people like yourselves and the cross-section of people that 

we’ve sought to have involved in the legislation, we can do this job 

right. So our doors are open to you for input. 

Mr. Chairman, excellent hearing, always good to be working with 

you, and I look forward to moving ahead. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Wyden. 

And I thank all our witnesses in both panels. This last panel, 

thank you for coming long distances. We’ll get you a room in Northern Virginia if you——

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALLEN. Our sales taxes aren’t as good as those in Oregon, which are zero in Oregon. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALLEN. But, nevertheless, we’ll welcome you there. 

And, again, thank you all for your insight, for taking valuable 

time here to be a part of this nascent effort here in the Senate. The 

government is looking at this area. You all are our experts in your 

variety of fields. We thank you very much, look forward to working 

with you. And if you all ever do have any comments, insights, 

ideas, tweaking, maybe some parts of this measure have not been 

properly explained, please let us know. You don’t have to go 

through the formalities of a hearing. 

With that, this hearing is concluded. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(71)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

The United States of America has led the world in scientific research and in technological innovations in the 20th Century, and the 21st century will undoubtedly 

provide new challenges and opportunities. The true engine of the American economy 

has been to turn our scientific discoveries into practical applications and advancements in technology have allowed us to improve our economy, our national security, 

and to live richer lives. Today’s science and technology innovations are uniquely 

characterized by the speed and information processing capabilities of our new machines. Traditional biology, traditional chemistry, and traditional physics have been 

literally transformed by technology. We are presently on the verge of new sciences, 

which will undoubtedly produce exciting new technologies. 

The new fields of nanotechnology, genomics, bioinformatics, and microengineering, 

among others, grow out of a synergy of physics, biology, chemistry, engineering, and 

advanced computational modeling. Recent advances in proteomics and genomics 

promise to allow us to understand the complex interactions of proteins within living 

cells and provide important clues to the mystery of living organisms. This basic research in biotechnology will certainly have unique applications and the integrative 

and predictive understanding of biological systems will improve our ability to respond to the energy and environmental challenges of the 21st century. 

Nanotechnology is the other half of this complementary pair of new sciences. Like 

genomics, nanotechnology combines traditional sciences into a new 21st century 

science. Nanotechnology offers immense possibilities for scientific advancements, 

achievements, and applications, with immense potential to transform our lives. It 

has equally wide applications—from energy, to medicine, to electronics. Like 

genomics, nanotechnology is what scientists and technologists label as an ‘‘enabling’’ 

technology—a tool that opens the door to new possibilities constrained only by basic 

science principles and our imaginations. 

I have introduced legislation in the Energy Committee to spur development and 

research in the field of genomics and bioinformatics, and look forward to considering 

the complimentary roles nanotechnology legislation can play. Along with Senator 

Wyden, I convened a Commerce Committee field hearing earlier this April on the 

Northwest economy that focused on the innovative science and industries that will 

drive that region’s economy in the future. The hearing highlighted the exciting and 

unique opportunities that advanced manufacturing, including nano-scale fabrication, 

can have in spurring technological and economic development. At that hearing we 

heard about challenges facing these developing industries, and the role federal research and investment could play in growing those industries. In response to these 

findings, I have proposed legislation in partnership with the University of Washington to establish a Federal Aviation Administration Center for Excellence in Materials Science. Such a center would produce research that would develop techniques 

in maintaining and ensuring the durability of advanced material structures in 

transport aircraft, including at the molecular level. 

Another part of that same productive hearing on the Northwest economy revealed 

that biotechnology, including the nano-scale research into biological systems, can 

play a role in diversifying and driving economic development. I learned about many 

exciting advances fueled by biotechnology, and spoke with many bright innovators 

about challenges their research and their industries have faced. I am excited to say 

that many of these roadblocks will be removed, and a good deal of basic research 

provided, through the Genomes to Life bill, S. 682, I have introduced in this session. 

That bill capitalizes on the enormous success of the Human Genome Project, and 

promises to take this important research to the next level. While the mapping of 

the human genome was an unparalleled accomplishment on its own, this new initiative would allow researchers to go beyond the science of description, and begin to 

explore the complex interactions of the elements within cells—truly exciting and 

micro, if not nano-scale, research that promises great rewards in response to grand 

challenges. 

