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

41–672PS 2008

THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 16, 2008

Serial No. 110–93

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

VACANCY

(III)

C O N T E N T S

April 16, 2008

Page

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 2

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Prepared Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking

Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 13

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Minority Ranking Member,

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 14

Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 15

Witnesses:

Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme, Co-Chair, President’s Council of Advisors on Science

and Technology

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Biography .......................................................................................................... 24

Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27

Biography .......................................................................................................... 29

Dr. Joseph S. Krajcik, Professor of Science Education; Associate Dean of

Research, University of Michigan

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31

Biography .......................................................................................................... 36

Dr. Andrew D. Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging

Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38

Biography .......................................................................................................... 61

Dr. Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology for Industrial Chemicals, BASF

Corporation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 61

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 63

Biography .......................................................................................................... 64

Dr. Robert R. Doering, Senior Fellow and Research Strategy Manager, Texas

Instruments

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 64

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 66

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

Page

IV

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 70

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme, Co-Chair, President’s Council of Advisors on Science

and Technology ..................................................................................................... 90

Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance ......................... 93

Dr. Joseph S. Krajcik, Professor of Science Education; Associate Dean of

Research, University of Michigan ....................................................................... 95

Dr. Andrew D. Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging

Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars .......... 99

Dr. Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology for Industrial Chemicals, BASF

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 103

Dr. Robert R. Doering, Senior Fellow and Research Strategy Manager, Texas

Instruments .......................................................................................................... 105

(1)

THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY

INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

2

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Amendments Act of 2008

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, April 16, 2008, the Committee on Science and Technology will

hold a hearing to review legislation that proposes changes to various aspects of the

planning and implementation mechanisms for and to the content of the National

Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The legislation includes changes to strengthen the

planning and implementation of the environment, health, & safety (EHS) component of NNI; to increase emphasis on nanomanufacturing research, technology

transfer, and commercialization of research results flowing from the program; to create a new NNI component of focused, large-scale research and development projects

in areas of national importance; and to enhance support for K–16 nanotechnologyrelated education programs.

The legislation is based on findings and recommendations from formal reviews in

2002 and 2006 of the NNI by the National Academy of Sciences and in 2005 by the

President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology, which currently serves

as the advisory committee for the NNI; witness testimony from NNI hearings from

this and the past Congress; and recommendations resulting from staff discussions

with various stakeholder groups.

A section-by-section summary of the bill is attached as an appendix to this memo.

2. Witnesses

Mr. Floyd E. Kvamme, Co-Chair, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and

Technology

Mr. Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance

Dr. Joseph Krajcik, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Education, University of Michigan

Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging

Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center

Dr. Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology, BASF Corporation on behalf of the

American Chemistry Council

Dr. Robert R. Doering, Senior Fellow and Research Strategy Manager, Texas Instruments and on behalf of the Semiconductor Industry Association.

3. Overarching Questions

• Does the legislation address key issues for improving the way the NNI is

planned and implemented and for ensuring that the program is positioned to

help maintain U.S. leadership in nanotechnology?

• Are the changes proposed in the legislation to strengthen the planning, coordination, and prioritization process for research to address concerns about

environmental and safety ramifications of nanotechnology likely to be effective? Is the requirement for a minimum funding level for this aspect of the

program reasonable and necessary?

• Will the bill assist in overcoming the barriers to commercialization of

nanotechnologies, help enhance NNI support for research in areas relevant to

the needs of industry, and make user facilities supported under the NNI more

welcoming to industrial users, thereby assisting with the transfer of research

results to usable products that benefit the public?

3

• Is there a need for resources under the NNI to be readjusted to include a

component for support of large-scale research and development projects focused on specific problems of national importance?

• Does the proposed legislation adequately address support for nanotechnology

education under the NNI?

4. Background

Summary of Past NNI Hearings

During the 110th Congress, the Committee has held three NNI related hearings.

The first, Nanotechnology Education [Serial No. 110–60], was held October 2nd,

2007 by the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education. The witnesses, who

represented the Federal Government, industry, and educational institutions and

science educators at all levels, agreed that nanotechnology education is an important component of a strategy to capitalize on the promise of this advancing field.

Several witnesses discussed the importance of early nanotechnology education, including informal education, for generating awareness, information and excitement

about nanotechnology among young students and the general public. Witnesses were

unanimous in expressing support for increasing formal education in nanotechnology

beginning at the undergraduate level, including at two-year colleges because of their

important role in supplying much of the 21st Century skilled workforce. A representative from the National Science Foundation provided an overview of the many

activities in formal and informal nanotechnology education at all levels already supported by the Federal Government.

A second hearing, Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of

Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation under the National

Nanotechnology Initiative [Serial No. 110–69], was held on October 31, 2007. This

hearing addressed the need and motivation for research on the environmental,

health and safety (EHS) aspects of nanotechnology. In addition, the hearing sought

to determine the current state of planning and implementation of EHS research

under the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), and explore whether changes

are needed to the current mechanisms for planning and implementing EHS research. Witnesses included the representatives from the organizations charged with

the development of the EHS plan as well as non-governmental organizations focused

on the societal implications of nanotechnology. The hearing highlighted the unanimous position by all witnesses regarding the importance of EHS research for the

development of nanotechnology and the necessity of a well designed and adequately

funded EHS research component of the NNI. However, there was concern that the

interagency planning for and implementation of the EHS research component of

NNI was not moving with the urgency it deserved. While the organizations responsible for plan development and implementation claimed that the current process is

effective and that the participating agencies believe the process is working well, the

non-governmental organizations were unanimous in their recommendations for

changes in the planning process as well as increases in the priority of EHS in the

overall NNI basic research funding.

A third hearing, The Transfer of National Nanotechnology Initiative Research Outcomes for Commercial and Public Benefit [Serial No. 110–82] was held on March 11,

2008 by the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education. Witnesses included

representatives of State- and federally-funded nanotechnology research and user facilities, industry, and a state-based technology transfer and funding organization.

The witnesses stressed the importance of basic research in nanomanufacturing and

adequate funding of geographically diverse user facilities. The witnesses were clear

that basic research funding should be broad to allow for new discoveries and pioneering research; however, they indicated that it would be wise to focus some funding and planning toward commercialization. They suggested that this might be accomplished through demonstration projects or by defining areas of global competitiveness. Many of the witnesses testified that the SBIR and ATP/TIP programs are

very important for the development of innovative technologies and felt that the program should emphasize the funding of nanotechnology projects.

NNI Organization and Funding

The National Nanotechnology Initiative was authorized by the 21st Century

Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–153). In accordance with the Act, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) through the

Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee plans and

coordinates the NNI. The Act authorized the National Nanotechnology Coordination

Office (NNCO) to provide technical and administrative support to the NSET for this

coordination. There are currently twenty-six federal agencies that participate in the

4

National Nanotechnology Initiative, with 13 of those agencies reporting a research

and development budget. Research related to the NNI is organized into eight program component areas including: Fundamental Nanoscale Phenomena and Processes; Nanomaterials; Nanoscale Devices and Systems; Instrumentation Research,

Metrology, and Standards; Nanomanufacturing; Major Research Facilities and Instrument Acquisition; Environment, Health, and Safety; and Education and Societal

Dimensions. More information on the organization and structure of the NNI can be

found in the Congressional Research Service Report, The National Nanotechnology

Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues at http://

www.congress.gov/erp/rl/pdf/RL34401.pdf.

The total estimated NNI budget for FY 2008 was $1.49 billion. Total planned

funding for the NNI in FY 2009 is $1.53 billion. More information on the NNI program content and budget can be found at http://www.nano.gov/

NNI¥FY09¥budget¥summary.pdf and http://www.nano.gov/NNI¥08Budget.pdf.

Spending on EHS, Nanomanufacturing, and Education

EHS: The President’s FY 2009 budget requests $1.5 billion for the NNI. Of this

amount, the budget proposes $76.4 million (five percent of the overall program) for

research on EHS research. This is a 30 percent increase over the FY08 funding

level. More than 40 percent of this funding would go to NSF.

Nanomanufacturing and Commercialization: The FY 2008 estimated budget for

nanomanufacturing research (a component that is closely tied to bridging the gap

between basic research and the development of commercial products) was $50.2 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

2 Available at http://www.nano.gov/NNI¥EHS¥Research¥Strategy.pdf 3 Information of NNI related user facilities and centers and institutes can be found at

www.nano.gov.

lion dollars which is 3.3 percent of the total budget. The NNI planned investment

in nanomanufacturing research for FY 2009 is $62.1 million, a 24 percent increase.

This amount is four percent of the total FY 2009 proposed budget. In addition,

$161.3 million is planned for major facilities and instrument acquisition, which can

be utilized towards production of prototypes leading to commercialization.

Education: As part of its contribution to the NNI, NSF supports a number of educational activities designed to teach K–16 students, science teachers, faculty members, and the general public about nanotechnology. Major education programs include the National Center for Learning and Teaching (NCLT) in Nanoscale Science

and Engineering and the Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE) Network.

NCLT is a consortium of five universities with a mission to foster the Nation’s talent in nanoscale science and engineering (NSSE) by developing methods for learning

and teaching through inquiry and design of nanoscale materials and applications.

They perform research and serve as a clearinghouse for information regarding

NSSE curriculum, teaching methodologies, and professional development for the undergraduate and K–12 levels. NCLT is operating in the last year of a five-year

$15,000,000 million grant. The NISE network received a $12.4 million dollar grant

from NSF in 2005 to develop methods of introducing the nanotechnology to the public and to draw students to careers in NSSE.

NSF also has a Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education Program funded at

$42.7 million since 2003. The grants in this program have gone to develop curriculum and purchase equipment for undergraduate students in different science

and engineering disciplines. As part of the Advanced Technology Education Centers

program, NSF has provided $2.68 million since 2004 to develop nanotechnology related technician education programs at community colleges.

Environment, Health, & Safety Planning

In October 2003, the NSET organized an interagency Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group to coordinate environmental and safety research carried out under the NNI. One of the NEHI Working

Group’s initial tasks was developing a prioritized plan for EHS research. In March

2006, the Administration informed the Science Committee that this report would be

completed that spring, but the document that was finally released in September

2006 was a non-prioritized list of EHS research areas. A further iteration of the

EHS research plan, which was released for public comment in August 2007, presented a rationale for the process of defining EHS research priorities and provided

a reduced set of priorities based on the previous report. Finally, in February 2008,

the Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research2 document was released. This document provided a more in depth assessment of current research needs and priorities; however, it failed to provide a schedule and timelines for meeting objectives and the proposed funding levels by topic

and by agency.

Commercialization and Technology Transfer of Nanotechnology

User Facilities

The NNI funding agencies support nanotechnology user facilities to assist researchers (academic, government, and industry) in fabricating and studying

nanoscale materials and devices. The facilities may also be used by companies for

developing ideas into prototypes and investigating proof of concept. The National

Science Foundation supports 17 facilities under its National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), four of which are focused on nanomanufacturing. The

Department of Energy maintains five Nanoscale Science Research Centers, each focused on and specific to a different area of nanoscale research. The National Institutes of Health has a Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory in Frederick, MD

and the National Institute of Standards and Technology maintains a user facility

in Gaithersburg, MD. The application processes for each facility varies; however, all

are open to academic, government, or industry users. In addition to the user facilities, the NNI is carried out in over 70 centers and institutes3 throughout the country mostly on university campuses, many of which have user facilities that are open

to all applicants.

6

4The National Nanotechnology Initiative Supplement to the President’s FY 2008 Budget. July

2007, p. 24.

SBIR/STTR Programs

P.L. 108–153 encourages support for nanotechnology related projects through the

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) programs by requiring the National Science and Technology

Council to ‘‘develop a plan to utilize federal programs, such as the Small Business

Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program, in support of the [NNI activities]. . ..’’ Despite the lack of a formal

plan, the SBIR and STTR programs have been used as a vehicle to bring

nanotechnology research developed by small business concerns closer to commercialization. The total SBIR and STTR program spending in all technology areas in

FY 2006 was nearly $2.2 billion, of that budget $79.7 million was identified as

nanotechnology related research.4 This was 3.7 percent of the total SBIR/STTR

spending in FY 2006 and included nine federal agencies. SBIR/STTR funding is allowable for development of technologies from concept to prototype; however, funding

of scale-up to manufacturing does not fall within the SBIR/STTR scope of funding.

5. Witness Questions

All witnesses were asked to give their views on the provisions of the bill, including any recommendations for ways to improve it. The list of overarching questions

(item 3 above) was included in the invitation letters.

7

Appendix

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF DRAFT NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

(NNI) AMENDMENTS BILL

SEC. 1. Short Title

National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.

SEC. 2. Amendments to the 2003 Act

Modifies the NNI strategic plan to require specification of (1) both near and longterm objectives, (2) the timeframe for achieving near-term objectives, (3) the metrics

for measuring progress toward objectives, and (4) multi-agency funded projects in

areas of significant economic and societal impacts (see SEC. 5).

Authorizes agencies participating in the NNI to support travel expenses for scientists to participate in standards setting activities related to nanotechnology.

Provides an explicit funding source for the National Nanotechnology Coordination

Office (NNCO)—each participating agency provides funds in proportion to the agency’s fraction of the overall NNI budget—and requires the NNCO to report annually

on its current and future budget requirements, including funding needed to create

and maintain new public databases (see following provision) and to fulfill the public

input and outreach requirements specified in the 2003 Act.

Requires the NNCO to (1) develop a public database for projects funded under the

Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS), Education and Societal Dimensions, and

Nanomanufacturing program component areas, with sub-breakouts for education

and ELSI projects; and (2) develop, maintain and publicize information about

nanotechnology facilities available for use by academia and industry.

Specifies that the NNI Advisory Panel must be a stand-alone advisory committee

(at present the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology is assigned this role).

Requires the NNI Advisory Panel to establish a sub-panel with members having

qualifications tailored to assessing the societal, ethical, legal, environmental, and

workforce activities supported by the NNI.

Revises the charge to the National Research Council (NRC) for the content and

scope of the triennial reviews of the NNI. Provides an explicit funding authorization to OSTP of $500K/year for FY09–11 for

the NRC triennial reviews.

SEC. 3. Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology

Assigns responsibility to an OSTP associate director (to be determined by the

OSTP Director) to fulfill the role of Coordinator for the societal dimensions component of NNI. The coordinator is (1) responsible for ensuring the strategic plan for

EHS is completed and implemented; (2) serves as the focal point for encouraging

and advocating buy-in by the agencies, and monitoring their compliance, in providing the resources and management attention necessary; and (3) is responsible for

encouraging the agencies to explore suitable mechanisms for establishing public-private partnerships for support of EHS research.

Requires the Coordinator to convene and chair a panel of representatives from

agencies supporting research under the EHS program component area to develop,

annually update, and coordinate the implementation of a research plan for this program component. The plan, which is to be appended to the statutorily required NNI

annual report, must contain near- and long-term research goals and milestones, include multi-year funding requirements by agency and by goal, and take into consideration the recommendations of the NNI Advisory Panel and the agencies responsible for environmental and safety regulations. The plan must include standards development activities related to nomenclature, standard reference materials, and

testing methods and procedures.

Requires that at least 10 percent of the total NNI budget be allocated to the EHS

program component area.

Establishes Nanotechnology Education Partnerships as part of the NSF Math and

Science Partnership (MSP) program to recruit and help prepare secondary school

students to pursue post-secondary education in nanotechnology. These partnerships

are similar to other MSPs, but must include one or more businesses engaged in

nanotechnology and focus the educational activities on curriculum development,

teacher professional development, and student enrichment (including access by student to nanotechnology facilities and equipment) in areas related to nanotechnology.

Requires the Program to include within the Education and Societal Dimensions

program component area activities to support nanotechnology undergraduate eduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
8

cation, including support for course development, faculty professional development,

and acquisition of equipment and instrumentation. To carry out these activities, the

bill authorizes an additional $5M per year for FY 2009 and FY 2010 for the NSF

Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program (undergraduate STEM

education program open to all institutions of higher education) and an additional

$5M per year for FY 2009 and FY 2010 for the NSF Advanced Technological Education program (open only to two-year institutions).

Requires formation of an Education Working Group to coordinate, prioritize, and

plan the educational activities funded under NNI.

SEC. 4. Technology Transfer

Requires agencies supporting nanotechnology research facilities under NNI to

allow, and encourage, use of these facilities to assist companies in developing prototype products, devices, or processes for determining proof of concept. The agencies

are required to publicize the availability of these facilities and provide descriptions

of the capabilities of the facilities and the procedures and rules for their use.

Requires agencies to encourage applications for support of nanotechnology projects

under SBIR and STTR programs, requires publication of the plan to encourage this

within six months (plan originally required under the 2003 Act), and requires a report that will track the success of the programs in attracting and supporting

nanotechnology projects.

Requires NIST to encourage submission of proposals under the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) for support of nanotechnology related projects and to report

to Congress on how this is to be accomplished and on the outcome of the effort over

time. Requires the TIP Advisory Board to provide advice to the program on ways

to increase the number of nanotechnology related proposals and to assess the adequacy of funding provided for such proposals.

Encourages the creation of industry liaison groups in all relevant industry sectors

(four currently exist) and specifically suggests establishing one focused on companies that produce and use composite materials.

Adds to the activities enumerated by the 2003 Act that are required to be carried

out under the NNI the coordination and leveraging of federal investments with

nanotechnology research, development, and technology transition initiatives supported by the states.

SEC. 5. Research in Areas of National Importance

Requires the NNI to include support for large-scale research and development

projects involving collaborations among universities, industry, federal labs, and nonprofit research organizations to accelerate development of promising nanotechnology

research discoveries toward near-term solutions to problems in areas of national importance, such as electronics, energy efficiency, health care, and water remediation.

Requires that the competitive, merit based selection process for awards and the

funding of these awards be carried out through a collaboration between at least two

agencies and that the award selection process take into favorable consideration the

availability of cost sharing from non-federal sources.

Project awards may be for support of interdisciplinary research centers, and all

must include a plan for transferring technology developed under the projects to industry.

SEC. 6. Nanomanufacturing Research

Specifies inclusion of research under the Nanomanufacturing program component

area to include projects to develop instrumentation/tools for rapid characterization

and monitoring for nanoscale manufacturing and to develop techniques for scaling

nanomaterial synthesis to industrial-level production rates.

Requires that centers established under the NNI on nanomanufacturing and on

applications in areas of national importance (SEC. 5) include support for interdisciplinary research and education on methods and approaches to develop environmentally benign nanoscale products and nanoscale manufacturing processes.

Requires a public meeting and subsequent review by the NNI Advisory Panel of

the adequacy of the funding level and the relevance to industry’s needs of research

under the Nanomanufacturing program component area.

SEC. 7. Definitions

9

Chairman GORDON. Good morning. This hearing will come to

order, and I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing to review

a draft Committee bill on the amendment in order to amend and

strengthen the National Nanotechnology Initiative. I think this is

one of the most important hearings that we’re going to have this

year. I know that we have a busy day for Members in other committees, but we have a lot of staff watching this on TV; and so

there will be a lot of information that will be communicated from

the hearing, and I appreciate you again being here.