72

Other nations have already recognized the need to be at the forefront in these 

fields, and many have already provided support for genomic and nanotechnology research. In the U.S., both genomics and nanotechnology have been recognized by the 

Department of Energy, The National Research Council, and the National Science 

Foundation as high priorities for new research. American research institutions, companies, and universities have recently joined in these investigations. The State of 

Washington is already a national center for genomic research and the University 

of Washington is the first in the United States to offer Ph.D.’s in nanotechnology. 

Washington is home to many world-class research facilities. We have over 190 biotechnology companies employing more than 11,000 people. In 2001, the annual revenue of these companies exceeded $1.2 billion. Nearly one half of these companies 

were based on technologies developed at research and development institutions and 

over 40 percent of the companies have been established in the past six years. I believe that federally funded research in genomics and technology will provide more 

economic benefits, not only for Washington, but also for the nation. 

While our past leadership in science and technology may provide us a head start, 

it must not lull us into a false sense of accomplishment. We cannot afford to become 

complacent, but must take proactive steps to ensure our economic and scientific future is a real possibility, and that barriers to these new technologies are removed 

through targeted federal involvement. While these new fields involve experiments 

at the microscopic level, they often require sizable instrumentation and investments 

of federal support. This support is an example of the targeted role the government 

can play, not in competing with businesses, but in training America’s workforce and 

providing fundamental theoretical research into new fields of knowledge. 

We must provide the federal support for a coordinated national program of research and development in emerging sciences. Federal investment in these new 

sciences will produce important scientific breakthroughs and result in long term 

benefits to our health, our economy, and our national security. I look forward to 

hearing today how we can do just that. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, this is an important hearing. Clearly, there is a limitless future 

with regard to the applications of nanotechnology across a wide variety of disciplines, including engineering, physics, chemistry, material sciences, and life 

sciences—to name just a few. 

The estimates of the economic impact of nanotechnology on existing and new manufacturing reach into the trillions of dollars. 

In time, nanotechnology will have an enormous impact on virtually every aspect 

of our lives. 

Not surprisingly, my home State of New Jersey is on the cutting edge of 

nanotechnology research and development. Lucent Technologies, the State of New 

Jersey, and the New Jersey Institute of Technology established the New Jersey 

Nanotechnology Consortium (NJNC) in early 2003. 

The nucleus of the NJNC is the world-renowned Bell Labs nanofabrication laboratory in Murray Hill, along with the Bell Labs scientists and researchers who will 

become NJNC employees. 

By combining the leading-edge fabrication capabilities of this laboratory with New 

Jersey’s academic research institutions and universities, NJNC is able to carry out 

basic and applied nanotechnology research and it has a unique capability to bring 

nanotechnology ideas from concept to commercialization. 

We must nurture the same type of capability at the federal level. 

Nanotechnology is being touted as ‘‘the next industrial revolution’’ and we must 

maintain our lead in the field to build on and sustain our commercial advantage 

over competing nations. That means we need to invest in the academic community 

and support the work of the National Science Foundation (NSF), which leads the 

way in interdisciplinary efforts. 

All nanotechnological advances, even the most beneficent, have what are called 

‘‘externalities.’’ The automobile, for instance, represented an enormous improvement 

over horse-drawn carriages. But each year, thousands of people are killed in auto 

accidents and hundreds of thousands more are hurt. Moreover, cars are a leading 

cause of greenhouse gas emissions. 

I’m not suggesting that we would be better off without cars—far from it. My point 

is that there will be adverse consequences stemming from the development of 

nanotechnology. 

73

It may not be possible to anticipate all of the unintended consequences of developing nanotechnology, but we should try. I applaud Senator Wyden for recognizing 

this and adding to S. 189 provisions for establishing a Center for Societal, Ethical, 

Educational, Legal and Workforce Issues Related to Nanotechnology. Clearly, the 

earlier we grapple with the ethical issues and harmful consequences related to 

nanotechnology, the better off we will be at mitigating them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

Today, we are talking about the world’s tiniest particles-and the huge, sweeping 

changes they could bring about for American science, technology, and business. 

Nanotechnology, as you all know, is an emerging field that seeks to understand 

and control events at the molecular scale and develop new materials with unique 

properties currently beyond the realm of conventional technology. The applicationsfrom medicine and defense to electronics, environmental protection, and energy-are 

endless and endlessly impressive. To give just one example, in the life sciences, 

building innovative tools to study biology at the nanometer scale will shed light on 

a vast number of now mysterious biological processes. Those fantastic voyages and 

others like it can lead to novel therapeutic treatments and a better fundamental understanding of diseases like cancer. 