The term revolutionary technology has become a cliche ́, but

nanotechnology truly is revolutionary. We stand at the threshold of

an age in which materials and devices can be fashioned atom-byatom to satisfy specified design requirements. Nanotechnologybased applications are arising that were not even imagined a decade ago.

Nanotechnology is not a single technology, but rather is a collection of tools and concepts for observing, controlling, and manipulating matter at the atomic scale.

The range of potential applications is broad and will have enormous consequences for electronics, energy transformation and storage, materials, and medicine and health, to name just a few. Indeed, the scope of this technology is so broad as to leave virtually

no product untouched.

The Science and Technology Committee recognized the promise

of nanotechnology early on, holding our first hearing a decade ago

to review federal activities in the field. The Committee was subsequently instrumental in the development and enactment of a statute in 2003 that authorized the interagency National

Nanotechnology Initiative, or the NNI. The 2003 statute put in

place formal interagency planning, budgeting, and coordinating

mechanisms for NNI. It now receives funding from 13 agencies and

has a budget of $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2008, which represents

a doubling of the budget over the last five years.

The NNI statute also provides for formal reviews of the content

and management of the program by the National Academies and

by a designated advisory committees of non-government experts.

Their assessments of NNI have been generally positive.

The cooperation and planning processes among the participating

agencies in the NNI have been also largely effective. The NNI has

led to productive, cooperative research efforts across a spectrum of

disciplines. It has established a network of national facilities for

support of nanoscale research and development.

Therefore, the NNI does not require extensive renovation. The

draft bill leaves its major features unchanged but does adjust some

important priorities and strengthen some specific aspects of the

program. I would like to highlight two key features of the bill.

The first area is risk reduction. Nanotechnology is advancing

rapidly. At least 600 products have entered commerce that contain

nanoscale materials, including aerosols and cosmetics.

It is important for the successful development of nanotechnology

that potential downsides of the technology be addressed from the

beginning in a straightforward and open way.

We know too well that negative public perceptions about the

safety of technology can have serious consequences for its acceptVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
10

ance and use. This has been the case with nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and stem cell therapies.

The science base is not now available to pin down what types of

engineered nanomaterials may be dangerous, although early studies show some are potentially harmful. We don’t yet know what

characteristics of these materials are most significant to determine

their effect on living things or the environment, nor do we even

have the instruments for effectively monitoring the presence of

such materials in the air or water.

Although the NNI has from its beginning realized the need to include activities for increasing understanding of the environmental

and safety aspects of nanotechnology, it has been slow to put in

place a well-designed, adequately-funded, and effectively executed

research program.

The environmental and safety component of NNI must be improved by quickly developing and implementing a strategic research plan that specifies near-term and long-term goals, sets milestones and timeframes for meeting near-term goals, clarifies agencies’ roles in implementing the plan, and allocates sufficient resources to accomplish the goals.

This is the essential first step for the development of

nanotechnology to ensure that sound science guides the formulation of regulatory rules and requirements. It will reduce the current uncertainty that inhibits commercial development of

nanotechnology and will provide a sound basis for future rule-making.

I am interested in hearing the views of our witnesses on the provisions of the bill relevant to the development and implementation

of an effective environmental, health and safety research component of the NNI, and particularly, on whether it would be beneficial to specifically set aside a portion of the overall NNI budget

for this purpose as is proposed in this bill.

The second area of the legislation I want to highlight involves

capturing the economic benefits of nanotechnology.

Too often the U.S. has led in the basic research on the frontiers

of science and technology but has failed to capitalize on the commercial developments flowing from new discoveries.

The NNI has so far invested approximately $7 billion over seven

years in basic research that is providing new tools for the manipulation of matter at the nanoscale and is increasing our understanding of the behavior of engineered nanoscale materials and devices. Increased consideration should now be given to support efforts to foster the transfer of new discoveries to commercial products and processes.

The draft bill includes provisions to encourage use of

nanotechnology facilities by companies for prototyping and proof of

concept studies, and it specifies steps for increasing the number of

nanotechnology-related projects supported under the Small Business Innovation Research Program and by the Technology Innovation Program, established under the COMPETES Act.

To increase the relevance and value of the NNI, the draft bill

also authorizes large-scale, focused, multi-agency research and development initiatives in areas of national need.

11

For example, such efforts could be organized around developing

a replacement for the silicon-based transistor, developing new

nanotechnology-based devices for harvesting solar energy, or

nanoscale sensors for detecting cancer.

The draft NNI Amendments Act was developed on the basis of

recommendations from the formal reviews of the NNI by the National Academy of Sciences and by the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology, which currently acts as the external advisory committee to NNI. It also incorporates recommendations from witnesses’ testimony from NNI hearings during this and

the previous Congress and from comments and recommendations

resulting from staff discussions with various stakeholder groups.

This legislation is still a work in progress. Today I look forward

to the observations of our witnesses and invite them to give the

Committee their recommendations for ways to improve the bill.

I want to thank our witnesses for their attention at this hearing

and look forward to our discussion.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

I want to welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing to review a draft Committee

bill to amend and strengthen the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

The term ‘‘revolutionary technology’’ has become a cliche ́, but nanotechnology

truly is revolutionary. We stand at the threshold of an age in which materials and

devices can be fashioned atom-by-atom to satisfy specified design requirements.

Nanotechnology-based applications are arising that were not even imagined a decade ago.

Nanotechnology is not a single technology, but is rather is a collection of tools and

concepts for observing, controlling, and manipulating matter at the atomic scale.

The range of potential applications is broad and will have enormous consequences

for electronics, energy transformation and storage, materials, and medicine and

health, to name a few examples. Indeed, the scope of this technology is so broad

as to leave virtually no product untouched.

The Science and Technology Committee recognized the promise of nanotechnology

early on, holding our first hearing a decade ago to review federal activities in the

field. The Committee was subsequently instrumental in the development and enactment of a statute in 2003 that authorized the interagency National Nanotechnology

Initiative—the NNI.

The 2003 statute put in place formal interagency planning, budgeting, and coordinating mechanisms for NNI. It now receives funding from 13 agencies and has a

budget of $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2008, which represents a doubling of the budget

over five years.

The NNI statute also provides for formal reviews of the content and management

of the program by the National Academies and by a designated advisory committee

of non-government experts. Their assessments of NNI have been generally positive.

The cooperation and planning processes among the participating agencies in the

NNI have been largely effective. The NNI has led to productive, cooperative research efforts across a spectrum of disciplines, and it has established a network of

national facilities for support of nanoscale research and development.

Therefore, the NNI does not require extensive renovation. The draft bill leaves its

major features unchanged, but does adjust some important priorities and strengthen

some specific aspects of the program. I would like to highlight two key features of

the bill.

The first area is risk reduction. Nanotechnology is advancing rapidly, and at least

600 products have entered commerce that contain nanoscale materials, including

aerosols and cosmetics.

It is important for the successful development of nanotechnology that potential

downsides of the technology be addressed from the beginning in a straightforward

and open way.

We know too well that negative public perceptions about the safety of a technology can have serious consequences for its acceptance and use. This has been the

case with nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and stem cell therapies.

12

The science base is not now available to pin down what types of engineered

nanomaterials may be dangerous, although early studies show some are potentially

harmful. We don’t yet know what characteristics of these materials are most significant to determine their effects on living things or on the environment.

Nor do we even have the instruments for effectively monitoring the presence of

such materials in air or water.

Although the NNI has from its beginnings realized the need to include activities

for increasing understanding of the environmental and safety aspects of

nanotechnology, it has been slow to put in place a well designed, adequately funded,

and effectively executed research program.

The environmental and safety component of NNI must be improved by quickly developing and implementing a strategic research plan that specifies near-term and

long-term goals, sets milestones and timeframes for meeting near-term goals, clarifies agencies’ roles in implementing the plan, and allocates sufficient resources to

accomplish the goals.

This is the essential first step for the development of nanotechnology to ensure

that sound science guides the formulation of regulatory rules and requirements. It

will reduce the current uncertainty that inhibits commercial development of

nanotechnology and will provide a sound basis for future rule-making.

I am interested in hearing the views of our witnesses on the provisions of the bill

relevant to the development and implementation of an effective environmental,

health and safety research component for the NNI, and particularly, on whether it

would be beneficial to specifically set aside a portion of the overall NNI budget for

this purpose, as is proposed in the draft bill.

The second area of the legislation I want to highlight involves capturing the economic benefits of nanotechnology.

Too often the U.S. has led in the basic research on the frontiers of science and

technology but has failed to capitalize on the commercial developments flowing from

new discoveries.

The NNI has so far invested approximately $7 billion over seven years in basic

research that is providing new tools for the manipulation of matter at the nanoscale

and is increasing our understanding of the behavior of engineered nanoscale materials and devices. Increased consideration should now be given to support of efforts

to foster the transfer of new discoveries to commercial products and processes.

The draft bill includes provisions to encourage use of nanotechnology facilities by

companies for prototyping and proof of concert studies, and it specifies steps for increasing the number of nanotechnology related projects supported under the Small

Business Innovation Research Program and by the Technology Innovation Program,

established under the COMPETES Act.

To increase the relevance and value of the NNI, the draft bill also authorizes

large-scale, focused, multi-agency research and development initiatives in areas of

national need.

For example, such efforts could be organized around developing a replacement for

the silicon-based transistor, developing new nanotechnology-based devices for harvesting solar energy, or nanoscale sensors for detecting cancer.

The draft NNI Amendments Act was developed on the basis of recommendations

from formal reviews of the NNI by the National Academy of Sciences and by the

President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology, which currently acts as

the external advisory committee for NNI. It also incorporates recommendations from

witness testimony from NNI hearings during this and the previous Congress and

from comments and recommendations resulting from staff discussions with various

stakeholder groups.

This legislation is still a work in progress. Today I look forward to the observations of our witnesses and invite them to give the Committee their recommendations

for ways to improve the bill.

I want to thank our witnesses for their attendance at this hearing and look forward to our discussion.

Chairman GORDON. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ehlers for an

opening statement.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but first I must mention

that Ranking Member Ralph Hall is indisposed today which means

he is sick, and it takes quite a bit to keep a Texan down. So he

sends his regrets, and Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent

that Mr. Hall’s statement be entered into the record, and I will proceed with my own statement.

13

I am pleased the Committee is holding this important hearing

today. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss draft reauthorization legislation designed to improve the management and coordination of the cross-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative, better

known as NNI. Of particular interest to this committee is the

prioritization of environmental, health, and safety research and

communication of that research to the public.

Since the original Act was put in place in 2003, we have heard

from a number of witnesses that EHS research may need to be increased to ensure a steady pathway for both the nano industry success and public acceptance of new technologies. Consequently, I am

pleased that the draft legislation elevates the environmental,

health, and safety component of the NNI. At the same time, I want

to make sure we craft policy which allows for EHS research to be

embedded into product development. We know that each nano

product and process may behave differently, and therefore, independent EHS research may not always inform a seemingly parallel

project.

I am also interested in hearing from our witnesses about some

of the proposed changes to nanotechnology education, particularly

the changes to existing education programs at the National Science

Foundation. Given the challenging funding environment for these

programs, I want to make sure such changes would benefit students and classroom teachers and not eat away at other important

programs.

I look forward to hearing the insights of our witnesses on how

we can strengthen the National Nanotechnology Initiative so that

the United States can remain a leader in nanotechnology.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you Chairman Gordon. I was pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the

21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which established our

national nanotechnology program in 2003. It was the right thing to do, and thus

far, has proven to be successful. I hope that we can continue to work together to

ensure that the reauthorization of this vital program before us can move forward

in a bipartisan fashion and with bipartisan support.

This committee has spent some time focusing on various aspects of

nanotechnology at the Subcommittee level, much of which has been incorporated

into the draft legislation before us today. I do not need to spend a lot of time talking

about the potential benefits and challenges of nanotechnology to our society. Mr.

Chairman, you and I, as Co-Chairs of the Nanotechnology Caucus and as Members

of this committee for many years, are well aware of them, and I am certain our witnesses may have a point or two to make about them as well. Suffice it to say, despite its name, this is no small issue. Our scientists are using nanotechnology to

help create clean, secure affordable energy; low-cost filters to provide clean drinking

water; medical devices and drugs; sensors to detect and identify harmful chemical

and biological agents; and techniques to clean up hazardous chemicals in the environment. And this is just the beginning of the list.

I recognize that as these nanotechnologies are being developed, we have a responsibility to mitigate potential environmental, health and safety (EHS) risks, as we

do with any new technology. This work is currently being done and as long as the

need is there, agencies should continue to fund EHS research, but it should not necessarily take precedence over or be funded at the expense of the other component

areas identified in the strategic plan. My main interest, as we move forward with

this bill, is to make sure that we are careful to allow a multi-agency program, which

seems to be working well, to continue to have the flexibility needed to do its work

without being too prescriptive. We can tweak it a bit, but we certainly do not need

14

to fix something that is not broken and, in fact, serves as a good model for how an

interagency program should work.

We have before us a well-rounded and esteemed panel of experts with different

interests in nanotechnology, and I look forward to hearing their views on this bill

and on ways that we can work to make improvements to it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Thank you Chairman Gordon. I am pleased that the Committee is holding this

important hearing today.

The purpose of this hearing is to discuss draft reauthorization legislation designed

to improve the management and coordination of the cross-agency National

Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Of particular interest to this committee is the

prioritization of environmental, health and safety (EHS) research and communication of that research to the public.

Since the original Act was put in place in 2003, we have heard from a number

of witnesses that EHS research may need to be increased to ensure a steady pathway for both the nano-industry success and public acceptance of new technologies.

Consequently, I am pleased that the draft legislation elevates the EHS component

of the NNI. At the same time, I want to make sure we craft policy which allows

for EHS research to be embedded into product development. We know that each

nano-product and process may behave differently, and therefore independent EHS

research may not always inform a seemingly parallel project.

I am also interested in hearing from our witnesses about some of the proposed

changes to nanotechnology education, particularly the changes to existing education

programs at the National Science Foundation. Given the challenging funding environment for these programs, I want to make sure such changes would benefit students and classroom teachers and not eat away at other important programs.

I look forward to hearing the insights of our witnesses on how we can strengthen

the National Nanotechnology Initiative so that the United States can remain a leader in nanotechnology. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. It has come to my attention that Mr. Honda, former and valued Member of the Science

Committee, is in the audience; and I would ask unanimous consent

that Mr. Honda be allowed to join this hearing if he so chooses, and

you’re welcome to take a seat here. I would also remind Mr. Honda

as he remembers from being a Member of the Committee that the

current Members will have precedence in terms of asking questions, but we certainly want his expertise and we are glad that he

is here to join us. If there is no objection, Mr. Honda will join us.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to extend a special, warm welcome to Dr. Robert R. Doering, who is with Texas Instruments.

T.I. is a power player in Texas and throughout the Nation.

In addition to their nanotechnology research and semiconductor industry prominence, T.I. is a good neighbor.

The company has worked hard to reach out to schools in Dallas. By providing

extra attention to students in under-served areas, T.I. has brought up test scores

and generated interest in high-tech careers among our young people.

That’s good citizenship.

So, I want to commend industry for its role in educating tomorrow’s high-tech

workforce.

During previous hearings held by this committee, the witnesses, who represented

the Federal Government, industry, and educational institutions and science educators at all levels, agreed that nanotechnology education is an important component of a strategy to capitalize on the promise of this advancing field.

Witnesses discussed the importance of early nanotechnology education for generating enthusiasm among young students and the general public.

They were unanimous in their support for increasing formal education in

nanotechnology beginning at the undergraduate level, including at two-year colleges

because of their important role in developing a skilled workforce.

15

I will be interested to hear how best to allocate our resources, as this committee

works to reauthorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

To me, it seems that the priority should be to ensure that we have the domestic

workforce in place. That, Mr. Chairman, begins with educational activities.

Again, I want to welcome today’s witnesses and thank the Chairman and Ranking

Member for holding today’s hearing.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The advanced development of nanoscale technology has the potential to impact

virtually every sector of our economy as well as our daily lives.

Here in the United States, we are currently the leader in nanotechnology research

and development. However, we must continue to protect and ensure U.S. leadership

in nanotechnology R&D.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has played a vital role in supporting nanotechnology activities in 25 federal agencies.

However, as this committee has found, it is essential to ensure that the NNI continues to focus on modern issues facing nanotechnology development today.

As a former teacher for almost 30 years, I strongly support enhancing K–16

nanotechnology-related education programs. As we addressed in the America COMPETES Act, it is critical to ensure that our workforce is educated and prepared to

continue to lead in nanotechnology R&D.

I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses.

I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. At this time, I would like to introduce our

witnesses. First, Mr. Floyd Kvamme is the Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Mr. Sean

Murdock is the Executive Director for the NanoBusiness Alliance.

Dr. Joseph Krajcik is the Associate Dean of Research and Professor

of Education at the University of Michigan. Mr. Ehlers, I hope you

will be happy about that. Dr. Andrew Maynard is the Chief Science

Advisor for the Project of Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. Dr. Raymond David is the Manager of Toxicology at BASF Corporation and is also representing

the American Chemistry Council. Finally, Dr. Robert Doering. Dr.

Doering is a Senior Fellow and Research Strategy Manager at

Texas Instruments and is also representing the Semiconductor Industry Association. Thank you for joining us today, and we have a

very distinguished panel at this point. We will open our first round

of questions—excuse me. I guess we should hear from our witnesses, shouldn’t we? Let us begin.

STATEMENT OF MR. E. FLOYD KVAMME, CO-CHAIR, PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. KVAMME. My name is Floyd Kvamme. I am Co-Chair of the

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a highlevel group from academia, industry, and other entities experienced

in leading successful science and technology enterprises. My remarks today are my own, but I am confident that my fellow PCAST

members feel similarly on the issues under discussion.

Last week, PCAST released its second review of the National

Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI, and I’d like to reference that report in full for this hearing’s record, as it includes a detailed assessment of NNI program activities and coordination developed

through extensive review over the last 18 months.

16

We are here today to talk about the NNI and the Committee’s

draft legislation to reauthorize this important program. What is

nanotechnology? If one drops the nano part of the word, we are

talking about technology. Technology today invades every part of

our economy, not only computers and communications, but health

care, energy, transportation, education, and in a word, everything.

As a result, a technology initiative is about a very wide and varied

range of industries and applications. Nanotechnology is simply the

continuing development of technology to applications which take

advantage of the unique properties of some materials and is being

applied in all of the applications mentioned above and will, undoubtedly, make many of the products in these applications better,

either in performance, cost or both.

Establishment of the NNI was a very good idea. I commend the

Congress and this committee for authorizing this initiative in 2003.

In both our first report in 2005 and now our second one, we have

had to deal not only with the diversity that is nanotechnology but

also a wide range of federal agencies involved in supporting and/

or conducting nano R&D. The initiative did not set up a new agency with a specific budget; rather, it set up coordination, planning,

and review mechanisms intended to ensure individual agency activities in nanotechnology are effectively supporting program and

government-wide goals. The legislation formally established the coordinating office which raises its budget through contributions from

the various agencies with nanotechnology R&D budgets. Agencies

with primarily regulatory missions have also taken an active role

in the initiative and have contributed to its activities. This strong

and interagency coordination, a premier example of any such Federal R&D initiative, has been central to the success to date of the

NNI.