The economic impact will be equally profound. It has been estimated by the National Science Foundation that the impact of nanotechnology on existing and new 

manufacturing will be measured in the trillions of dollars. That could produce millions of new American jobs. 

One would think the world’s most innovative and ingenious economy would be the 

uncontested pioneer in nanotech-but unfortunately, one would be wrong. As we 

speak, the United States is in danger of falling behind its Asian and European counterparts in supporting the pace of nano-technological advancement. While we have 

the resources and talent we need, unless this talent is well organized-with big-picture vision and new collaborations between government, academia, and industry-we 

may find ourselves left in the wake of the next great wave of innovation. 

To support ongoing nanotechnology efforts and to spur new ones, I was pleased 

last September to join Senators Ron Wyden and George Allen in cosponsoring the 

‘‘21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act,’’ and its reintroduction in the 108th Congress this January (S. 189). This Act will build on the efforts 

of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which was started under President 

Clinton and has received continued support under President Bush, to establish a 

comprehensive, national program for addressing the full spectrum of challenges confronting a successful national nanotechnology agenda. 

Why is an executive initiative no longer enough? Funding for nanotechnology will 

soon reach $1 billion a year, with the NNI responsible for orchestrating programs 

across a wide range of federal agencies and departments. This level of funding and 

the coordination challenges that arise with so many diverse participants strongly 

recommend having a program based in statute, provided with greater support and 

coordination mechanisms, afforded a higher profile, and subjected to constructive 

Congressional oversight and support. 

Our bill will require a carefully integrated national effort and create an independent advisory panel to help shape that effort. The National Research Council 

(NRC), which completed a thorough review of the NNI in 2002, specifically recommended establishing such a panel. As the field of nanotechnology covers a wide 

variety of disciplines including engineering, physics, chemistry and life sciences-and 

experts from both inside and outside academia-guidance should come from a broad 

and representative panel. Although members of the President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology are highly accomplished and esteemed, they are not necessarily steeped in the fast-changing field of nanotechnology. The task of providing 

an advisory roll for the overall direction of the program should not be a top-down 

process, but rather should fall to a group of members from both academia and industry that represents the range of nanotechnology disciplines and who are wellversed in the difficult challenges facing this emerging field. 

To ensure that the United States takes the lead in this new and promising field 

of science and technology, we must provide for the organization and guidance necessary to foster interaction between government, academia and industry. This legislation provides a strong framework to elicit contributions from all three sectors and 

thereby move nanotechnology research and development to the next level. I look forward to working with Senators Wyden and Allen to get this important bill through 

74

the Congress, and hope that we may all work together in a bipartisan fashion to 

set the stage for U.S. economic growth over the next century. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG TO

JAMES R. VON EHR II 

Question 1. How can new technologies best be turned into useful products? What 

role should the Federal Government play in this process? 

Answer. Market competition is the best, most cost-competitive way of turning 

technology into products. The private sector excels at this, but has a short-term time 

horizon, and will not invest in long-term programs with a return on investment that 

might be captured by a competitor. Hence, there is some justification for federal involvement in long-term technology development. In order for the American people 

to truly benefit from nanotechnology products and applications in the next decade, 

the Federal Government needs to ask the question: ‘‘How can we foster real competition?’’ when deciding to fund programs. Are the programs we are deciding to 

fund focused on both fundamental and applied research?

Government funding of universities and government labs mostly funds basic fundamental scientific research, not technology development. The difference is important. Science is about understanding why something works, and doing it once to test 

the theory. Technology is about doing it reliably and repeatably, at an affordable 

cost, meeting environmental and safety standards, for a customer willing to pay for 

it. 

Universities embrace Bayh-Dole (regarding technology ownership by universities 

under federal grants). This allows universities to receive federal dollars to fund research programs in which they own the IP and can license and sell this science to 

companies. In order to take this science and turn it into meaningful technology, 

companies must, in addition to paying the steep university IP license and legal fees, 

also invest significant funds for engineering, manufacturing, and testing. 

Many companies are very frustrated and more importantly, the high-risk, highbenefit technology that could benefit the American people the most is many times 

not transferred because the financial risk is too great. The American taxpayers are 

losing out on jobs and technology benefits because of the current technology-transfer 

process. 