Appropriate and informed support for environmental, health and

safety (EHS), research within the NNI is an important responsibility that demands strong coordination. With respect to EHS,

PCAST has found that the NNI’s approach has been sound; the

interagency coordination process identified EHS research needs,

mapped those needs to current activities to identify potential research opportunities, and then prioritized those opportunities to inform budget and planning activities.

The provision of the draft reauthorizing legislation that the NNI

collectively allocate a minimum of 10 percent of its nanotechnology

R&D to EHS-related research is, however, problematic in both

practice and principle. In practice the funding of each agency is

independent of the NNI. The NSET subcommittee provides the

base for coordinating member agency activities and planning efforts, but it does not direct NNI funding. Further, it is not reasonable to exclusively designate projects or portions of projects as exclusively EHS or not. The reporting structure of the NNI by PCAs

enables characterization and analysis of the research portfolio that

is sufficient for policy and planning purposes. The current funding

mechanisms and structure makes it difficult for me to see how this

minimum funding across the program is practical. In principle, the

set-aside appears to be arbitrary and not based on a sound scientific analysis of the NNI portfolio of relevant research, including

extensive relevant research not reported in the EHS component

17

area and what is strategically needed. Instead, support should be

guided by the identified gaps in sequential priorities identified in

the EHS research strategy. Like all other aspects of the NNI, EHS

research funding decisions should be determined by identified R&D

directives as is currently the approach of the agencies within the

NNI. Scientifically determined, strategically planned priorities, not

arbitrary percentages, should guide funding for all nanotechnology

research.

With respect to the oversight provisions, the breadth and depth

of the high-level experience of the PCAST and its role as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, combined with a detailed

expertise of the ad hoc technology advisory group, has worked quite

well the last five years in providing functional oversight for the

NNI and directly advising the President on nanotechnology. The

proposed bill should maximize the flexibility for the next Administration in establishing its own advisory structure. As the current

PCAST prepares to pass the baton to the next administration, we

will suggest they incorporate a similar approach to oversight,

leveraging the expertise of a large technical advisory group, whether they be within PCAST or separate.

In summary, the NNI as currently structured is a productive and

effective program and a model of interagency coordination. Our

newly released report makes recommendations for improvement

but finds the program basically sound. Industry is benefiting from

its research. A clear strategy has been developed for

nanotechnology-related EHS research, and EHS guidelines are

being presented to guide industry. International cooperation is happening. The Coordinating Office and NNI participating agencies

have responded to past recommendations from PCAST as well as

the National Academies and have strengthened the program. Agencies participate voluntarily because they derive benefit from doing

so. A reauthorization that avoids overly prescriptive guidance, like

an arbitrary EHS funding floor, and bureaucratic micro-management, such as costly database requirements, will further strengthen and promote interagency coordination that has been vital to the

success of the NNI to date. This approach would confirm the goals

as presented in the original legislation and commend the agencies

for their coordinated efforts to maintain the leadership and competitiveness of the U.S. in nanotechnology.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kvamme follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF E. FLOYD KVAMME

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to testify today. My

name is Floyd Kvamme. I am Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on

Science and Technology (or PCAST). PCAST comprises a high-level group from academia, industry, and other entities with experience in leading successful science and

technology enterprises. My remarks today are my own, but based on our recent review, I am confident that my fellow PCAST members feel similarly on the issues

under discussion today.

Last week, PCAST released its second review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (or the NNI), and I’d like to reference that report in full for this hearing’s

record. That review, required by Congress as the primary external advisory mechanism for the NNI, includes a detailed assessment of NNI program activities and coordination developed through extensive review and consultation by PCAST members

over the last 18 months. The executive summary of the report is attached to this

18

testimony and I recommend it for your review (full report available at: http://

www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/PCAST¥NNAP¥NNI¥Assessment¥2008.pdf).

We are here today to talk about the NNI and the Committee’s draft legislation

to reauthorize this important interagency research and development (R&D) program. Let me begin by giving you my view of what nanotechnology is. If one drops

the ‘nano’ part of the word, we are talking about ‘technology.’ Technology today invades virtually every part of our economy. It’s not only computers and communications, but health care, energy, transportation, education, and—in a word—everything. As a result, in talking about a ‘‘technology initiative,’’ we are talking about

a very wide and varied range of industries and applications. Nanotechnology is simply the continuing development of technology to applications which take advantage

of the unique properties of some materials engineered at the nanoscale.

Nanotechnology is being applied in virtually all of the applications mentioned above

and will, undoubtedly, make many of the products in these applications better—either in performance, cost or both. We should not think of some narrow range of applications for nanotechnology, but rather a vast array of potential uses.

Establishment of the NNI was a very good idea. I commend the great work of

Congress and this committee for formally authorizing this initiative in 2003. In both

our first report in 2005 and now our second one released last week, we have had

to deal not only with the diversity that is nanotechnology but also a wide range of

federal agencies involved in supporting and/or conducting nano R&D. Appropriately,

the initiative did not set up a new agency with a specific budget; rather, it set up

coordination, planning, and review mechanisms intended to ensure individual agency activities in nanotechnology are effectively supporting program- and governmentwide goals. I believe recognizing this is important and instructive with respect to

the draft legislation, and I’ll get to that in a few moments. The legislation did formally establish the coordinating office which raises its budget through contributions

from the various agencies with nanotechnology R&D budgets. Agencies with primarily regulatory missions have also taken an active role in the initiative and have

contributed to its activities. This strong and deep interagency coordination—a premier example of any such Federal R&D initiative—has been central to the success

to date of the NNI.

At the same time, the agencies have specific missions and objective to address.

For example, appropriate and informed support for environmental, health and safety (EHS) research within the NNI is an important responsibility that demands

strong coordination. With respect to this issue PCAST has found that the NNI’s approach has been sound; the interagency coordination process identified EHS research needs, mapped those needs to current activities to identify potential research

opportunities, and then prioritized those opportunities to inform budget and planning activities. For example, I refer you to page 49 of the recently-released NNI

Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research

(full report available at http://www.nano.gov/NNI¥EHS¥Research¥Strategy.pdf):

19

1http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/Nano%20EHS%20Principles%20Memo¥OSTPCEQ¥FINAL.pdf 2http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/

3http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-123/

4http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/whitepaper12022005.pdf

5http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/nano¥strategy¥012408.pdf 6http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.pdf

In this document the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee’s working group on Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (or NEHI) has developed five critical areas for EHS research. The agencies

agreed to cooperate such that while there was a lead agency for each task, the other

agencies contribute to the overall goals agreed to within the NNI. These efforts do

not take away from the other work within the agencies to perform their missionoriented functions but, in our view, lead to more effective activity within the lead

agency. I point specifically to the reports and activities of NIOSH, EPA, FDA, and

NIST (detailed on page 27 in our PCAST report) as examples of agency specific activity:

• The OSTP and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued in November 2007 a memorandum identifying principles for nanotechnology environmental health and safety oversight based on interagency consensus.1

• The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued a

call in July 2006 for information in Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology2 inviting expert feedback from private industry and other government entities, and

in June 2007 it issued the report Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the

Workplace.3

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produced in February 2007 a

white paper4 summarizing the agency’s anticipated approach to

nanotechnology EHS research, followed in February 2008 by a nanomaterial

research strategy.5 The agency also has launched a Voluntary Nanoscale Materials stewardship program.

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released in July 2007 the report6

of its Nanotechnology Task Force’s efforts to clarify a predictable pathway for

application of existing regulatory approaches on a case-by-case basis for developers of nanotechnology-enabled products under its jurisdiction.

• NIST is producing standard reference materials for nanoscale gold and carbon

nanotubes.

20

The provision in the draft reauthorizing legislation that the NNI collectively allocate a minimum of 10 percent of its nanotechnology R&D to EHS-related research

is problematic in both practice and principle:

• In practice, the funding of each agency is fundamentally independent of the

NNI. The NSET Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council provides the base for coordinating NNI member agencies activities and

planning efforts, but it does not direct NNI funding. Furthermore, it is not

feasible or reasonable to exclusively designate projects (or portions of projects)

as exclusively ‘‘EHS’’ or not. The current reporting structure of the NNI by

Program Component Areas or PCAs enables characterization and analysis of

the research portfolio that is sufficient for policy and planning purposes. The

current funding mechanisms and structure of the NNI makes it difficult for

me to see how this ‘‘minimum funding’’ across the program is either reasonable, necessary, or, indeed, practical.

• In principle, this set-aside appears to be arbitrary and not based on a sound

scientific analysis of the current NNI portfolio of relevant research (including

extensive relevant research not reported under the EHS program component

area) and what is strategically needed. Instead, support should be guided by

the identified gaps and sequential priorities identified in the NNI’s

nanotechnology EHS research strategy. Like all other aspects of the NNI,

EHS research funding decisions should be determined by identified R&D objectives, as is currently the approach of the agencies within the NNI. Scientifically-determined, strategically-planned priorities—not arbitrary

percentages—should guide funding for all nanotechnology research,

including research relevant to EHS.

It is important to note that funding for nano-related EHS research has doubled

since 2005. As industry picks up more applications research, the Federal Government’s role will change and is already changing to work more in the EHS and regulatory areas. EHS funding will probably continue to increase. The one area where

funding is accelerating—perhaps tied to our recommendations—is in worker safety

where we will propose in our upcoming letter on the EHS report that NIOSH spending accelerate. The reason worker spending is so critical is that in many instances,

nanomaterials—while in nano form in the workplace—stop being nanomaterials

after production and become a tightly, chemically bound part of a larger system.

With respect to the oversight provisions in the proposed reauthorization, the

breadth and depth of high-level expertise of the PCAST in its role as the National

Nanotechnology Advisory Panel combined with the detailed expertise of the ad hoc

Technical Advisory Group has worked quite well the past five years in providing

functional oversight for the NNI and directly advising the President on

nanotechnology. The proposed bill should maximize the flexibility for the next Administration in establishing its own advisory structure. As the current PCAST prepares to pass the baton to the next administration, we will suggest they incorporate

a similar approach to oversight, leveraging the expertise of a large technical advisory group, whether they be within PCAST or separate.

With respect to overcoming barriers to commercialization and facilitating tech

transfer, again I refer to the report of the PCAST review of the NNI. The NNI’s

unparalleled infrastructure of centers, networks, and user facilities is working very

well, geographically distributed and with a wide array of expertise. These facilities

are serving their purposes well based on all inputs we have received from both our

TAG members and personal experience. Furthermore, the NNI already supports

‘‘large-scale research and development projects’’ on problems of national importance,

for example, in energy and biomedicine. The National Cancer Institute, for example,

supports a five-year, $144 million program developing nanotechnology for cancer

diagnostics and therapeutics that involves eight centers and over 400 investigators.

With respect to overall funding, the NNI seems well funded in balance to other

programs in the S&T budget. PCAST had hoped that the America COMPETES Act

funding would have been passed and will continue to support those priorities of this

Congress.

In summary, the NNI as currently structured is a very productive and effective

program and a model of interagency coordination. Our newly released report makes

recommendations for improvement but finds the program basically sound. Industry

is benefiting from its research. A clear strategy has been developed for

nanotechnology-related EHS research, and EHS guidelines are being presented to

guide industry. International cooperation is happening. The National

Nanotechnology Coordinating Office and NNI participating agencies have responded

to past recommendations from PCAST as well as the Academies and have strengthened the program. Agencies participate voluntarily because they derive benefit from

21

doing so. A heavy-handed reauthorization with overly prescriptive guidance (like an

arbitrary EHS funding floor) and bureaucratic micro-management (such as costly

database requirements) will weaken and inhibit the interagency coordination that

is vital to the success of the NNI to date. Rather, this reauthorization should be

an opportunity to strengthen and support the interagency coordination founding the

NNI, confirming the goals as presented in the original legislation and commending

the agencies for their coordinated efforts to maintain the leadership and competitiveness of the U.S. in nanotechnology.

22

Appendix:

Executive Summary of

The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment

and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology

Advisory Panel

(APRIL 2008)

The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (Public

Law 108–153) calls for a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) to periodically review the federal nanotechnology research and development (R&D) program known as the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The President’s

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is designated by Executive

Order to serve as the NNAP. This report is the second NNAP review of the NNI,

updating the first assessment published in 2005.

Including the NNI budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2009 of $1.5 billion, the

total NNI investment since its inception in 2001 is nearly $10 billion. The total annual global investment in nanotechnology is an estimated $13.9 billion, divided

roughly equally among the United States, Europe, and Asia. Industry analysis suggests that private investment has been out-pacing that of government since about

2006. The activities, balance, and management of the NNI among the 25 participating U.S. agencies and the efforts to coordinate with stakeholders from outside

the Federal Government, including industry and other governments, are the subject

of this report.

The first report answered four questions: How are we doing? Is the money well

spent and the program well managed? Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks? How can we do better? That report was generally positive in its conclusions but provided recommendations for improving or strengthening efforts in the

following areas: technology transfer; environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research and its coordination; education and workforce preparation; and societal dimensions.

Since the first report, increasing attention has been focused on the potential risks

of nanotechnology, especially the possible harm to human health and the environment from nanomaterials. In this second assessment, the NNAP paid special attention to the NNI efforts in these areas. During its review, the NNAP obtained input

from various sources. It convened a number of expert panels and consulted its

nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (nTAG) and the President’s Council on

Bioethics. NNI member agencies and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) also provided valuable information.

The NNAP finds that the United States remains a leader in nanotechnology

based on various metrics, including R&D expenditures and outputs such as publications, citations, and patents. However, taken as a region, the European Union

has more publications, and China’s output is increasing. There are many examples

of NNI-funded research results that are moving into commercial applications. However, measures of technology transfer and the commercial impact of nanotechnology

as a whole are not readily available, in part because of the difficulty in defining

what is, and is not, a ‘‘nanotechnology-based product.’’

The NNAP commends and encourages the ongoing NNI investment in infrastructure and instrumentation. Leading-edge nanoscale research often requires

advanced equipment and facilities. The NNI investment in over 81 centers and user

facilities across the country that provide broad access to costly instrumentation,

state-of-the-art facilities, and technical expertise has been enormously important

and successful. These facilities, which have been funded by many different agencies

in order to address a variety of missions, support a diverse range of academic, industry, and government research. In addition, the NNI investment has been used

to leverage additional support by universities, State governments, and the private

sector.

Advances in nanotechnology are embodied in a growing number of applications and products in various industries. Many early applications have been

more evolutionary than revolutionary. However, research funded by the NNI today

has the potential for innovations that are paradigm shifting, for example in energy

and medicine. As with any emerging technology, there is potential for unintended

consequences or uses that may prove harmful to health or the environment or that

may have other societal implications. The NNAP notes that existing regulations

23

apply to nanotechnology-based products, and those who make or sell such products

have responsibilities regarding workplace and product safety. As in 2005, the NNAP

believes that the greatest risk of exposure to nanomaterials at present is to workers

who manufacture or handle such materials. However, environmental, health, and

safety risks in a wide range of settings must be identified and the necessary research performed so that real risks can be appropriately addressed.

The NNAP views the approach for addressing EHS research under the NNI

as sound. The recent reports by the interagency Nanotechnology Environmental

and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group are good steps by the NNI to

prioritize needed EHS research and to coordinate EHS activity across the Federal

Government. The NNAP feels that calls for a separate agency or office devoted to

nanotechnology EHS research or to set aside a fixed percentage of the budget for

EHS research are misguided and may have the unintended consequence of reducing

research on beneficial applications and on risk.

In addition to EHS implications, the NNAP considered ethical and other societal aspects of nanotechnology. In consultation with the President’s Council on Bioethics, the panel concluded that at present, nanotechnology does not raise

ethical concerns that are unique to the field. Rather, concerns over implications for privacy and for equality of access to benefits are similar to concerns over

technological advances in general. This finding does not diminish the importance of

continued dialogue and research on the societal aspects of nanotechnology.

Overall, the members of the NNAP feel that the NNI continues to be a highly successful model for an interagency program; it is well organized and

well managed. The structure of the interagency Nanoscale Science, Engineering,

and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology

Council effectively coordinates the breadth of nanotechnology activities across the

Federal Government. The NSET working groups target functional areas in which

additional focus is required. The NNCO provides important support that is a key

to the success of the program. The Strategic Plan updated in 2007 clearly communicates the goals and priorities for the initiative and includes actions for achieving

progress. With the separation in the updated plan of EHS research from that on

other societal dimensions, the NNAP finds the Program Component Areas (PCAs)

that are defined for purposes of tracking programs and investments serve the NNI

well.

The NNAP has a number of recommendations for strengthening the NNI, which

are grouped into six areas.

1. Infrastructure, management, and coordination. The NNAP feels that the

substantial infrastructure of multi-disciplinary centers, user facilities, along with instrumentation, equipment, and technical expertise, is vital to continued U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology and should be maintained. Whereas the NNAP finds

the coordination and management among the NNI participating agencies to be generally strong, intra-agency coordination should be improved, especially in large, segmented agencies. The NNI member agencies should continue to support international coordination through effective international forums, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Such efforts will aid in

the development of information related to health and safety, as well as addressing

economic barriers and impacts. Implementing and monitoring this recommendation

should lead to more effective use of agency resources.

2. Standards development. Nanotechnology standards are necessary for activities

ranging from research and development to commerce and regulation. Federal agencies should continue to engage in national and international standards development

activities. The NNI should maintain a strong U.S. representation in international

forums and seek to avoid duplicative standards development work. Where appropriate, NIST and other NNI agencies should develop reference materials, test methods, and other standards that provide broad support for industry production of safe

nanotechnology-based products.

3. Technology transfer and commercialization. The NNI should continue to

fund world-class research to promote technology transfer. Strong research programs

produce top-notch nanoscale scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, who graduate

with knowledge, skills, and innovative ideas. Such programs also have the potential

to attract more U.S. students to related fields. NNI-funded centers should be structured to spur partnering with industry, which enhances technology transfer. The

NNI should seek means to assess more accurately nanotechnology-related innovation and commercialization of NNI research results. These efforts should be coordiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
24

nated with those of the OECD to assess economic impact of nanotechnology internationally.

4. Environmental, health, and safety implications. The NNAP feels that the

NNI has made considerable progress since its last review in the level and coordination of EHS research for nanomaterials. Such efforts should be continued and

should be coordinated with those taking place in industry and with programs funded

by other governments to avoid gaps and unnecessary duplication of work. Moreover,

EHS research should be coordinated with, not segregated from, applications research to promote risk and benefit being considered together. This is particularly

important when development and risk assessment research are taking place in parallel, as they are for nanotechnology today. The NNI should take steps to make

widely available nonproprietary information about the properties of nanomaterials

and methods for risk/benefit analysis.

5. Societal and ethical implications. Research on the societal and ethical aspects of nanotechnology should be integrated with technical R&D and take place in

the context of broader societal and ethical scholarship. The NNAP feels that this

approach will broaden the range of perspectives and increase exchange of views on

topics that affect society at large.

6. Communication and outreach. The NNAP is concerned that public opinion is

susceptible to hype and exaggerated statements—both positive and negative. The

NNI should be a trusted source of information about nanotechnology that is accessible to a range of stakeholders, including the public. The NNI should expand outreach and communication activities by the NNCO and the Nanotechnology Public

Engagement and Communications Working Group and by coordinating existing

agency communication efforts. To enhance effectiveness, the information should be

developed with broad input and through processes that incorporate two-way communication with the intended audiences.

This review complements an assessment by the National Research Council (NRC)

of the National Academies. The NNAP agrees with many of the NRC recommendations. However, the NNAP questions the recommendation for a formal, independent

advisory panel. The panel feels that the current arrangement-whereby the NRC

panels of technical experts, the high-level science and technology management leaders of PCAST, and the nanotechnology experts on the nTAG each provide distinct

and useful input to the NNI review process—provides a broader perspective than

would a single group consisting of a smaller number of advisors.

BIOGRAPHY FOR E. FLOYD KVAMME

E. Floyd Kvamme is a Partner Emeritus at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a

high-technology venture capital firm and, presently, serves on six high tech company boards including National Semiconductor, Harmonic, and Power Integrations.

Since 2001, Kvamme has served as Co-Chair of President Bush’s Council of Advisors

in Science and Technology, (PCAST). He helped found National in 1967, serving as

general manager of Semiconductor Operations. In 1982, he became Executive Vice

President of Sales and Marketing for Apple Computer. He holds a BSEE from the

University of California, Berkeley, and an MSE in semiconductor electronics from

Syracuse University.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. Mr. Murdock, you’re recognized.

STATEMENT OF MR. SEAN MURDOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NANOBUSINESS ALLIANCE

Mr. MURDOCK. Thank you, Chairman Gordon. Chairman Gordon,

Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the House Committee on

Science and Technology, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.

My name is Sean Murdock, and I am the Executive Director of

the NanoBusiness Alliance. The NanoBusiness Alliance is the premier nanotechnology policy and commercialization advocacy group

in the United States. Members span multiple stakeholder groups

and traditional industrial sectors, including newly formed startVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
25

ups, Fortune 500 companies, academic research institutions, and

public-private partnerships working to derive economic development and growth through nanotechnology.

This wide group of stakeholders has come together because we

believe that nanotechnology will be one of the key drivers of quality-of-life improvements, economic growth, and business success in

the 21st century. The Alliance provides a collective voice and a vehicle for efforts to advance the benefits of nanotechnology across

our economy and society.

The NanoBusiness Alliance strongly supports the National

Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 as drafted.

This committee has long recognized that nanotechnology is one

of the most important frontiers of science and technology, and that

nanotechnology has the potential to dramatically improve our quality of life, our health, our environment, and our economy. The National Nanotechnology Initiative, which this committee led Congress in authorizing in 2003, provided the framework for coordinated federal research and development. That authorization bill,

the 21st Century Nanotech R&D Act, focused on fundamental

nanotechnology research.

Now, five years later, it is time to reauthorize and update this

legislation. Much has changed in the past half-decade;

nanotechnology is beginning to move from the laboratory to the

store shelf.

American nanotechnology companies are beginning to shift from

prototype development to large-scale manufacturing. Employers are

beginning to look for nanotechnology-qualified workers. And the

public is beginning to take notice of nanotechnology, with its many

benefits and some potential risks, which need to be examined and

managed.

That the landscape has changed so much in five years is in no

small part due to the success of the National Nanotechnology Initiative itself. But its success at jump-starting the Nation’s

nanotechnology development means that the Initiative now needs

to be updated to reflect five years of growth.

We are pleased that the Committee has thought carefully about

how best to bring the National Nanotechnology Initiative up to

date. The draft legislation will improve the Initiative’s capabilities

in several key areas, including translational research and development for commercialization, nanotechnology education, and environmental, health, and safety research.

As the Members of this committee know, America faces intense

global competition in every field. But nowhere is this competition

more intense than in the field of nanotechnology. Its economic development potential has led countries across Europe and Asia to

make large and strategic investments in nanotechnology research

and development. The stated goal of many of these countries is to

dominate one or more sectors and change their geopolitical position. Russia has announced a $7 billion nanotechnology initiative

that will spend nearly $750 million more on nanotechnology research each year than the United States. China is investing, on a

purchasing power parity basis, approximately $1 billion and growing rapidly.

26

The United States continues to lead the world in fundamental

nanotechnology research, but over the last five years we have seen

our foreign competitors demonstrate that they are becoming equally capable of commercializing nanotechnology. We must reverse

this trend. While we cannot and should not adopt our competitors’

model of direct state investment in private companies, we can and

should take steps to ensure that innovative American companies

have unfettered access to American research and that they are able

to commercialize that research efficiently and effectively. We

should encourage programs such as the SBIR, the STTR program,

and the Technology Innovation Program. We should focus our efforts on goal-oriented research in areas of national importance. And

we should do everything we can to see that federal, state, and private resources are working together to bring these technologies to

market.

The draft legislation does this. It retools the National

Nanotechnology Initiative to focus more on applied research while

maintaining a commitment to fundamental research. It supports

large-scale collaborative efforts to develop nanotechnology solutions

to key public policy challenges such as energy efficiency, environmental cleanup, and health care. And it updates the Initiative to

include databases and other information-sharing mechanisms that

actually help companies and the public understand what resources

and opportunities to engage in are available.

The NanoBusiness Alliance is firmly committed to advancing

nanotechnology education. We cannot expect to compete in the

global economy if we are not generating nanotechnology-literate

students who will go on to become leaders and workers in the

nanotechnology economy of the future. We need to inspire American students to choose science tracks in high school and then provide them with hands-on nanotechnology opportunities in colleges

and technical colleges.

As it stands, we are educating foreign students and then sending

them home to compete against us. According to the NSF, foreign

students on temporary visas earned 32 percent of all science and

engineering doctorates awarded in the United States in the last

year for which data is available. Foreign students earned 55 percent of engineering doctorates. Many of these students will ultimately return home. We must develop more domestic scientific talent if we are to lead in nanotechnology commercialization over the

long haul. We believe that inspiration and inquiry-driven learning

are key to accomplishing that.

The Alliance supports putting nanotechnology tools in the hands

of students in community colleges and campuses so that they can

see first-hand what nanotechnology is and why it is important. The

Alliance also supports integrating local nanotechnology businesses

into the program, and many of our members are already reaching

out to schools to do that.

In terms of environmental health and safety research,

nanotechnology has tremendous potential benefits for the environment, health and safety. But as we develop nanotechnology applications, we must do so responsibly, identifying and addressing any

risks or hazards associated with nanotechnology before it causes

environmental, health, or safety problems. The Alliance has called

27

for the National Nanotechnology Initiative to include a comprehensive, fully funded environmental, health, and safety research program, and this legislation does that.

The NanoBusiness Alliance believes that the environmental,

health, and safety research should be fully funded and based on a

clear, carefully-constructed research strategy. While we believe

that 10 percent of the total funding for nanotechnology research

and development is a reasonable estimate of the resources that will

be required to execute the plan, we also believe that actual resource levels should be driven by the strategic plan, as they will

vary significantly across agencies.

The Alliance appreciates the Committee’s commitment to developing a broader understanding of nanotechnology before erecting

an extensive new regulatory structure. We hope that Congress will

see the wisdom of the Committee’s approach and will use the research authorized by this bill as a basis for deciding what, if anything, is needed.

I would like to thank the Committee once again for the opportunity to testify and its leadership on this issue. Thank you very

much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murdock follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEAN MURDOCK

Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the House Committee

on Science and Technology, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify

on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.

My name is Sean Murdock, and I am the Executive Director of the NanoBusiness

Alliance. The NanoBusiness Alliance is the nanotechnology industry association and

the premier nanotechnology policy and commercialization advocacy group in the

United States.

NanoBusiness Alliance members span multiple stakeholder groups and traditional

industrial sectors, including newly formed start-ups, Fortune 500 companies, academic research institutions, and public-private partnerships working to derive economic development and growth through nanotechnology.

This wide group of stakeholders has come together because we believe that

nanotechnology will be one of the key drivers of quality-of-life improvements, economic growth and business success in the 21st century. The Alliance provides a collective voice and a vehicle for efforts to advance the benefits of nanotechnology

across our economy and society.

The NanoBusiness Alliance strongly supports the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 as drafted.

The Need for This Legislation

This committee has long recognized that nanotechnology is one of the most important frontiers of science and technology, and that nanotechnology has the potential

to dramatically improve our quality of life, our health, our environment, and our

economy. The National Nanotechnology Initiative, which this committee led Congress in authorizing in 2003, provided the framework for coordinated federal research and development. That authorization bill, the 21st Century Nanotechnology

Research and Development Act, focused on fundamental nanotechnology research.

Now, five years later, it is time to reauthorize and update this legislation. Much

has changed in the past half-decade; nanotechnology is beginning to move from the

laboratory to the store shelf. American nanotechnology companies are beginning to

shift from prototype development to large-scale manufacturing. Employers are beginning to look for a nanotechnology-qualified workforce. And the public is beginning to notice nanotechnology, with its many benefits—and some potential risks,

which need to be examined and managed.

That the nanotechnology landscape has changed so much in five years is in no

small part due to the success of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. But its success at jump-starting the Nation’s nanotechnology economy means that the Initiative now needs to be updated to reflect five years of growth.

28

We are pleased that the Committee has thought carefully about how best to bring

the National Nanotechnology Initiative up to date. The draft legislation will improve

the Initiative’s capabilities in several key areas, including translational research

and commercialization; nanotechnology education; and environmental, health, and

safety research.

Translational Research and Commercialization

As the Members of this committee know, America faces intense global competition

in every field. But nowhere is this competition more intense than in the field of

nanotechnology. Nanotechnology’s economic potential has led countries across Europe and Asia to make large strategic investments in nanotechnology research and

development. The stated goal of many of these countries is to dominate one or more

sectors of the nanotechnology economy. Russia has announced a $7 billion

nanotechnology initiative that will spend nearly $750 million more on

nanotechnology research each year than the United States will. China already is on

par with the United States, when purchasing power is taken into account.

The United States continues to lead the world in fundamental nanotechnology research, but over the last five years we have seen our foreign competitors demonstrate that they are becoming equally capable of commercializing nanotechnology.

By leveraging our research, these foreign governments and foreign companies are

skipping the hard work and reaping the economic benefits.

We must reverse this trend. While we cannot and should not adopt our competitors’ model of direct state investment in private companies, we can and should take

steps to ensure that innovative American companies have unfettered access to

American research, and that they are able to commercialize that research efficiently

and effectively. We should encourage programs such as Small Business Innovation

Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR), and the Technology

Innovation Program (TIP). We should focus our efforts on goal-oriented research in

areas of national importance. And we should do everything we can to see that federal, State, and private resources are working together toward the goal of bringing

as much nanotechnology to market in the United States as possible.

The draft legislation does all of this. It retools the National Nanotechnology Initiative to focus more on goal oriented research, while maintaining a commitment to

fundamental research. It gives the SBIR, STTR, and TIP programs a leading role.

It supports large-scale collaborative efforts to develop nanotechnology solutions to

key public policy challenges such as energy efficiency, environmental cleanup, and

health care. And it updates the Initiative to include databases and other information-sharing mechanisms to help companies and researchers understand what resources are available.

Nanotechnology Education

The NanoBusiness Alliance is firmly committed to advancing nanotechnology education. We cannot expect to compete in the global economy if we are not generating

nanotechnology-literate students who will go on to become leaders and workers in

the nanotechnology economy. We need to inspire American students to choose

science tracks in high school, and then provide them with hands-on nanotechnology

opportunities in colleges and technical colleges.

As it stands, we are educating foreign students, and then sending them home to

compete against us. According to the NSF, foreign students on temporary visas

earned 32 percent of all science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United

States in 2003, the last year for which data is available. Foreign students earned

55 percent of engineering doctorates. Many of these students expressed an intent

to return to their country of origin after completing their studies.

The Alliance strongly supported the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, and we

are pleased to see that the current legislation reflects the goals of that bill. In particular, the Alliance supports putting nanotechnology tools in the hands of students,

so that they can see first-hand what nanotechnology is and why it is important (and

exciting). The Alliance also supports integrating local nanotechnology businesses

into the program; many of our members are already reaching out to schools in their

areas to help introduce students to nanotechnology.

Environmental, Health, and Safety Research

Nanotechnology has tremendous potential benefits for the environment, health,

and safety (EHS). But as we develop nanotechnology applications, we must do so

responsibly—identifying and addressing any risks or hazards associated with

nanotechnology before they cause environmental, health, or safety problems. The Alliance has called for the National Nanotechnology Initiative to include a comprehenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

sive, fully funded environmental, health, and safety research program, and this legislation does just that. We strongly support this EHS research.

Americans need to know that the products they use are safe, or else they will not

purchase or use them and the market for those products will collapse. The way to

reassure consumers is not by ignoring any problems but by finding and dealing with

any problems that may exist. A clear understanding of the environmental, health,

and safety impacts of various kinds of nanoparticles is necessary, and that understanding must expand as new nanoparticles are developed.

The NanoBusiness Alliance believes that environmental, health, and safety research should be fully funded and based on a clear, carefully-constructed research

strategy. While we believe that 10 percent of the total funding for nanotechnology

research and development is a reasonable estimate of the resources that will be required to execute the strategic plan, we also believe that actual resource levels

should be driven by the strategic plan as they will vary significantly across agencies.

The Alliance appreciates the Committee’s commitment to developing a broader

understanding of nanotechnology before erecting an extensive new regulatory structure. We hope that Congress will see the wisdom of the Committee’s approach, and

will use the research authorized by this bill as a basis for the decision of what, if

any, new regulation is needed.

Conclusion

I would like to thank the Committee once again for the invitation to testify today,

and for its leadership in working to ensure that America maintains its

nanotechnology preeminence in the midst of intense global competition. The

NanoBusiness Alliance commends this committee and its staff for the careful research and extensive collaboration that have led to this proposed legislation. We

strongly support the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 as

drafted.

BIOGRAPHY FOR SEAN MURDOCK

Sean Murdock is the Executive Director of the NanoBusiness Alliance, the

nanotechnology industry association and the premier nanotechnology policy and

commercialization advocacy group in the United States.

Prior to becoming the Executive Director of the NanoBusiness Alliance, Sean was

the Executive Director and a founding board member of AtomWorks, an initiative

formed to foster nanotechnology in Illinois and more broadly throughout the Midwest.

Sean has established himself as a leading thinker in the areas of nanotechnology

commercialization and economic development. He has delivered keynote speeches on

the commercialization of nanotechnology at nanotechnology conferences throughout

the world. Sean has been quoted extensively on the subject in many leading publications including Fortune, The Economist, and the New York Times. He has also appeared on CNBC to discuss nanotechnology trends.

Sean has been very active in nanotechnology trade and economic development

issues. He helped to organize and execute the first Nanotechnology Trade Mission

to Europe in conjunction with the NanoBusiness Alliance and the U.S. Department

of Commerce. He has also been engaged with senior officials of the U.S. Department

of Commerce’s Technology Administration on the potential impact of export control

issues on nanotechnology development and commercialization.

Sean had more than seven years experience in management consulting, most recently as Engagement Manager at McKinsey & Company. Sean served a variety of

Fortune 500 companies, focusing primarily upon the industrial and chemicals sectors. While there, he developed some of the firm’s early perspective on the business

opportunities created by the nanotech revolution, publishing the first two internal

documents on the subject.

Sean received his Master’s in Business Administration and Master’s in Engineering Management from Northwestern University. He holds a BA in Economics from

the University of Notre Dame.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. Dr. Krajcik, you are recognized.

30

STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH S. KRAJCIK, PROFESSOR OF

SCIENCE EDUCATION; ASSOCIATE DEAN OF RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Dr. KRAJCIK. Chairman Gordon, Mr. Ehlers, and Members of the

Committee, I am honored to present testimony on the National

Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. My name is Joe

Krajcik, and I have been involved in science education for the last

34 years, first as a high school science teacher and now as professor of science education at the University of Michigan. I am currently co-PI in a National Science Foundation Center for Teaching

and Learning in Nanoscale Science and Engineering; and because

of this, I will speak primarily about the educational components of

the Act.

Let me begin by stating that we live in a very exciting time with

respect to advances in science and technology. We also live in a

very exciting time with respect to education because we now know

more about how people learn than ever before. The advances of

nanoscale science and the global economy in which we live challenge the educational community to help all children develop deeper and more useful understanding of core science ideas that underlie nanoscience. Unfortunately, despite what we know about learning, the current education system is failing to produce a populace

scientifically literate enough to understand the advances of

nanoscience and to prepare a workforce for the new jobs and professions that are emerging from this field. Children in our country

continue to lag behind in science and mathematics on international

assessments. Perhaps most unfortunately, the most under-served

children are in locations where typically children do not succeed in

science: our nation’s larger urban cities and rural areas.

As a nation, as we become more diverse, the challenge of how to

provide quality science instruction is amplified. Our children will

grow up in a world where they will need to apply and communicate

scientific ideas, make sound decisions based upon this understanding, and collaborate with other people to solve important

problems.

The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act provides important support to improve the education of children in this country. Although this is an important first step, I question whether

this Act will provide sufficient resources to make a difference for

all children. The advances in nanoscience requires a commensurate

response from the educational community. As such, the financial

resources needed to make this response possible must be provided

by the national government with the private sector sharing in this

responsibility.

To provide world-class science education so that all children

learn ideas about nanoscience, our country needs to invest in several important initiatives. First, we need to invest in sustained professional development to support sixth through 12th grade teachers

in learning content in the interdisciplinary way of thinking that is

pervasive in nanoscience. Many teachers studied science when

nanoscience ideas and the phenomena they explained had not

emerged. Without providing teachers the opportunity to learn new

content in this interdisciplinary way of thinking, they will not be

able to instruct our children in these emerging science areas.

31

Sustained professional development is also needed to help teachers learn new pedagogical strategies and teaching techniques. We

have learned much in the last 10 years about how to promote

science learning. But unfortunately, many of these practices are

not seen in science classrooms.

Second, our country needs to develop new standards and assessments that focus on the core ideas of science including those central to nanoscience. Although the National Science Education

Standards moved this country forward in promoting standardbased reform, the standards are now at a stage for renovation, as

they do not include ideas related to nanoscience and still cover too

many ideas that prevent learners from developing useful understanding.

We also need to provide incentives to align all states in this

country with this new shared vision of science teaching and learning.

Third, this country needs to develop new instructional resources

including new learning technologies. Most instruction materials

used in classrooms today do not include emerging science ideas and

do not include the latest ideas about how children learn.

Fourth, we need to ensure that 6th through 12th grade science

classrooms have appropriate equipment and facilities to allow all

students to experience and explore doing science. When not feasible, partnerships with private sectors and universities need to

provide this equipment.

Fifth, we need to redesign undergraduate education, including

science teacher preparation programs, so that new ideas in science

and learning and the interdisciplinary manner of thinking that

nanoscience incorporates are included. It is only through revamping undergraduate education, including teacher preparation, that

we will make lasting changes in science education. We need teachers who understand emerging ideas in science and the new ideas

in teaching and learning. As such, we need to provide incentives

to attract the very best science majors to teaching careers.

Finally, we need to build partnerships with the private sector in

sharing in the cost of this effort.