We should strive to more effectively transfer university and government science 

to private sector technology firms. If I choose to fund a program at a university as 

an outsider, I am also expected to pay again to license any technology developed 

(the university lays claim to all intellectual property). That means I’ve paid once as 

a taxpayer, once as a funder, and once as a licensor. Three times seems excessive. 

If we just hire a consultant, with the same or greater expertise as a professor, our 

company contractually lays claim to the IP developed before hiring the consultant, 

and only has to pay once. We should strive to more effectively transfer university 

and government science to private sector technology firms. 

The role of the Federal Government should be to foster our national competitiveness in the following ways:

(1) Ensure an educated populace, with a basic understanding of science and technology

(2) Continue funding basic science, but start giving ‘‘extra credit’’ in future funding for successful tech transfer of past research.

(3) We should NOT fund a new governmental agency or program to hire scientists 

and engineers and tell them to commercialize things—that won’t work, because 

there’s no competition and no personal gain for winning or personal pain for losing. 

Many of our foreign competitors in Europe and Asia fund governmental or quasigovernmental agencies tasked with developing technology and transferring it from 

labs (ironically, often labs in American universities) to local industry. Entrepreneurial business people, like we frequently see in Taiwan or China, will be first in 

line to catch this technology as it spins out of these entities, exploiting their advantage of cheap, educated labor and governmental assistance, instead of hindrance. We 

should be sure the mission of our government laboratories is clearly focused on ‘‘big 

science’’ projects that the private sector shouldn’t do (like nuclear fusion), and not 

on things that could be done more cheaply in universities or the private sector.

(4) Our government should not ‘‘pick winners,’’ nor engage in ‘‘corporate welfare,’’ 

but we should consider helping industry in that development gap between a scientific result and a saleable product. U.S. private-sector investment time horizons 

are short, and investors are risk-averse. Today, we have two governmental proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:41 Apr 27, 2006 Jkt 097599 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\97599.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
75

grams, the SBIR, and the NIST–ATP, that award money competitively. Both could 

be improved with some minor changes:

(a) SBIR Phase 1 awards are less than $100K, which is quite small in 2003 dollars, and Phase 2 awards, while larger, are still not large enough to support 

collaborations required for complex projects. A well-managed company can easily decide the SBIR economics aren’t worth applying for this money, and focus 

on more near-term, less risky opportunities with less potential reward. Significantly, the NIH funds larger SBIR Phase 1 and 2 awards to life science companies than other agencies. It would be advantageous to increase competitive 

SBIR awards in other agencies.

(b) On the other hand, many companies become SBIR mills, living from grant 

to grant without ever productizing anything. The government has started penalizing such companies in their future competitions, and should start evaluating 

the business case as well as the technical merits in proposals (like the NIST–

ATP currently does).

(c) The NIST–ATP is nearly a model program, but has been savaged as ‘‘corporate welfare’’ by some detractors. However, using expert peer review for the 

technology component and business plan review for the business component, is 

how the venture capitalists invest and succeed. This program should be elevated 

in the Commerce Department, and professional venture capitalists recruited to 

help with the business plan evaluation. The role of the ATP should be as a competitive ‘‘seed fund’’ to incubate technologies with too long a development time 

to be privately funded. Again, for future applications, points could be awarded 

for successful commercialization of past awards, or deducted for failure to make 

a commercial product. The program should be funded in a more stable fashion, 

and funding increased in an even more competitive manner.

(d) We should, through the Homeland Security Agency, increase competitive 

funding through both the NIST–ATP and SBIR programs to solve our most 

pressing Homeland Security scientific and technical needs. The country that is 

dominant in Nanotechnology holds a competitive edge in this war against terrorism.

What if we do nothing? 

We’ll still have short-term nanotechnology technology development in the U.S., 

funded by private equity and private sector corporations. And the government will 

save money in the short run. But long-term research will migrate offshore, following 

the educated workforce, adequate long-term government funding, and friendly government regulation, and in 10–15 years, we’ll be buying our highest technology from 

Asia. We won’t be exporting just manual labor jobs—we will have exported our toptier technology jobs as well. In today’s dynamic world, this technology migration 

MIGHT happen even with such a program, but it certainly WILL happen without 

it. 

Question 2. What role do you see for the federal government in encouraging and 

developing of public private partnerships and business-to-business partnerships? 