In summary, to ensure all children in this country have access

to world-class science education that will help them understand

nanoscience and prepare them for fruitful lives in the future economy, we need to provide sustained professional development, renovate science education standards, develop and test new instructional materials, provide for appropriate equipment and resources,

and redesign undergraduate education and build partnerships with

the private sector.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my professional view.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Krajcik follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH S. KRAJCIK

Dear Chairperson and Members of the Committee,

I am honored to present testimony on the ‘‘National Nanotechnology Initiative

Amendments Act of 2008.’’ My name is Joe Krajcik, and I have been involved in

science education for the last 34 years, first as a high school science teacher and

now as a Professor of Science Education. As a Professor of Science Education, I have

focused my work on improving the teaching and learning of science at the middle

32

and high school levels. I am co-PI on an NSF-funded center, the National Center

for Teaching and Learning in Nanoscale Science and Engineering, whose primary

goal is to enhance the teaching and learning of nanoscience in grades 7–16 through

learning research.

Let me begin by stating that we live in an exciting time with respect to the advances in science and technology, and that we know more about how people learn

than ever before. Rapid advances in nanoscience have provided us with new products that have enhanced the quality of our lives ranging from diagnosing disease

to improving the clothes we wear. At the same time, these new advances have also

raised potential new dangers, because we have now created products that can penetrate the protective layer of skin that covers our bodies.

Nanoscale science and engineering are at the core of these changes and advancements. These new advances in nanoscience also have the potential to make the

teaching of science more exciting and to build student engagement. Unfortunately,

this promise has not been realized in most of our 7–12th grade science classrooms.

These breakthroughs in science have brought new challenges to science teaching

and learning. The advances of nanoscale science and the global economy in which

we live challenge the educational community to help students develop deeper and

more useful understanding of core science ideas that underlie nanoscience. Unfortunately, the current education system is failing to produce a populace scientifically

literate enough to understand the scientific advances of nanoscience. It is also failing to prepare a workforce for the new jobs and professions that are emerging from

nanoscience. Children in our country continue to lag behind in science and mathematics on international assessments; yet understanding science and mathematics is

critical both for informed citizenship and for global competitiveness. To remedy

these problems our country needs to invest in 1) professional development to support 6–12 science teachers in learning content related to nanoscience and new pedagogical ideas that are supported by learning research; 2) develop new standards and

assessment that focus on the core ideas in science, including those central to

nanoscience; 3) develop new instructional resources, including new learning technologies, that focus on nanoscience; 4) redesign undergraduate education, including

science teacher preparation programs, so that new ideas in science and learning are

incorporated into them; and 5) incentives to attract science majors and people who

currently hold science majors into teaching careers.

We are also living in an exciting time because of the breakthroughs in understanding how to promote learning in science in general. Learning scientists and

science educators are making important discoveries about ways to support learners

in various aspects of inquiry, including the use of evidence and the construction of

scientific explanations (Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R., 1999; Duschl,

Schweingruber, Shouse, 2007). The science standards on inquiry, described in the

National Science Education Standards (1996) and the habits of mind articulated in

Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Society, 1993), provide guidelines for how teachers should teach science. The science

standards and benchmarks provide direction on the content ideas that children

should know and the scientific practices they should be able to apply in order to

be scientifically literate. New breakthroughs in technologies allow scientists and

learners to explore the nanoworld and visualize data in new ways. Yet, even with

these fascinating breakthroughs, many science classrooms in the United States still

resemble classrooms of the early 1950s, with outdated equipment and pedagogical

strategies that lack support for most learners. Perhaps most unfortunate, many of

these classrooms are in locations where, typically, children do not succeed in

science—our nation’s large urban cities and rural areas. As our nation becomes even

more diverse, with growing populations of Hispanics, African-Americans and other

cultures, the challenge of how to provide quality science instruction is amplified.

These children will grow up in a world where they will need to apply ideas, communicate ideas, make sound decisions based on evidence, and collaborate with others

to solve important problems. Many of the new discoveries are in the area of

nanoscience, and our children need to be prepared to enter this world. Yet most of

our schools are not providing our students with the opportunities to develop the

level of science understanding they will need to grasp emerging ideas of the

nanoscale. Our science curriculum still concentrates on covering too much content

without focusing enough on developing deep, meaningful understanding that learners will need to grasp these new areas or that they will need to make personal and

professional decisions. Research has shown that students lack fundamental understanding of science in general and in particular the ideas that will help them understand nanoscience. What content should be taught? How should new ideas about

nanoscience be introduced into 7–12 classrooms?

33

Through the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(d) ),

the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 provides for the establishment of Nanoscience Education Partnerships. This Act will help provide important support to improve the education of all children in this country with respect

to nanoscience education. The Act calls for 1) professional development activities to

support secondary school teachers to use curricular materials incorporating

nanotechnology and to inform teachers about career possibilities in nanotechnology;

2) enrichment activities for students, and 3) the identification of appropriate

nanotechnology educational materials and incorporation of nanotechnology into the

curriculum of schools participating in a Partnership. Although important first steps,

I question whether this Act through the formation of Partnerships will provide sufficient resources that will make a difference for all children throughout the country.

The advance in nanoscience requires a commensurate response from the educational

community to prepare our youth. As such, the financial resources needed to make

this response must be provided by the national government with help from the private sector. In particular, we need to ensure that all children in our country have

access to first-rate science education that will help them understand the ideas of

nanoscience and other emerging ideas.

The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act calls for providing support for

professional development of teachers in nanotechnology. Yet, we need to make sure

that this professional development is grounded in the science that teachers teach,

focuses on teachers’ practices and provides long-term, standards-based support

(Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). The short-term professional development that most teacher experience will not provide enough or the type of support needed for most teachers to understand many of the new ideas and the changing ways of thinking about science at the nanoscale. The ideas of nanoscience were

not in textbooks when many of our current teaching force attended college. As such,

professional development will be needed that focuses on helping teachers understand the new ideas of nanoscience. Moreover, sustained professional development

must provide science teachers support to use pedagogical strategies and techniques

that will help students understand ideas behind nanoscience. One critical area that

professional development needs to focus on is how to help teachers support students

to generate, use, and evaluate evidence to create scientific explanations (Duschl,

Schweingruber, Shouse, 2007). Another critical area includes support in using new

learning technologies to engage students in visualizing the nanoworld; there are

some good resources (see the Concord Consortium Web site, Concord.org, and the

NCLT web site, NCLT.US) available to teachers already. Use of these new resources

and instructional strategies will require sustained professional development.

Nanoscience is also an interdisciplinary field. Advances in science and technology

are blurring the lines between the individual scientific disciplines. As science becomes more interdisciplinary, we can no longer rely on the traditional ways of teaching science as a set of well-understood, clearly depicted, stand-alone disciplines.

However, how to teach in this fashion is not easy, particularly when teachers themselves did not experience education in this manner and pre-service programs preparing science teachers require science majors in specific science disciplines rather

than providing interdisciplinary education. These present realities further the cycle

of thinking within disciplines rather than between disciplines. We need to provide

professional development and universities need to prepare teachers to teach in this

interdisciplinary manner. Moreover, our nation needs to have learning research to

support models of how to support teachers teaching in this manner.

Once teachers develop the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to teach

nanoscience, they still will still face challenges teaching these new ideas to children

unless they have appropriate classroom materials and resources. Some good instructional materials are beginning to appear, but more development and research is necessary to understand how they promote student learning. Although some teachers

can develop curriculum materials, teachers modify curriculum to their local needs.

If teachers can start with coherent materials that are known to promote learning,

there is a great chance that students will learn important ideas (Kesidou, & Roseman, 2002).

Although the national science education standards in this country helped to bring

about a focus on standards-based reform and coherent educational materials and assessments, the standards are now outdated and need revamping. New standards

that focus on the big ideas of nanoscience (Stevens, Sutherland, Shank, & Krajcik,

2008) and other knowledge essential for the 21st century need to be developed and

adapted by schools. Important ideas in nanoscience are not currently incorporated

in the national standards. Nanoscience education introduces students to emerging

ideas of science and supports understanding of the interconnections between the traditional scientific domains by providing compelling, real-world interdisciplinary exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
34

amples of science in action. However, standards-based teaching with an interdisciplinary focus will also require extensive and sustained professional development.

The national science education standards also need renovation because there are

too many standards. We know from successes in other countries and from research

studies that attempting to cover too many ideas leads students to develop superficial

knowledge that they cannot use to solve problems, make decisions, and understand

phenomena. Hence, our national science education standards need reworking, updating and consolidating.

Renovating the standards is critical because assessments are driven by standards.

If we develop standards that include the content understandings and scientific practices that we cherish for our children to develop, then more appropriate assessments

will follow. Our current testing practices, however, put stress on classroom teachers,

particularly when the testing practices do not align with important learning goals.

Assessment, particularly assessment that challenges learners to use ideas and inform their development, is a good thing. We know that learners need to experience

science in engaging contexts and apply ideas in order to learn; yet with so many

standards, teachers feel as if they must cover topics in fear that students will not

succeed on high stakes examinations rather than focus on helping students develop

understanding. The national standards have allowed us to make headway in improving science instruction, but they still focus on too many content ideas and do

not emphasis emerging ideas. Rather than focusing on covering too many ideas, our

nation needs a long-term developmental approach to learning science that focuses

on the ideas we most care about and takes into consideration learners’ prior knowledge and how ideas build upon each other. The Act needs to include provisions that

take into account this development and research work to develop new standards

that can drive development of appropriate assessments, and new instructional materials and resources.

As our country now exists, each state has different standards, in addition to the

national standards. This is not a workable system. We need to make certain that

states buy into any new national standards and assessments by providing appropriate incentives. We need to find ways to ensure that states align themselves with

these renovated national standards.

Learning nanoscience will not occur without appropriate resources for teaching

these new ideas. The resources also need to include new laboratory equipment and

technology equipment to teach nanoscience. Although the Nanotechnology Research

and Development Act provides funds for course, curriculum and laboratory improvement for undergraduate education, the Act does not call for updating secondary

science laboratories. The Act needs to provide support for improving secondary

school science laboratory equipment. In order to learn science, students need to have

essential firsthand experiences when possible and secondhand experiences to understand the complex ideas underlying nanoscience. Nanoscience cannot be taught and

students will not develop understanding of the ideas underlying nanoscience without first- and secondhand experiences. Students need to experience and do science

if they are going to learn with understanding. However, most U.S. high schools and

middle school are ill-equipped for students to have these experiences. Budget cuts

have caused schools to stop purchasing consumable science supplies and new materials, preventing students from experiencing phenomena. New laboratory equipment

needs to allow learners to take part in inquiry experiences that will allow learners

to put ideas together so that they can solve problems, make decisions, use and

evaluate evidence, and explain phenomena.

The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act includes funds to revamp undergraduate education. Because of new content and the interdisciplinary nature of

nanoscience, a revamping of how science is taught at the undergraduate level needs

to occur. Lasting change, however, will only occur in K–12 education if support is

provided to revamp how we prepare new teachers to teach emerging sciences such

as nanoscience. We need to provide incentives to attract college students who have

a deep understanding of the science into the teaching profession by providing new

models of how they can enter certification programs. A major recommendation of the

Glenn Report is that we need to find ways to attract science and mathematics undergraduates into the field of teaching and provide viable ways for them to learn

how to teach and obtain certification. Preparing science teachers to teach in schools

so that they can help all learners develop the level of understanding of science they

need requires the revamping of undergraduate science and mathematics courses so

that they reflect more what it is like to do science and mathematics as well as new

models of how to prepare teachers. The Act needs to provide funds for both of these

critical efforts. We will not change K–12 schools in the long run unless we change

35

undergraduate teacher education programs that better prepare teachers how to

teach.

To summarize, schools face pressing challenges with respect to resources, assessment and professional development. Many teachers did not experience science in

which ideas built upon each other in a developmental approach, where evidence was

used to support claims and where science ideas were used to explain important

problems and phenomena; as such, we need models of professional development and

the resources that can support teachers as life long learners to learn new pedagogical strategies and new assessment practices. New ideas that emerge in science,

such as nanoscience, also present challenges for teachers with respect to integration

into curriculum.

For our children to live fruitful and fulfilled lives in an ever-globalizing world, our

nation needs a system of science education that can prepare a scientifically literate

population and a competent scientific workforce that has a useful understanding of

the big ideas of science, including those of nanoscience. We are at a moment in history in which we, as a nation, need to provide learners with the scientific experiences, skills, and habits of mind that will allow them to make important decisions

regarding the environment, their health, and our social policies. We have a growing

body of knowledge that can help bring about this reform to science education.

We are at a crossroads in science education. We can continue to push and build

upon the knowledge, resources and models of exemplary teachers who know how to

engage students deeply to reform science education, or we can retreat to old pedagogical strategies that don’t work. We need to build upon the strengths we have as

a nation and resist yielding to testing pressures that focus on unimportant ideas

and pedagogical strategies that we know do not work. Yet, we will only do so with

leadership and support from our national government. We need funding to provide

for and study the impacts of sustained professional development and the development of new science standards that take into consideration what we know about

how children learn. We also need support to design curriculum resources and assessments that align with the new standards and to study the impact of these high

quality resources on student learning. Finally we need support for the revamping

of undergraduate education and developing new models of preparing teachers to

teach. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 provides

some support for these important initiatives, but to provide the education that all

children, regardless of their backgrounds and culture, need to live in a technologydriven world will require more support for improving teaching and learning.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the House

Committee on Science and Technology. I hope that you have found some of my remarks valuable.

References:

American Association for the Advancement of Society. (1993). Benchmarks for

Science Literacy. New York: Oxford Press.

Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, 2000, www.ed.gov/inits/

Math/glenn/report.pdf.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (1999). How People Learn:

Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy

Press.

Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., Shouse, A. (2007). Taking Science to School:

Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K–8. Washington, D.C.: National

Academies Press.

Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What

makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of

teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J.E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs

measure up? Findings from project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549. National Research Council. (1996).

National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Stevens, S. Sutherland, L., Shank, P., Krajcik, J. (2008). Big Ideas in Nanoscience.

http://www.hice.org/projects/nano/index.html

36

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOSEPH S. KRAJCIK

Joseph S. Krajcik, a Professor of Science Education and Associate Dean for Research in the School of Education at the University of Michigan, works with teachers in science classrooms to bring about sustained change by creating classroom environments in which students find solutions to important intellectual questions that

subsume essential learning goals and use learning technologies as productivity tools.

He seeks to discover the depth of student learning in such environments, as well

as to explore and find solutions to challenges that teachers face in enacting such

complex instruction. In collaboration with colleagues from Northwestern University,

American Association of Science, and Michigan State, Joe, through funding from the

NSF, is a principle investigator in a materials development project that aims to design, develop and test the next generation of middle school curriculum materials to

engage students in obtaining deep understandings of science content and practices.

Professor Krajcik has authored and co-authored over 100 manuscripts and makes

frequent presentations at international, national and regional conferences that focus

on his research as well as presentations that translate research findings into classroom practice. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of

Science and served as President of the National Association for Research in Science

Teaching in 1999. Joe co-directs the Center for Highly Interactive Classrooms, Curriculum and Computing in Education (hi-ce) at the University of Michigan and is

a co-principle investigator in the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science and

The National Center for Learning and Teaching Nanoscale Science and Engineering.

In 2002, Professor Krajcik was honored to receive a Guest Professorship from Beijing Normal University in Beijing, China. In Winter 2005, Joe was the Weston Visiting Professor of Science Education at the Weizmann Institute of Science in

Rehovot, Israel. Before obtaining his Ph.D. in Science Education, Joe taught high

school chemistry for seven years in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He received a Ph.D. in

Science Education from the University of Iowa in 1986. His home page is located

at: http://www.umich.edu/∼krajcik. His project web sites include: http://hice.org

and http://hice.org/IQWST.

Current Projects:

Longitudinal Student Outcomes in a Scaling Urban Inquiry-Based Science Intervention (Co-PI with Phyllis Blumenfeld). Spencer Foundation, $351,900, 7/1/2006 to

6/30/2008.

A Learning Progression for Scientific Modeling, PI, Brian J. Reiser, Co-PIs: Joseph

S. Krajcik, Elizabeth Davis, Christina Schwarz, David Fortus. National Science

Foundation, ESI–06281099, $1,738,829, October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2008.

Education for Community Genomic Awareness, from the National Institutes of

Health (Co-PI with Toby Citrin from Public Health, #1 R25 RR022703–01,

$1,341,329).

National Center for Teaching and Learning in Nanoscale Science and Engineering.

National Science Foundation Center for Teaching and Learning (ESI–0426328),

Co-PI (Robert Chang from Northwestern University, PI).

Collaborative Research: Developing the Next Generation of Middle School Science

Materials—Investigating and Questioning our World through Science and Technology. National Science Foundation. Award Number—ESI–0439352. Krajcik,

PI. Collaborative grant with Northwestern (Brian Resier)—five years for

$6,267,023.

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Krajcik, I have some good news and bad

news for you. The good news is that 99 percent of your recommendations were incorporated into a bill that we passed and the

President signed last year called the America COMPETES Act.

Amazingly, you recited the bill, basically. The bad news is that the

tree doesn’t fall if you don’t hear it in that we have not been able

to get the proper funding, or any funding really, for the bill yet.

However, working with Dr. Ehlers, we are working in a bipartisan

way to try to at least start that funding process. We have circulated a letter. Again, we have several Members on that. I see

representatives from Texas Instruments here. They have been a

part of bringing together I think 175 to 200 major industries and

associations also recommending that the America COMPETES Act

37

gets funded. So hopefully at least the good news there is we have

the authorization, and we are working very hard to try to get the

funding for your almost exact recommendation.

Now, Dr. David, you and Dr. Ehlers, would you like to just say

amen?

Dr. Maynard, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW D. MAYNARD, CHIEF SCIENCE

ADVISOR, PROJECT ON EMERGING NANOTECHNOLOGIES,

WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS

Dr. MAYNARD. Thank you very much. I would like to thank you,

Chairman Gordon, Mr. Ehlers, and the Members of this committee

for holding today’s hearing. My name is Dr. Andrew Maynard. I am

the Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging

Nanotechnologies which is a partnership between the Woodrow

Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable

Trusts. But of course, the views I express here are my own.

Nanotechnology is counter-intuitive. It involves a world where

materials just don’t play by the rules as we know them but demonstrate many strange and wonderful behaviors. Metals change

color, inert materials become highly reactive, what was once weak

becomes strong. For instance, if you take a material like this, this

is nanoscale titanium dioxide, it looks like a mundane, white powder. But this material’s superfine structure which is invisible to the

naked eye allows this particular material to be used to kill microbes, make self-cleaning windows, and ensure that mineral-based

sunscreens go onto the skin transparently.

Because nanotechnology is counter-intuitive, safe nanotechnologies will not just happen. We will need leadership and guidance to

help overcome our human scale perspective and ensure the rule

book for safe nanotechnology is built on sound science.

In this context, I want to highlight five areas I believe are essential to underpinning the development of safe and therefore successful nanotechnologies.

First and foremost, I believe we need a top-level research strategy that identifies the goals of nanotechnology research across the

Federal Government and provides a roadmap for achieving these

goals.

Secondly, I strongly believe a minimum of 10 percent of the Federal Government’s nanotechnology R&D budget should be dedicated to goal-oriented environmental, health, and safety research.

Any less than this will risk compromising the success of emerging

nanotechnologies.