Answer. It is hard to formulate a model public-private partnership, due to the immense power difference between the two parties. Even a partnership between a 

large company and a small one is very difficult to make work, where both parties 

are signed up for the same goals. The small company, as is the case with Zyvex, 

has to spend 10-percent of its total resources on proposals, compliances, and reporting. Our foreign competitors in Asia are able to spend more of their time competing 

and figuring out how to sell to more customers.

It is distressingly rare to find government and industry signed up for the same 

goals, so it is not surprising that we have few examples of success. Sematech is the 

only one that comes to mind. And Sematech participants were, if I recall, given limited exemption from antitrust laws, allowing them to work together in a way that 

would send non-exempted companies to antitrust court. 

However, the voice of industry can be helpful to helping government spend its 

money more wisely, and get more return. A simple way is to assure that panels, 

such as the review panels for the nanotechnology program in S. 189, include representatives from large and small businesses, and not just academia and government. The voice of business would consider issues like deployment of technology, return on investment, competition, strategic partnering, and reporting burdens in a 

way the other representatives would not. The President’s PCAST group has an incredibly strong representation by well-known big business executives and academics, but there is not much small business representation on that panel, and few 

members in emerging fields like biotech or nanotech. 

76

Business-to-business partnerships are going to be increasingly important to our 

national competitiveness. Problems today are too big, and technology is becoming 

too specialized, for any but the biggest companies to stand alone. Japanese companies frequently get together independently, and with governmental ministries, to 

solve problems, and even plan their competitive strategy. American companies must 

do this very carefully, or run the risk of violating antitrust laws. 

Our NIST–ATP award, with Zyvex as lead and Honeywell as our manufacturing 

joint venture (JV) partner, is an example of how the government can help a business-to-business relationship. Honeywell replaced our first JV partner, a small firm 

that fell victim to bad management and the technology recession. Before winning 

the ATP award, Zyvex was too small to get Honeywell’s attention, but when we approached them about replacing our first JV partner, they were very receptive, even 

though the program required a 50-percent cost-share by both JV partners. Zyvex got 

a world-class MEMS (MicroElectroMechanical System—or silicon micromachines) 

foundry and MEMS processing engineers, and Honeywell got to work with a worldclass MEMS design team at Zyvex to develop a new MEMS process enabling whole 

new applications. This new process may become an additional publicly-available 

technology to augment a particular MEMS technology (MUMPs) developed at great 

government expense by an American university, spun into an American company, 

sold to a Canadian company, and recently sold to and now controlled by a French 

company. This French MEMS company now runs most of the standard MEMS components American small companies and universities use to train our next generation 

of MEMS engineers. The Zyvex-Honeywell process could bring some of that business 

back to the U.S., providing superior design flexibility to MEMS designers in the 

process. 

This development would not have happened without our NIST–ATP award. Zyvex 

would be working in less risky areas, and Honeywell would be developing processes 

only for their own internal needs. The three university subcontractors (RPI, University of North Texas, and University of Texas at Dallas) would not be working on 

this leading-edge technology commercialization. Other American small companies 

and universities would have no choice but to build their own MEMS foundry, if they 

were big enough, or buy the French components if they couldn’t afford the required 

$20–50M investment. 

Our NIST–ATP is one of the rare examples of government, small and big business, and universities working together toward a shared vision of developing parallel micro and nano assembly of heterogeneous systems. Although our NIST–ATP 

is still in the early stages, we expect significant economic benefits to come later in 

the program, as we demonstrate new manufacturing techniques that will lay a foundation for the U.S. to regain the lead in manufacturing. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG TO

DR. E. CLAYTON TEAGUE

Question. Do you think the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) current balance 

between funding long term research and more short-term commercial enterprises is 

appropriate? How would you suggest the distribution be altered? 

Answer. The Federal Government has a clear role to play in funding the type of 

long-term, basic research that industry simply cannot support given its bottom linedirected emphasis on research and development (R&D) with nearer term benefits. 

While many agencies support fundamental research as part of a portfolio that includes applied research and development and is focused on the agency’s mission, the 

National Science Foundation (NSF) is charged with supporting research across the 

entire range of scientific and engineering disciplines—a unique role. NSF Director 

Rita Colwell has described the agency’s mission as ‘‘to keep science and engineering 

visionaries focused on the furthest frontier, to recognize and nurture emerging 

fields, to prepare the next generation of scientific talent, and to ensure that all 

Americans gain an understanding of what science and technology have to offer.’’ The 

agency’s focus on fundamental research has resulted not only in breakthroughs of 

importance to researchers, but has also contributed to discoveries with tremendous 

societal and commercial significance—such as the Internet and Magnetic Resonance 

Imaging (MRI). 

In keeping with its mission, NSF has directed the lion’s share of its 

nanotechnology-focused resources toward the support of long term, fundamental research, much of which goes to academic institutions. NSF’s nanotechnology research 

funding is distributed among seven research and education themes including 

nanobiosystems, novel processes and materials, novel device and systems architecture, modeling and simulation, manufacturing science, nanoscale processes in the 

77

environment, and societal implications, and is awarded based on a competitive, 

merit review-driven process. 

Considering NSF’s charge, the current ratio of long-term vs. short-term funding 

is appropriate. It is also consistent with a recommendation of the National Research 

Council (NRC) in their report Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the 

National Nanotechnology Initiative. Specifically, the NRC recommended that the 

National Nanotechnology Initiative should support long-term funding in nanoscale 

science and technology, saying ‘‘if an idea is truly revolutionary and promises higher 

impact successes, a longer period—and longer term funding—is needed to demonstrate results.’’

At the same time, NSF makes awards to small businesses as part of the Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer 

(STTR) programs, in order to help support technology transfer and development. In 

FY 2002, NSF funded approximately $10 million worth of SBIR and STTR grants 

related to nanotechnology. NSF also funds, using a competitive, merit review-based 

process, centers and networks of excellence that bring together researchers from different organizations—including industry—to address nanotechnology research questions and to enhance the transition of basic research into applications and commercialization. These centers arid networks provide access to advanced instrumentation 

and computation capabilities, and are focused on topics such as nanobiology, environmental engineering, molecular electronics, and others. The President requested 

$46 million for these NSF centers in the FY 2004 Budget. Other agencies, notably 

the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, sponsor additional multiuser facilities. 

In addition, as part of the multi-agency Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council, NSF arid the 

other member agencies sponsor workshops aimed at facilitating interactions 

amongst government and university researchers and representatives from industry 

in order to promote the commercialization of federally-funded research results. 

Finally, it is worth noting that commercialization of federally-funded, long-term 

research at academic institutions and other enterprises occurs regularly. Universities and other non-profit organizations are increasingly engaged in efforts to commercialize the results of Federally-funded research, Many, if not most, research universities now have active technology licensing offices that seek to license and commercialize university-owned intellectual property. 

Response to the following questions submitted by Hon. John McCain was 

not available at the time this hearing went to press.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO DR. JAMES MURDAY

Question 1. Based on your experience as the first director of the National 

Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), what kind of response does NNCO 

usually get from participating agencies? 

Question 2. S. 189 would codify the NNCO. What functions should NNCO be directed in statute to specifically carry out? 

Question 3. Your testimony states that the Department of Defense has 

nanoscience programs that are 20 years old. Do the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and NNCO run adequately designed programs that facilitate the transmission of lessons learned and ‘‘best practices’’ from more established government 

nanoscience research programs, such as the DOD one, to agencies that have not 

been studying the area for such a long time? 

Question 4. Based on your experience in the Office of Naval Research and NNCO, 

what are best practices that agencies should pursue to successfully transfer 

nanoscience research to practical technology applications? 

Question 5. When you were director of the NNCO, what were the greatest challenges to the transfer of nanotechnology to the commercial sector? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO DR. JAMES ROBERTO

Question 1. Given your position at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, do you feel 

that the federal research infrastructure is adequate at this point to support the level 

of funding that is being proposed for nanotechnology research? 

Question 2. You mentioned in your statement that the boundaries between disciplines are disappearing at the nanoscale.

78

a) Is this the beginning of a new discipline area for the colleges and universities?

b) If so, are you aware of any schools which have already started degree programs in this area?

Question 3. The Department of Energy has Nanoscale Research Centers that are 

designed to be ‘‘user facilities’’ for use by U.S. industry researchers. How has industry utilized these research centers? 

Question 4. How does the Department of Energy’s nanoscale research tie into the 

President’s FreedomCAR Initiative? 

Question 5. What are the greatest barriers today to the application of greater 

nanoscale research to the commercial sector? 