Thirdly, a coordinator should be appointed with responsibility for

overseeing and implementing a nanotechnology environmental,

health, and safety research strategy across the government.

Fourthly, public-private partnerships are needed that leverage

government and industry funds to address critical nanotechnology

oversight issues in an independent, transparent, and timely manner.

And finally, government actions to support the development of

safe nanotechnologies must be transparent. Without transparency,

38

there is no clear foundation for enabling strategic planning or engendering trust within industry or the public.

I think it is fair to say that transparency has been an issue for

safety research so far within the NNI. Recently the National

Nanotechnology Initiative announced that $68 million was spent on

nanotech risk-related research in Fiscal Year 2006. But as has happened many times now, no clear supporting data were given for

this figure.

Sifting through the research claiming to be relevant to

nanotechnology safety, I could only find $13 million that was invested in research that is highly relevant to addressing the health

and environmental impacts of nanotechnology for 2006. The same

analysis, and this is somewhat interesting, for research in Europe

over the same period reveals an investment of $24 million in

nanotech safety research over the same period.

Unlike the NNI, the information that this analysis is based on

is freely available on the web for anyone to see and anyone to

verify. The bottom line here is that without supporting evidence,

any assessment of what the government is doing to address

nanotechnology impacts is quite simply not worth the paper it is

written on.

Nanotechnology will not succeed through wishful thinking. Instead, it will depend on clear and authoritative leadership from the

top. The proposed National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments

Act of 2008 addresses each of the areas I have just highlighted and

in my personal opinion supports the leadership necessary for the

successful development of safe nanotechnologies.

I personally commend the Committee for promoting transparency

through a public database of research. This will complement the

International Public Database on Environmental, Health and Safety Research to be launched by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in June of this year.

I also believe the proposed Act takes an important step in assigning to a single coordinator the responsibility for ensuring that an

adequately funded and leveraged top-down strategic plan for

nanotechnology EHS research is developed and implemented.

When I look back on the origins of the NNI, I am impressed by

the foresight and quality of leadership exerted by the Congressional visionaries on both sides of the aisle, together with the

President and the Executive Branch, scientists and engineers, business people, and educators. But perhaps because the tremendous

success achieved in the laboratory since its creation, we do risk losing sight of the challenges involved in taking the NNI to the next

level of research, education, governance, and commercialization. It

is my belief that with the proposed Act and with a continued vigilance of this committee, this will not happen. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Maynard follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW D. MAYNARD

Executive Summary

Nanotechnology has vast potential to address some of the greatest challenges facing society, including global climate change, poverty and disease. And with this potential comes the possibility of stimulating sustainable economic growth and job creation. The success of nanotechnology however is not a foregone conclusion. Alongside

39

the challenges of developing the underlying science are broader issues that will influence its success or failure:

– How can we learn to use such a powerful technology wisely?

– Who will decide how it is used, and who will pay the cost?

• How can innovative science be translated into successful products?

– And in an increasingly crowded and connected world, how will the supposed–

beneficiaries of nanotechnology be engaged in its development and use?

These questions will not be answered without a clear strategy. And without vision

and strong leadership, the future of safe and successful nanotechnologies will be put

in jeopardy.

This committee should be applauded for having the foresight to author the 21st

Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act—an Act that has enabled

the United States to lead the world in developing research programs to unlock the

potential of the nanoscale. Yet as nanotechnology has increasingly moved from the

laboratory to the marketplace, the challenges have shifted from stimulating innovative research to using this research in the service of society. This is why it is so

important that the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of 2008

builds on the strengths of the 2003 Act, and establishes a framework that will support nanotechnologies that can deliver on their promise. In particular, it is vital that

the reauthorization addresses the potential for nanotechnologies to cause harm—

and how this might be avoided.

Real and perceived risks that are poorly identified, assessed and managed will undermine even the most promising new technologies, and nanotechnology is no exception. In this context, the 2008 Act needs to explicitly address five areas if it is to

establish a sound framework for enabling safe, sustainable and successful

nanotechnologies:

1. Risk Research Strategy. A top-level strategic framework should be developed that identifies the goals of nanotechnology risk research across the Federal Government, and provides a roadmap for achieving these goals. The

strategy should identify information needed to regulate and otherwise oversee the safe development and use of nanotechnologies; which agencies will

take a lead in addressing specific research challenges; when critical information is needed; and how the research will be funded. This top-level, top-down

strategy should reflect evolving oversight challenges. It should be informed

by stakeholders from industry, academia and citizen communities. It should

include measurable goals, and be reviewed every two years.

2. Funding for environmental safety and health research. A minimum of

10 percent of the Federal Government’s nanotechnology research and development budget should be dedicated to goal-oriented environment, health and

safety (EHS) research. At least $50 million per year should be directed towards targeted research directly addressing clearly-defined strategic challenges. The balance of funding should support exploratory research that is

conducted within the scope of a strategic research program. Funding should

be assessed according to a top-level, top-down risk research strategy, and be

overseen by cross-agency leadership.

3. Leadership for risk research. A cross-agency group should be established

that is responsible for implementing a nanotechnology EHS research strategy, and is accountable for actions taken and progress made. A coordinator

should be appointed to oversee this group, as well as given resources and authority to enable funding allocations and interagency partnerships that will

support the implementation of a strategic research plan.

4. Transparency. Government-funded nanotechnology environment safety and

health research investment should be fully transparent, providing stakeholders with information on project activities, relevance, funding and outcomes.

5. Public-Private Partnerships. Partnerships that leverage public and private funds to address critical nanotechnology oversight issues in an independent, transparent and timely manner should be established, where such

partnerships have the capacity to overcome the limitations of separate government and industry initiatives.

Nanotechnology is a truly revolutionary and transformative technology, and we

cannot rely on past ways of doing things to succeed in the future. Without strong

leadership from the top, we run the risk of compromising the whole enterprise—not

40

1These figures are based on an assessment of published U.S. and European risk-related research projects, and their relevance to addressing potential risks. See Annex A and Annex B

for further information. Full access to the information used in the assessment is available at

www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/ (accessed 4/15/08). 2 NNI (2008). Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research,

National Nanotechnology Initiative, Washington DC. 3Lane, Neal and Kalil, Thomas, ‘‘The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation,’’ Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2005. 4For further information see www.nanotechproject.org. Accessed April 4, 2008.

only losing America’s technological lead, but also jeopardizing the good that could

come out of nanotechnology for other countries and the world.

Already, the hubris surrounding nanotechnology research and development (R&D)

funding is giving way to a sobering reality: Based on the federal National

Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)-identified risk-relevant projects, in 2006, the Federal Government spent an estimated $13 million on highly relevant nanotechnology risk research (approximately one percent of the nano R&D budget), compared to $24

million in Europe,1 despite assurances from the NNI that five times this amount

was spent on risk related research in Fiscal Year 2006.2

Nanotechnology will not succeed through wishful thinking alone. Instead, it will

depend on clear and authoritative leadership from the top. If we are to fully realize

the benefits of this innovative new technology, we must bridge the gap between our

dreams and reality.

When I look back on the origins of the NNI, I am impressed by the foresight and

quality of leadership exerted by Congressional visionaries from both sides of the

aisle, the President and Executive Branch, scientists and engineers, business people,

and educators.3 Perhaps because of the tremendous successes achieved in the laboratory since its creation, we risk losing sight of the importance of meeting the challenges involved in taking the NNI to the next level of research, education, governance and commercialization. It is my belief that with the proposed Act—and with

the continued vigilance of this committee—this will not happen.

Introduction

I would like to thank Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Republican Ralph Hall,

and the Members of the House Committee on Science and Technology for holding

this hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.

My name is Dr. Andrew Maynard. I am Chief Science Advisor to the Project on

Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for

Scholars. Through my research and other activities over the past 15 years, I have

taken a lead in addressing how nanotechnologies might impact human health and

the environment, and how we might realize the benefits of these exciting new technologies without leaving a legacy of harm. I was responsible for stimulating government research programs into the occupational health impact of nanomaterials in

Britain towards the end of the 1990’s. I spent five years developing and coordinating

research programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that address the safety

of nanotechnologies in the workplace. While at NIOSH, I represented the agency on

the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), and was Co-Chair of the

Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group

from its inception.

In my current role as Chief Science Advisor to PEN, I work closely with government, industry and other groups to find science-based solutions to the challenges of

developing nanotechnologies safely and effectively. PEN is an initiative launched by

the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable

Trusts in 2005.4 It is dedicated to helping business, government and the public anticipate and manage the possible health and environmental implications of

nanotechnology. As part of the Wilson Center, PEN is a non-partisan, non-advocacy

policy organization that works with researchers, government, industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and others to find the best possible solutions to developing responsible, beneficial and acceptable nanotechnologies.

In this testimony, I will lay out essential components of an overarching framework to cultivate the growth and innovation of the emerging field of nanotechnology

while providing safeguards for environmental, health and safety (EHS) and comment on the extent to which the current draft of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 addresses these components.

The two aims of stimulating innovation and avoiding harm need not be, nor

should be, mutually exclusive. A successful strategy of scientific and technological

41

5Maynard, A.D., Aitken, R.J., Butz, T., Colvin, V., Donaldson, K., Oberdorster, G., Philbert,

M.A., Ryan, J., Seaton, A., Stone, V., Tinkle, S.S., Tran, L., Walker, N.J. and Warheit, D.B.

(2006). Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267–269. 6Oberdbrster, G., Stone, V. and Donaldson, K. (2007). Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical

perspective. Nanotoxicology 1:2–25. 7 An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. http://

www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/. Accessed 3/30/08.

innovation, integrated with EHS research, will ensure that the promised benefits of

such a technology are not thwarted by potential EHS disasters. With

nanotechnology, we have the opportunity to do things differently. It is my belief that

the proposed reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) will

redefine how emerging technologies are developed successfully and safely.

Underpinning Sustainable Nanotechnologies

The promise of nanotechnology

Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize the world as we know it. The

increasing dexterity at the nanoscale provides opportunities to greatly enhance existing technologies and to develop innovative new technologies. When you couple

this capability with the unusual and sometimes unique behavior of materials that

are engineered at near-atomic scales, you have the basis for a transformative technology that has the potential to impact virtually every aspect of daily life. Some of

these emerging technologies will benefit individuals, while others will help solve

pressing societal challenges like climate change, access to clean water and cancer

treatment. And many will provide companies with the competitive edge they need

to succeed. In all cases, nanotechnology holds within it the potential to improve the

quality of life and economic success of America and the world beyond.

Unconventional behavior

The benefits of nanotechnology, however, will not be realized by default.

Nanotechnology is taking our understanding of what makes something harmful and

how we deal with that, and turning it upside down. New engineered nanomaterials

are prized for their unconventional properties. But these same properties may also

lead to new ways of causing harm to people and the environment.5 Research has

already demonstrated that some engineered nanomaterials can reach places in the

body and the environment that are usually inaccessible to conventional materials,

raising the possibility of unanticipated harm arising from unexpected exposures.

And studies have shown that the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials is not always

predictable from conventional knowledge.6 For instance, we now know that

nanometer sized particles can move along nerve cells; that the high fraction of

atoms on the surface of nanomaterials can influence their toxicity; and that

nanometer-diameter particles can initiate protein mis-folding, possibly leading to

diseases.

The need for foresight

Moving towards the nanotechnology future without a clear understanding of the

possible risks, and how to manage them, is like driving blindfolded. The more we

are able to see where the bends in the road occur, the better we will be able to navigate around them to realize safe, sustainable and successful nanotechnology applications. But to see and navigate the bends requires the foresight provided by strategic

science.

With over 600 products currently listed on the PEN’s Consumer Products Inventory7 and with hundreds more commercial nanotechnology applications on the market or under development, the question is no longer whether nanotechnologies will

impact society but how significant the impact will be. The question for policy-makers is how these impacts will be manifest, and how we will manage the consequences.

Avoiding harm

Central to developing sustainable nanotechnologies is an understanding of how

new materials and products may harm people and the environment, and how possible risks may be avoided or otherwise managed.

Everything has the potential to cause harm. If we are smart, we learn how to

avoid harm. And if we are very smart, we work out the rules of safe use ahead of

the game. In a world of more than six billion people, everything that occurs has an

42

impact on some place and someone. And as a result, each emerging technology

forces us to think harder about what the consequences might be, and how to avoid

them.

Ignoring the signs of adverse consequences will only result in poor decision-making by governments, business and individuals. While nanotechnology undoubtedly

has the potential to do great good, the consequences of getting it wrong could be

devastating. Already, research is indicating that many nanomaterials behave in unusual and unconventional ways that may lead to human and environmental harm

if not addressed early on.

A new mindset for a new technology

Twenty-first century technologies like nanotechnology present new challenges to

identifying and managing risks, and it would be naive to assume that twentieth century assumptions and approaches are up to the task of protecting health and the

environment in all cases. In the case of engineered nanomaterials, the importance

of physical structure in addition to chemical composition in determining behavior is

making a mockery of our chemicals-based view of risks and regulation.

As a simple example, imagine picking up two common kitchen implements—a

skillet and a knife. Each can be used for very different purposes—for instance, the

knife for slicing an onion and the skillet for frying it. Likewise, each implement can

cause harm in different ways. Yet the chemical makeup of each implement is very

similar—it is predominantly iron. The very different rules for safe use are intuitive,

because one can see how the different shapes of the implements influence behavior.

Nanomaterials are the same, in that how they behave—for good or bad—depends

on their shape as well as their chemistry. But this is where nanotechnology becomes

counter-intuitive. Because we cannot see these intricate nano-shapes unaided, we

forget that they are important. If one were to hold up ajar of nanometer-sized titanium dioxide particles all that would be seen is a white powder, indistinguishable

from many other powdered materials. Yet the potential for this material to be used

in new applications, and possibly to cause harm in new ways, lies within the

nanoscale structure of the material that can only be seen using advanced microscopy

techniques.

Leadership

In thinking through how the potential risks of nanotechnologies can be proactively

addressed and the technologies can be developed safely, some things are clear. Safe

nanotechnologies will not happen without help—nanotechnologies are simply too unconventional and counter-intuitive. Neither will safe nanotechnologies emerge if the

promoters of the technology are calling all the shots. And in a similar vein, safe

nanotechnologies will not come about through wishful thinking and ‘‘spin.’’

Instead, there needs to be strong independent leadership, and a framework within

which safe and sustainable nanotechnology can be developed. These must ensure

adequately funded research is targeted towards understanding and addressing

counter-intuitive behavior, that the process of developing safe and sustainable

nanotechnologies is transparent and inclusive, and that activities are coordinated

and directed towards developing solutions to developing and using nanotechnologies

as safely as possible.

Only then will it be possible to develop the foresight necessary to ensure emerging

nanotechnologies are as safe and as useful as possible. Having set the pace of

nanotechnology development in the U.S. through the 21st Century Nanotechnology

Research and Development Act, the House Committee on Science and Technology

now has the task of ensuring these emerging nanotechnologies deliver on their

promise; benefiting society without causing harm.

Taking Action

Risk Research Strategy

We are unlikely to arrive at a future where nanotechnology has been developed

responsibly without a strategic plan for how to get there. Like all good strategies,

this should include a clear idea of where we want to be, and what needs to be done

to get there. A top-level, top-down strategic framework should be developed that

identifies the goals of nanotechnology risk research across the Federal Government,

and that provides a roadmap for achieving these goals. The strategy should identify

information needed to regulate and otherwise oversee the safe development and use

of nanotechnologies; which agencies will take a lead in addressing specific research

challenges; when critical information is needed; and how the research will be fundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
43

8Maynard, A.D. (2006). Nanotechnology: A research strategy for addressing risk, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DC. 9See Annex A, and supporting information in Annex B.

10 United States House of Representatives Committee on Science. Hearing on Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: What are Federal Agencies Doing? Testimony of Andrew D. Maynard. September 21, 2006. 11 United States House of Representatives Committee on Science. Hearing on Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation Under the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Testimony of Andrew D. Maynard. October

31, 2007. 12See also: Maynard, A.D. (2006). Nanotechnology: A research strategy for addressing risk,

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies,

Washington, DC.

ed. It should reflect evolving oversight challenges; be informed by stakeholders from

industry; academia and citizen communities; include measurable goals; and be reviewed every two years.

Developing an effective roadmap to addressing these challenges is not as simple

as prioritizing research needs. As I discovered while developing recommendations on

research strategies in 2006,8 it is necessary to work back from what you want to

achieve, and map out the research steps needed to get there. This inevitably leads

to complex and intertwined research threads. Yet if this complexity is not acknowledged, the result is simplistic research priorities that look good on paper, but are

ineffective at addressing specific aims. And without a clear sense of context, it is

all too easy to highlight research efforts that appear to be strategically important,

but are in reality only marginal to achieving the desired goals.

The bottom line is that for such a strategy to be effective, it will require top-down

leadership. Establishing provisions for an effective nanotechnology risk research

strategy to be developed, funded and implemented in the National Nanotechnology

Initiative Amendment Act of 2008 will be essential to underpinning the success and

safety of current and future nanotechnologies, as well as ensuring America’s continued leadership in this area.

Funding for Environment, Safety and Health Research

To be effective, a nanotechnology risk-research strategic framework needs adequate funding to support proposed research, as well as sufficient expert personnel

to oversee its development and implementation. In 2006, the U.S. spent an estimated $13 million on highly relevant research addressing the impacts of

nanotechnology on human health and the environment.9 By comparison, European countries invested approximately $24 million, including $13 million from the European Union as a central funding organization. But these figures fall far short of

what is needed to address even the most urgent nanotechnology EHS questions.

In my testimony to this committee on September 21, 2006,10 and more recently

on October 31, 2007,11 I made the case for a minimum of $50 million annually to

be spent on targeted nanotechnology risk research within the U.S. This was based

on an assessment of critical short-term research needs, and only covered highly-focused research to address these needs.12 This estimate still stands. However, I must

be clear that such an investment would need to be directed towards addressing a

very specific suite of problems that regulators and industry need answers to as soon

as possible. This is not envisaged as a general pot of money to be assigned to research that does not address specific and urgent nanotechnology risk goals. In other

words, this is an investment that needs to be directed towards the right research.

What is more, such an investment would not necessarily generate more general

knowledge to effectively address emerging nanotechnology EHS issues. For this, an

additional investment is needed in goal-oriented exploratory research—both specifically focusing on aspects of nanotechnology that might lead to harm, and bridging

the worlds of applications and implications research.

To address both targeted and exploratory research needs, a minimum 10 percent

of the Federal Government’s nanotechnology research and development budget

should be dedicated to goal-oriented EHS research. A minimum of $50 annually

should go to targeted research directly addressing clearly-defined strategic challenges. The balance of funding should support exploratory research that is conducted within the scope of a strategic research program. Funding should be assessed

according to an interagency risk research strategy, be overseen by cross-agency leadership and tied into the strategic research plan.

Targeted research primarily should address specific questions where answers are

urgently needed to make, use and dispose of nanotechnology products as safely as

possible. I would envisage that much of the necessary research would be funded by

or conducted within mission-driven agencies, such as the National Institute for OcVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
44

13 NIOSH (2008). Strategic plan for NIOSH nanotechnology research. Filling the knowledge

gaps. Draft, February 26, 2008 (Update). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

Washington, DC.

cupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). In addition, we must ensure that regulatory agencies, including the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),

either have access to resources to fund regulation-relevant research, or input to research that will inform their decision-making.

There will also be a role for science-oriented agencies such as the National Institutes for Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) in funding targeted research, where the missions of these agencies coincide with research that informs specific oversight questions. For example, these two agencies are ideally positioned to investigate the science behind nanomaterial properties, behavior and biological interactions in a targeted way, with the aim of predicting health and environmental impact. But ensuring that targeted research conducted within these

agencies is relevant to addressing risk identification, assessment and reduction

goals will be critical, and underscores the need for a robust cross-agency, risk-research strategy and pool of designated funds.

Exploratory research, on the other hand, primarily would be investigator-driven

(within determined bounds), and so would preferentially lie within the remit of NSF

and NIH. However, in ensuring effective use of funds, it will be necessary to develop

ways of supporting interdisciplinary research that crosses the boundary separating

these agencies, and combines investigations of basic science with research into disease and environmental endpoints, with the goal of informing oversight decisions.

Exploratory research should not be confined to these two agencies alone, as there

will be instances where goal-oriented but exploratory research will fit best within

the scope of mission-driven agencies, and will benefit from research expertise within

these agencies. For example, researchers at NIOSH are currently engaged in exploratory research that is directly relevant to identifying and reducing potential

nanotechnology risks in the workplace.13

At present, there is no pot of ‘‘nanotechnology’’ money within the Federal Government that can be directed to areas of need. Rather, the NNI simply reports what

individual agencies are spending. Yet if strategic nanotechnology risk research is to

be funded appropriately, mechanisms are required that enable dollars to flow from

where they are plentiful to where they are needed. Extremely overstretched agencies like NIOSH and EPA cannot be expected to shoulder their burden of

nanotechnology risk-research unaided, and agencies such as FDA and CPSC currently have no listed budget whatsoever for nanotechnology EHS research. If the

Federal Government is to fully utilize expertise across agencies and enable effective

nanotechnology oversight, resource-sharing across the NNI will be necessary.

Leadership for Risk Research

Without clear leadership, the emergence of safe nanotechnologies will be a happy

accident rather than a foregone conclusion.

This is a collection of technologies that is counter-intuitive and as a result, safe

and sustainable nanotechnologies will not emerge without help. Accepted mechanisms of technology development and transfer—including investigator-driven research, generation of intellectual property, knowledge diffusion and market-driven

commercialization—will not ensure the information and approaches needed to

proactively ensure the safety of emerging nanotechnologies on their own. Instead,

clear and authoritative top-down leadership is needed to enable the generation and

application of information that will support safe nanotechnology development.

As a result, it is recommended that a cross-agency group be established that is

responsible for implementing a nanotechnology EHS research strategy, and is accountable for actions taken and progress made. A coordinator should be appointed

to oversee this group, and given resources and authority to enable funding allocations and interagency partnerships that will support the implementation of a strategic research plan. A key role for this coordinator would be to ensure agencies are

motivated and able to work within their missions and competencies toward a common set of established goals. They would also provide leadership to the broader

stakeholder community involved—both nationally and internationally—in developing safe nanotechnologies.

Transparency

Without transparency, effective development, implementation and review of a

strategic research framework will be hampered, stakeholder engagement will be imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
45

14See Annex A, with supporting information in Annex B. Project specific data underpinning

this analysis can be found in the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Environment, Health

and Safety Research inventory (http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/, accessed 4/15/

08). This inventory is in the process of being adopted and updated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials. 15Further independent assessment of research funded in 2006 reveals funding for highly rel- evant risk research was closer to $20 million (http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs,

accessed 4/8/08). The discrepancy appears to be due to relevant research that the NNI missed

in their analysis—another indicator that the government is not on top of what research is being

funded, and lacks sufficient transparency for effective accountability. 16The OECD nanotechnology risk research database is based on the Project on Emerging

Nanotechnologies inventory of nanotechnology Environment, Health and Safety Research (http:/

/www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/, accessed 4/8/08). Due to be launched in June 2008,

it will include information on project relevance to addressing nanotechnology risks, and funding

levels. For further details, see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/6/37852382.ppt (accessed 4/

8/08).

possible, and trust in the government to underpin safe nanotechnologies will be severely compromised. As a result, it is recommended that government-funded

nanotechnology EHS research should be fully transparent, providing stakeholders

with information on project activities, relevance, funding and outcomes.

Activities to date within the federal nanotechnology initiative have been less than

transparent, to the detriment of an effective strategy for nanotechnology development and use. For example, a PEN analysis of current research projects listed in

the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s ‘‘Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research’’ found that only 62 of the 246 projects

listed were highly relevant to addressing EHS issues (the remaining projects had

some relevance, but in general were focused on exploiting nanotechnology applications).14 These 62 projects accounted for an estimated $13 million in research and development funding for 2006—a far cry from the $68 million cited by the NNI document as being focused on EHS research.15 Each of these 246 projects has some relevance to addressing nanotechnology safety, and the NNI was right to list them.

But by not categorizing the relevance of the research or including funding figures

for each project, the stated $68 million being invested has little credibility—and as

has just been shown, is indeed highly misleading.

Lack of transparency such as this can only hinder the development of new knowledge that is essential to ensuring safe and successful nanotechnologies. This is such

a critical issue to underpinning progress towards safe and successful

nanotechnologies that I would suggest any assessment of research investment, relevance or direction that is not backed up by publicly accessible project-specific data

is worthless. It is for this very reason that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials is

developing a soon-to-be-launched comprehensive database on risk-relevant

nanotechnology research around the world.16

Public-Private Partnerships

Often, partnerships between public and private organizations have the capacity

to address critical challenges in a manner that is beyond the scope of either partner

in isolation. To expedite progress towards ensuring the safety of emerging

nanotechnologies, it is recommended that partnerships are established that leverage

public and private funds to address critical nanotechnology oversight issues in an

independent, transparent and timely manner and to overcome the limitations of separate government and industry research.

Where research needs fall between the gap of government and industry (because

of their different goals), public-private research partnerships provide an important

mechanism for bridging the gaps. Industries investing in nanotechnology have a financial stake in preventing harm, manufacturing safe products and avoiding longterm liabilities. Yet many of the questions that need answering are too general to

be dealt with easily by industry alone. Perhaps more significantly, the credibility

of industry-driven risk research is often brought into question by the public and

NGOs as not being sufficiently independent and transparent. For many

nanomaterials and nanotechnologies, the current state of knowledge is sufficient to

cast doubt on their safety but lacks the certainty and credibility for industry to plan

a clear course of action on how to mitigate potential risks. Getting out of this ‘‘information trap’’ is a dilemma facing large and small nanotechnology industries alike.

Cooperative science organizations like public-private partnerships provide one

way out of the ‘‘trap’’ where they are established to generate independent, credible

data that will support nanotechnology oversight and product stewardship. Such organizations would leverage federal and industry funding to support targeted reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
46

17 United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Research

and Science Education. Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation Under the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Testimony of Andrew D. Maynard. October 31 2007. 18For further information see The Health Effects Institute, www.healtheffects.org. Accessed

Oct. 13, 2007. 19For further information see The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health,

www.fnih.org. Accessed Oct. 13, 2007. 20For further information, see the International Council on Nanotechnology, icon.rice.edu.

Accessed Oct. 13, 2007. 21Lux Research (2007). The Nanotech Report. 5th edition, Lux Research Inc., New York, N.Y.

search into assessing and managing potential nanotechnology risks. Their success

would depend on five key attributes:

Independence. The selection, direction and evaluation of funded research

would have to be science-based and fully independent of the business and views

of partners in the organization.

Transparency. The research, reviews and the operations of the organization

should be fully open to public scrutiny.

Review. Research supported by the organization should be independently and

transparently reviewed.

Communication. Research results should be made publicly accessible and fully

and effectively communicated to all relevant parties.

Relevance. Funded research should have broad relevance to managing the potential risks of nanotechnologies through regulation, product stewardship and

other mechanisms.

As I discussed in my comments to the House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education last October,17 a number

of research organizations have been established over the years that comply with

many of these criteria. One of these is the Health Effects Institute (HEI),18 which

has been highly successful in providing high-quality, impartial, and relevant science

around the issue of air pollution and its health impacts. The Foundation for the National Institutes for Health19 also has been successful in developing effective publicprivate partnerships, and the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON)20 is

a third model for bringing government, industry and other stakeholders to the table

to address common goals. The PEN is currently exploring these and other models

as possible templates for public-private partnerships addressing nanotechnology

risks.

Irrespective of which model is the best suited for nanotechnology, the need is urgent to develop such partnerships as part of the government’s strategy to address

nanotechnology risks. Nanotechnologies are being commercialized rapidly—going

from $60 billion in manufactured goods in 2007 to a projected $2.6 trillion in

nanotechnology-enabled manufactured goods by 2014—or 15 percent of total manufactured goods globally.21 And knowledge about possible risks is simply not keeping

pace with consumer and industrial applications.

Conclusions

The nanotechnology future is calling us forward, and the U.S. is at the forefront

of the race to get there as fast as possible. But we are skating on thin ice, and are

in danger of missing the warning signs. Nanotechnology is counter-intuitive, and we

cannot rely on past ways of doing things to succeed in the future. Without strong

leadership from the top, we run the risk of compromising the whole enterprise—not

only loosing America’s lead, but also jeopardizing the good that could come out of

nanotechnology for other countries.

Already, the hubris surrounding nanotechnology R&D funding is giving way to a

sobering reality: Based on NNI-identified risk-relevant projects, in 2006, the Federal

Government spent an estimated $13 million on highly relevant nanotechnology risk

research (approximately one percent of the nano R&D budget), compared to $24 million in Europe, despite assurances from the NNI that five times this amount was

spent on risk related research in Fiscal Year 2006.

But nanotechnology will not succeed through wishful thinking alone. Instead, it

will depend on clear and authoritative leadership from the top. If we are to fully

realize the benefits of this innovative new technology, we must bridge the gap between our dreams and reality.

47

22 ‘‘Awareness Of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies’’

conducted on behalf of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., September 25, 2007. 23Lane, Neal and Kalil, Thomas, ‘‘The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation,’’ Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2005.

In my personal view, the proposed National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment

Act of 2008 goes a long way to bridging this gap. I particularly commend the Committee for promoting transparency through a public database for projects funding

under EHS; education and societal dimensions; and nanomanufacturing program

component areas, with sub-breakouts for education and ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) projects. This database will complement the public international

EHS database expected to be launched by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in June 2008, and will provide an essential resource

for evaluating the Federal Government’s progress towards addressing critical research questions, as well as developing future research strategies.

In addition, I believe the proposed act takes an important step in assigning to a

single coordinator the responsibility for ensuring that a top-down strategic plan for

nanotechnology environmental, safety and health research is developed and implemented; that EHS research is appropriately funded with at least 10 percent of the

total NNI budget; and that public-private partnerships are established that leverage

government and industry research initiatives.

Finally, as the Committee knows, my in-depth experience lies in the area of the

EHS implications of nanotechnology. But as one of the many scientists and engineers deeply involved in nanotechnology development for over 20 years, I am genuinely concerned about the education and ‘‘nano-readiness’’ of America’s students,

teachers, and workforce. For this reason, I personally endorse the establishment of

partnerships to help recruit and prepare secondary school students to pursue postsecondary education in nanotechnology. I also support enhancements to

nanotechnology undergraduate education, faculty development, and acquisition of

equipment and instrumentation at the undergraduate level. When today China has

as many scientists and engineers working on nanotechnology as the U.S., it is critical to support initiatives in nanotechnology education aimed at our young people.

Similarly, the U.S. public and consumers are woefully unprepared for the nanoage. Polling, focus groups and social science research commissioned by PEN since

its inception show that Americans’ awareness of nanotechnology remains abysmally

low, with seven in 10 adults having heard just a little of nothing at all about it.22

This, in my opinion, is a significant failing of the NNI. Too few resources and too

little expertise has been devoted to educating and engaging the public about the implications of what I believe is one of this century’s most exciting areas of science

and engineering. I particularly urge the Committee to address this problem as it

works on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of 2008.

When I look back on the origins of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, I am

impressed by the foresight and quality of leadership exerted by Congressional visionaries from both sides of the aisle, the President and Executive Branch, scientists

and engineers, business people, and educators.23 Perhaps because of the tremendous

successes achieved in the laboratory since its creation, we risk losing sight of the

importance of meeting the challenges involved in taking the NNI to the next level

of research, education, governance and commercialization. It is my belief that with

the proposed Act—and with the continued vigilance of this committee—this will not

happen.

48

24 NNI (2008). Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research,

Washington, DC, National Nanotechnology Initiative. 25 Environment, safety and health research. www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/

(accessed 4/15/08). 26For further details on the OECD risk research database, see http://www.oecd.org/

dataoecd/34/6/37852382.ppt (accessed 4/8/08). 27 EU nanotechnology R&D in the field of health and environmental impact of nanoparticles.

DG Research, January 28, 2008.

Annex A.

Assessment of U.S. Government Nanotechnology

Environmental Safety and Health Research for 2006

1. Assessment of research listed in the 2008 NNI nanotechnology risk research strategy.24

a. Research projects highly relevant to nanotechnology environment health

and safety accounted for an estimated $12.8 million in federal research

funding in 2006.

b. Research that was either highly or substantially relevant to

nanotechnology EHS accounted for an estimated $28.9 million.

c. The majority of the research projects listed by the NNI as being relevant to

nanotechnology EHS have only limited relevance.

Listed research was categorized according to its relevance to addressing potential

nanotechnology risks (highly relevant, substantially relevant, having some relevance, or having marginal relevance—as defined below). Projects specifically addressing engineered nanomaterials, as well as projects generally applicable to any

source of nanoparticles, were included in the analysis.

The methodology for categorizing research relevance was the same as that used

in the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies on-line inventory of nanotechnology

EHS research,25 and in the forthcoming OECD database of nanotechnology EHS research.26 This approach allows a sophisticated and transparent assessment of research investment. The categorization is based on published project abstracts, and

how these relate to addressing risk-specific issues.

2. A broader assessment of U.S. federally-funded risk-relevant research for

2006

The previously-released PEN inventory of EHS research contains substantially

more projects than are listed in the 2008 NNI risk research strategy. Assessment

of the full inventory of projects reveals that more risk-relevant research was being

funded in 2006 than is identified by the NNI, but that funding levels are still low:

a. Research projects highly relevant to nanotechnology environment health

and safety accounted for an estimated $20.4 million in federal research

funding in 2006.

b. Research that was either highly or substantially relevant to

nanotechnology EHS accounted for an estimated $37.8 million.

The disparity between the figures above and NNI figures on research spending

underline an urgent need for transparency in what is being funded, and it’s relevance to addressing nanotechnology risk.

3. Comparison with European Risk Research Investments

a. In 2006, European countries invested an estimated U.S. $23.6 million in research that was highly relevant to understanding and addressing the impacts of nanotechnology on human health and the environment. The EU as

a central funding organization invested an estimated U.S. $12.6 million in

highly relevant research in 2006.

These estimates are based on figures published in the document ‘‘EU

nanotechnology R&D in the field of health and environmental impact of

nanoparticles,’’ published in 2008.27 Research funding within European countries for

calendar year 2006 has been estimated. The analysis includes research funded by

the European Union, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany,

Greece, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

49

4. Definitions of research relevance:

a. High: Research that is specifically and explicitly focused on the health, environmental and/or safety implications of nanotechnology. Also included in this

category are projects and programs where the majority of the research undertaken is specifically and explicitly focused on the health, environmental

and/or safety implications of nanotechnology. Examples of research in this

category would include research to understand the toxicity of specific

nanomaterials, research into exposure monitoring and characterization to

further understand potential impact, research into biological interactions and

mechanisms that is focused on answering specific questions associated with

potential risk. Examples of research that would not be included in this category would include exploratory research into biological mechanisms outside

the context of understanding impact, general instrument development, and

research into therapeutics applications which also incorporate an element of

evaluating impact.

b. Substantial: Research that is focused towards nanotechnology-based applications or developing fundamental new knowledge on nanoscienee, but that

has substantial and explicit relevance to EHS implications. Examples of research in this category would include non-targeted research into biological

mechanisms which is informative to understanding risk, instrument development for assessing nanomaterials for applications and characterizing

nanomaterials in hazard evaluations, and major programs with a significant

component focused on risk research.

c. Some: Research that is focused on the application of nanotechnology and developing fundamental new knowledge on nanoscience but that has some relevance to EHS implications. Examples might include research into therapeutics applications which also lead to the generation of useful data on hazard.

d. Marginal: Fundamental nanoscience and/or nanotechnology applicationsbased research, which informs understanding on potential EHS implications

in a marginal way. Examples might include the development of new analytical techniques such as analytical electron microscopy, where some attempt

is made to apply the techniques to understanding potential risks unique to

nanomaterials.

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

BIOGRAPHY FOR ANDREW D. MAYNARD

Dr. Andrew Maynard is the Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging

Nanotechnologies-an initiative dedicated to helping business, government and the

public anticipate and manage possible health and environmental implications of

nanotechnology. Dr. Maynard is considered one of the foremost international experts

on addressing possible nanotechnology risks and developing safe nanotechnologies.

As well as publishing extensively in the scientific literature, Dr. Maynard is a wellknown international speaker on nanotechnology, and frequently appears in print

and on radio and television.

Dr. Maynard trained as a physicist at Birmingham University in the UK. After

completing a Ph.D. in ultrafine aerosol analysis at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge University (UK), he joined the aerosols research group of the UK Health and

Safety Executive, where he led research into aerosol behavior and characterization.

In 2000, Dr. Maynard joined the National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health (NIOSH), part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC). Dr. Maynard was instrumental in establishing the NIOSH nanotechnology

research initiative, which continues to lead efforts to identify, assess and address

the potential impacts of nanotechnology in the workplace. Dr. Maynard also represented NIOSH on the Nanomaterial Science, Engineering and Technology subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSET), and he cochaired the Nanotechnology Health and Environment Implications (NEHI) working

group of NSET. Both are a part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),

the federal research and development program established to coordinate the U.S.

Government’s annual $1 billion investment in nanoscale science, engineering, and

technology.

Dr. Maynard continues to work closely with many organizations and initiatives

on the responsible and sustainable development of nanotechnology. He is a member

of the Executive Committee of the International Council On Nanotechnology

(ICON), he has chaired the International Standards Organization Working Group

on size selective sampling in the workplace, and he has been involved in the organization of many international meetings on nanotechnology. Dr. Maynard has testified

before the U.S. House Committee on Science & Technology on nanotechnology policy, and is a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group. Dr. Maynard is an Honorary

Senior Lecturer at the University of Aberdeen, U.K., and has authored or co-authored over 100 scholarly publications.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Maynard. Dr. David is recognized.

STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND DAVID, MANAGER OF TOXICOLOGY FOR INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, BASF CORPORATION

Dr. DAVID. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Committee. I am Dr. Raymond David. I am a toxicologist with

BASF Corporation, but I am here on behalf of the American Chemistry Council and Nanotechnology Panel to speak in favor of the

National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.