Question 6. Based on the research that you have conducted, what are some of the 

short-term, mid-range, and long-term results that the average American consumer 

should see from energy-related nanotechnology research? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO DR. E. CLAYTON TEAGUE

Question 1. The Administration proposes reconstituting the Nanoscale Science, 

Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee with higher level agency management. What benefits do you believe will be achieved by this plan? 

Question 2. One objective of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office 

(NNCO) is to assure the broadest possible geographical distribution of the benefits 

of nanotechnology development, and work with state nanotechnology initiatives. 

Considering that many states are facing budgetary challenges this year, how much 

support has there been in the states for nanotechnology initiatives? 

Question 3. Your testimony states that the National Science Foundation (NSF) 

has added a new research and education theme on ‘‘manufacturing at the 

nanoscale,’’ and that the program element ‘‘Nanomanufacturing’’ has been established in the Directorate of Engineering. What are some of the topics that are being 

researched in the field on ‘‘nanomanufacturing’’? 

Question 4. You have outlined some of the challenges that still face basic 

nanoscale processes, such as the need to develop the understanding and tools for 

the full control of assembling reasonably large numbers of atoms into desired structures. What are some of the other basic research areas that require greater research 

in order to develop commercial applications of nanotechnology? 

Question 5. S. 189 would establish a Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, 

Legal, and Workforce Issues. Are there specific issues that you believe this center 

should be directed to study? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO DR. DAVIS BAIRD

Question 1. What changes to S. 189 would you recommend to ensure that social 

and ethical concerns are properly addressed? 

Question 2. Your testimony brings up the sensational warnings of Michael 

Crichton and Bill Joy about the dangers of nanotechnology research. How should 

government officials, academic researchers, and private sector companies engaged in 

nanotechnology research constructively address these warnings? 

Question 3. What new discoveries in the social and ethical areas of 

nanotechnology are you learning from your work at the University of South Carolina 

that may warrant a change in the future course of the nanoresearch programs? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO DR. JUN JIAO

Question 1. Can you discuss the extent of your partnerships with industry concerning your research? Are they for funding support or commercialization agreements? 

Question 2. You spoke about the excitement of students in this area at both the 

college and the high school level. Here in the Senate, we often hear stories about 

how U.S. students are not interested in math and science. Your experience seems 

to contradict that. Can you comment on this? 

Question 3. Your testimony emphasizes the importance of education for the future 

nanotechnology workforce. What type of educational background and skills will be 

required? 

79

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO DR. KENT A. MURPHY

Question 1. You have mentioned Bayh-Dole as a great start. What changes would 

you recommended to Bayh-Dole to facilitate even greater technology transfer? Does 

the transfer of nanotechnologies have unique requirements? 

Question 2. Your statement indicates that Luna has generated $6 of private sector 

funding for $1 of government funding. Can you elaborate on the importance of this 

6.1 ratio and how you have been able to accomplish that? 

Question 3. Luna has been able to spin-off five companies since 1999 in various 

high tech areas. Luna was presented the prestigious Tibbets award by the U.S. 

Small Business Association for its work in research and development. It appears 

that Luna has positioned itself to commercialize new technologies as they become 

viable for commercial use. Can you comment on your business model and what lessons others, including the government, may be able to learn from your success? 

Question 4. As a company that’s engaged in the nanotechnology business, can you 

identify a federal source that you can contact for information on the latest concerning federally funded activities in this area? 

Question 5. Can you discuss an application of nanomaterials in which your company has generated revenues? 

Question 6. You mentioned that Virginia was the first state to establish the position of Secretary of Technology. What has that meant for the technology companies 

of the state? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO JAMES R. VON EHR II 

Question 1. Questions have been raised about the industrialization of 

nanotechnolgy research, such as factory design, issues regarding the health of workers, and worker skill level. Could you please comment on these issues, and how 

Zyvex is addressing them? 

Question 2. Many nanotechnology companies are still in the start-up phase. Based 

on your experience, what strategies should start-up companies use to attract investors and generate a profit? 

Question 3. What impact did the failures of Internet companies have on other 

technology start-up companies? 

Question 4. What changes would you recommend to Bayh-Dole and other statutes 

to facilitate greater technology transfer? 

Question 5. You mentioned that Craig Venter framed the sequencing of the 

human genome as a business problem, and not a scientific problem. He then proceeded to solve it. Can you discuss what it means to approach the problem as a business problem and not a scientific one? 

Question 6. Can you discuss why 5 years will be too long for the availablity of 

new government labs to support nanotechnology research?

Æ