The infrastructure that the amendment would provide will greatly improve the ability of the United States to plan, coordinate, and

implement research programs, especially ones focused on the safe

use of nanotechnology. The infrastructure and focus will be welcome in an area that has seen an explosion of research and experimental data in the scientific literature but not necessarily always

focused on addressing any one particular issue. Under the NNI

amendment, a central, federal research oversight function will be

created to address specific research questions and provide the capability to utilize all the federal research resources available to answer any one particular question, much like other governments

around the globe.

This central oversight will bring the strengths of organizations

such as the EPA, NIH, NCTR, and the National Characterization

62

Laboratory together to resolve a particular question, and they can

do that in a fashion that will be much faster than academia or industry alone could resolve.

The amendments mandate that NNI provide information to the

academic and industrial research communities on current research

programs, so that we can reduce the redundancy on some of the experiments we see, available techniques and methodologies, and facilities that can support robust scientific research. This information

will be welcome in an area that we have seen a lot of redundancy

in terms of the scientific literature and hopefully gain acceptance

of minimal characterization evaluation parameters so that people

will know exactly what the characteristics of the nanomaterials are

that they are testing. This is something that is presently lacking

and would otherwise make their research uninterpretable.

The ACC strongly supports the intention to educate all stakeholders, especially the public, on nanotechnology. I think we are at

a crossroads in terms of the public perception with respect to the

uses of nanomaterials. Some of the information that the public receives from the media tends to overemphasize the uncertainties of

nanotechnology. We believe that it is important that the public understand the true risks and benefits of this technology and the

nanomaterials that are being used, and they need to receive that

in a very clear, straightforward manner.

Of course, these amendments and the infrastructure that they

creates does not guarantee success. The proof is really in the pudding. The implementation is what is important. The ACC would

also like to re-emphasize that a comprehensive and prioritized federal research strategy focusing on EHS concerns is still missing.

What we need to do is we need to focus on assessments of risks

to health and the environment. We need to promote new interdisciplinary relationships. We need to support better understanding

of the fundamental properties of nanomaterials and how that impacts the risk assessment. We need to develop processes for establishing standard protocols so that individual and maybe categories

of nanomaterials can be evaluated. We need to clearly delineate the

responsibilities, programs, timelines, and anticipated results of

funded projects. And I think we need to leverage planned research

that is ongoing throughout the world, particularly in the OECD.

We have previously urged an independent review by the National

Research Council’s Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology

to establish research priorities for manufactured nanomaterials.

We continue to believe that that is an important effort that should

be pursued so that we can develop a comprehensive roadmap with

appropriate projects and priorities and evaluation metrics.

The nanotechnologies panel member companies want to foster responsible application of nanotechnology. We want to share and coordinate EHS initiatives, and we want to facilitate the exchange of

information.

We look forward to working with the Congress and NNI to make

the implementation of these amendments a success. We hope the

bill will be passed, and we look forward to that happening. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. David follows:]

63

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND DAVID

Good Morning Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee. I am Dr. Raymond David, a toxicologist with BASF Corporation, and appearing before you today

on behalf of the American Chemistry Council and ACC’s Nanotechnology Panel to

speak in favor of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.

I appreciate Chairman Gordon’s invitation to address the House Committee on

Science and Technology on the role of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)

in planning and implementing the environmental, safety, and health research necessary for the responsible development of nanotechnology.

ACC represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. ACC

members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services

that make people’s lives better, healthier and safer. In 2005, ACC formed its

Nanotechnology Panel consisting of domestic producers that are engaged in the

manufacture, distribution, and/or use of chemicals that have a business interest in

the products of nanotechnology. Panel member companies wish to foster the responsible application of nanotechnology; to coordinate nanotechnology environmental,

health, and safety research initiatives undertaken by member companies and other

organizations; and to facilitate the exchange of information among member companies and other domestic and international organizations on issues related to applications and products of nanotechnology.

The infrastructure that the NNI amendments would create will greatly improve

the ability of the U.S. to plan, coordinate, and implement research programs—especially ones focused on the safe use of nanomaterials, an issue that has been raised

many times in the past few years. This infrastructure and focus will be welcome

in an area that has seen an explosion of research and generation of experimental

data—not always focused. The U.S. has had many intellectual and financial resources applied to studying nanomaterials, but not necessarily directed at solving

any one issue. Under the NNI amendment, a central, federal, research oversight

function would be created to address specific research questions and provide the capability to utilize all federal resources to answer those questions—much like other

governments throughout the globe.

This centralized oversight will bring the strengths of each federal research organization together to address a single issue. For example, scientists in the National

Characterization Laboratory in Frederick, MD, have extensive experience detecting

a variety of nanomaterials in biological fluids; scientists in NIOSH have verified the

protective effect of personal protective equipment and have investigated the cellular

effects of dermal exposure; and scientists in NIEHS and NCTR have developed techniques and conducted experiments to better understand the potential for dermal

penetration of nanomaterials. Being able to bring all these entities and expertise together to answer specific questions on the applied nanomaterials could bring swift

answers to questions that would take industry or academia alone much longer to

evaluate.

The amendments would also mandate that NNI provide information to the academic and industrial research community on current research programs, available

techniques and methodologies, and facilities to support robust scientific research.

This information should reduce the redundancy that we currently find in the explosion of scientific literature, and help gain acceptance of minimal characterization

criteria needed for understanding the nature of what particle was tested—nano

sized or otherwise. Too often we find published studies that refer only to obtaining

a nanomaterial from a vendor and adding that to a biological test system. Investigators need to know how and where they get characterized nanomaterials for study.

Otherwise, their research may be difficult to interpret in the context of human or

environmental safety assessment.

ACC strongly supports the amendment’s purposes to have NNI provide support

for programs designed to educate all stakeholders, including the public, on

nanotechnology. The public may very well have a skewed perception of

nanotechnology and specifically the use of nanomaterials. Sensational articles on

nanotechnology in the mainstream media can distort information, and we all must

be mindful of the urgent need to present information on nanotechnology in a factually accurate, balanced way. The public will be far less likely to be receptive to this

emerging technology if information about its potential risks and benefits is not

faithfully reported in clear, straightforward terms.

Of course, the infrastructure that these amendments would provide does not guarantee success. Implementation is what is important. ACC would also like to re-emphasize that a high quality, comprehensive and prioritized federal research strategy

focusing on nanotechnology environment, health, and safety is still missing and

should:

64

• Focus on risk assessments, and the generation and application of information

on the continuum of exposure, dose and response;

• Promote new interdisciplinary partnerships that bring visionary thinking to

research on nanotechnology;

• Support better understanding of the fundamental properties of nanomaterials

that have an impact in the exposure-dose-response paradigm;

• Develop processes for establishing validated standard measurement protocols

so that individual or categories of materials can be studied;

• Clearly delineate the responsibilities, programs, timelines, and anticipated results of funded projects for each federal agency; and

• Leverage planned and ongoing work by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Working Party on Manufactured

Nanomaterials, particularly in identifying on-going or planned research

projects by other countries and interpreting the results of this research, and

the testing of representative nanomaterials using standard test methods to

assess potential health or environmental hazards.

When ACC testified before you last October, we urged as an appropriate next

step, the funding of an independent review by the National Research Council Board

of Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST) to establish EHS research priorities for manufactured nanomaterials and a substantial increase in federal funding

of EHS programs for manufactured nanomaterials. ACC continues to believe that

BEST should develop and monitor implementation of a comprehensive roadmap for

federal EHS research projects and set priorities with evaluation metrics suitable for

federal funding. This funding would enable BEST to develop a roadmap and strategy for the Federal Government for environmental, health, and safety research.

We look forward to working with the Congress and NNI to make the implementation of the NNI amendments a success. We are hopeful that this bill will be passed

to allow that to happen.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RAYMOND DAVID

Dr. Raymond David is Manager of Toxicology for Industrial Chemicals in BASF

Corporation. He received his Ph.D. in Pharmacology from the University of Louisville, after which he was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Chemical Institute of Toxicology in Research Triangle Park. Dr. David worked for eight years at Microbiological Associates in Bethesda, Maryland where he managed the Inhalation and

Mammalian Toxicology Departments. He also spent 14 years at Eastman Kodak in

Rochester New York as Senior Toxicologist before joining BASF in 2006. Dr. David

has experience conducting inhalation, pulmonary, reproductive, and systemic toxicity studies. He was responsible for EH&S issues for nanotechnology at Eastman

Kodak Company, and is currently responsible for nanotechnology issues in BASF

Corporation.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. David. Finally, Dr. Doering,

you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT R. DOERING, SENIOR FELLOW

AND RESEARCH STRATEGY MANAGER, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS

Dr. DOERING. Chairman Gordon, Members of the Committee,

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the National

Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. Texas Instruments and the Semiconductor Industry Association view two topics

as key to the legislation, first, identification of areas of national importance and second, translation of basic research into commercialization. These are essential to ensuring that the NNI program

maintains U.S. leadership in nanotechnology and contributes to

economic competitiveness.

Appropriately, the bill identifies four areas of national importance: electronics, health care, energy, and water purification. This

will prioritize interagency activities and resources around

nanotechnology research to address critical challenges facing our

country. The INSI are encouraged that electronics is the first area

65

listed and strongly advocates that it be renamed as

nanoelectronics. Nanoelectronics will actually play a key role in essentially every area of national importance. It will enable improved

information processing, communications, imaging and sensor technologies that will assist in addressing energy challenges, improving

health care, and detecting national security threats. Advanced

nanoelectronics research is needed because the CMOS technology

that the semiconductor industry has used for over 30 years is projected to reach its performance, energy efficiency, and cost limits by

the year 2020. In 2005, six U.S. semiconductor companies formed

a consortium, the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, to provide

industry funds to universities to accelerate this research. Today,

the NRI leverages funding and expertise from industry, NSF, and

NIST, as well as contributions from state and local governments

and supports research at 35 universities and four regional centers.

This collaboration model can be replicated to address other national challenges with nanotechnology research. The draft legislation recognizes and encourages such models. To effectively pursue

research in the areas of national importance, universities and federal labs will need adequate resources for research funding and essential equipment. NNI investments in the areas of national importance should be reported in the same manner that they currently

are for the program component areas.

The bill recognizes the basic nanotechnology research should lead

to commercial applications. Industry can play an important role in

establishing a balance between directed basic research and its potential commercialization by providing insights on an appropriate

goals and needs for both. For example, there are a number of candidates for new nanoelectronics devices, but to be viable these must

be capable of being manufactured in commercial volumes at low

cost. This may require an entirely new nanomanufacturing paradigm.

Also, as we move nanoelectronics to even smaller dimensions, the

metrology challenges will only increase, an important role for

NIST. Thus, the bill’s call for instrumentation and tools for

nanoscale manufacturing is a significant element for the semiconductor industry. In addition, the draft legislation rightly identifies

the important role of state leverage through research, development,

and technology transfer initiatives. The State of Texas, the University of Texas System, and Texas Industry collaborated to establish

a $30 million complimentary package of leveraged funding to attract and support top academic researchers at the Southwest Academy of Nanoelectronics which is one of the regional centers in NRI.

Currently, the NRI state and local leverage for all regional centers

totals about $15 million annually.

In conclusion, while the legislation establishes an important

framework, corresponding appropriations will need to follow. We

look forward to continuing our work with this committee to successfully achieve the funding goals of America COMPETES and the

President’s American Competitiveness Initiative as the National

Nanotechnology Amendments Act of 2008 moves towards final passage. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Doering follows:]

66

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT R. DOERING

Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, Members of the Committee, thank you

for the opportunity to testify today on the National Nanotechnology Initiative

Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation is a natural follow-on to the America

COMPETES Act signed into law last summer, and we thank this committee for

playing such a critical leadership role in that effort.

Texas Instruments (TI) has a 78-year history of innovation. While our products

have changed many times over the years, we have always fundamentally been a

company of engineers and scientists. We have always looked to the future by investing in R&D. Based in Dallas, TI has become the world’s third largest semiconductor

company. TI is focused on developing new electronics that make the world smarter,

healthier, safer, greener and more fun.

I am also appearing on behalf of the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA).

SIA has represented America’s semiconductor industry since 1977. The U.S. semiconductor industry has 46 percent of the $257 billion world semiconductor market.

The semiconductor industry employs 216,000 people across the U.S., and is America’s second largest export sector.

While my testimony today focuses directly on the draft National Nanotechnology

Initiative Amendments Act, please note that TI strongly supports the testimony presented last month to the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education by Dr.

Jeff Welser, Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) at the Semiconductor Research Corporation on assignment from IBM. TI is an active member

of the NRI, as well as the Semiconductor Research Corporation and the Semiconductor Industry Association.

Nanotechnology holds the promise of solving a number of major challenges facing

our country, in areas such as energy, health care, and security. Nanotechnology research is extremely interdisciplinary, bringing together any combination of biologists, chemists, electrical engineers, physicists, medical doctors and materials scientists. This interdisciplinary nature is one of the reasons that it is essential federal

research agencies be encouraged to work collaboratively in the field of

nanotechnology.

The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act signed into law

in 2003 created the mechanism to coordinate federal research agencies on a major

scale around this subject. The creation of the National Nanotechnology Coordinating

Office (NNCO) provided a focal point of these federal activities, leading to the development of strategic plans that identified program component areas, and brought together key stakeholders for workshops on major nanotechnology topics.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 expands upon

the foundation of the original legislation to improve interagency activities on critical

nanotechnology research. Section 2 contains a number of elements that would enhance the way National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is planned and implemented. Using the NNI strategic plan to establish clear metrics and time frames

for both near- and long-term objectives, including plans for technology transition

with industry and the states, allows better measurement of progress towards NNI

goals. The explicit funding mechanism for the NNCO and authorization of travel expenditures are also positive proposals for improving the way the NNI is planned and

implemented. The modifications to the Advisory Panel will allow a more direct role

for industry input and specific focus on nanotechnology. While PCAST has addressed nanotechnology on a detailed level, it also has a vast scope of work in a

range of other areas.

My testimony today will focus on two core aspects that TI and the U.S. semiconductor industry see as key components to the legislation: identification of areas of

national importance and the translation of basic research into innovations that can

be commercialized. These are essential to ensuring that the NNI program maintains

U.S. leadership in nanotechnology.

Areas of National Importance (Section 5)

The draft legislation’s inclusion of ‘‘Areas of National Importance’’ is an essential

element to the bill. The identification of the areas specifically named in the bill as

well as subsequently by the Advisory Panel, will facilitate prioritization of interagency activity and resources around nanotechnology research that addresses the

most critical challenges facing our country. It is indeed appropriate with this legislation for Congress to set some initial areas of national importance, with flexibility

embodied in the Advisory Panel to identify additional areas. The legislation importantly recognizes that the projects in these areas will be selected on a merit and

competitive basis.

67

The draft bill identifies electronics, health care, energy, and water purification as

initial areas of national importance. TI and the U.S. semiconductor industry are encouraged that electronics is the first area listed, and strongly advocate that it be

renamed nanoelectronics and that the reference be retained in the final bill.

The semiconductor industry makes major contributions to the U.S. economy.

Semiconductor price reductions and performance improvements have driven productivity. Semiconductors drive the information technology sector, which has contributed to 25 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) growth since 1995 while only

making up three percent of GDP. U.S. semiconductor companies are technology

leaders, capturing nearly half of the over $250 billion worldwide market.

As Dr. Welser testified, nanoelectronics research is needed to advance the current

semiconductor technology to its ultimate limits, and to examine nanoelectronics alternatives to go beyond those limits, which will probably be reached by around 2020.

Progress in nanoelectronics is essential to continued advances in information and

communications, enabling breakthroughs in applications that depend on rapidly accessing huge volumes of data and increasing the speed of computations with that

data, such as improved mapping of the human genome and protein folding, predicting the path of hurricanes, and modeling the behavior of nanomaterials and

nanoparticles. There is no doubt that nanoelectronics will play a key role in essentially every area of national importance, such as energy, health care, and national

security.

In addressing energy challenges, nanoelectronics and nanostructured materials

will be essential to developing new sources as well as to greatly improved means

of energy harvesting, storage, distribution, conservation, scavenging, and exploration. Nanostructured materials are already showing promise for low-cost, high-efficiency solar cells, fuel cells, super capacitors, batteries, and light-emitting diodes

(LEDs).

As our country faces rising health care costs for a growing and aging population,

the application of nanotechnology to medical diagnoses and treatments will be critical. Advances in nanoelectronics, and nanotechnology more broadly, can lead to less

invasive procedures, better imaging and monitoring, and targeted treatment at the

cellular level (e.g., cancer).

Security is another major area of national importance. Even if the Committee decides not to address this area in the legislation, this topic should certainly be prominent in the interagency context. Further progress in nanoelectronics will continue

to benefit national security in very many ways, including even smarter weapons,

better and quicker situational awareness, and a broad range of small sensors such

as single-chip chemical and biological analysis platforms.

Models and Resources Required to Address National Areas

Collaboration among Federal and State government, industry, and academia will

be essential in addressing the application of nanotechnology to national challenges,

through partnerships such as the NRI. The NRI currently supports university basic

research in nanoelectronics at 35 universities and four regional centers. NRI efforts

are primarily focused on finding a new switch with improved speed, energy efficiency, and/or cost compared to the field-effect transistor, which is today’s workhorse

for processing information. The National Science Foundation also recognized this

nanoelectronics challenge in its 2009 budget request by including a $20M initiative

for research addressing ‘‘Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law.’’

The NRI started as a result of the semiconductor industry recognizing that university research in nanoelectronics must be accelerated. In 2005, Advanced Micro

Devices, Freescale, IBM, Intel, Micron Technology, and Texas Instruments all

agreed to provide industry funds to form a consortium that would fund university

research in nanoelectronics. From the beginning, it was clear that the scope of the

challenge and basic science questions involved would require engagement and resources from the Federal Government, and conversations began with NSF and

NIST.

NRI is a model collaboration that leverages funding and expertise from industry,

NSF, and NIST, and contributions from State and local governments. To quote the

most recent NNI strategic plan profile of the NRI, ‘‘these government-industry-academic partnerships blend the discovery mission of NSF, the technology innovation

mission of NIST, the practical perspective of industry, and the technical expertise

of U.S. universities to address a nanotechnology research and development priority.

It is one example of the creative methods the NNI uses to accelerate research that

contributes to the Nation’s economic competitiveness.’’ We are pleased that the draft

legislation recognizes and encourages such models in Section 5.

An extremely valuable addition to the reporting requirement in Section 5 would

be to track investments in the areas of national interest, at the same level of detail

68

as is currently done for the Program Component Areas. This information is currently disaggregated across agencies and extremely difficult to obtain and compile.

For example, there is no central location to determine overall federal investments

in nanoelectronics research, and certainly not on a fiscal year-to-year basis to determine trends.

To pursue critical research in the areas of national importance, universities and

federal labs such as NIST will need adequate resources in terms of research funding

and necessary equipment/relating operating costs—this should be recognized in the

bill. While the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 establishes an important framework, corresponding appropriations will need to follow. TI

and many of our colleagues in the U.S. semiconductor industry have been among

the leaders in the business community advocating for appropriations to meet the research levels established by the America COMPETES Act, House Democratic Innovation Agenda, and the President’s American Competitiveness Agenda.

Research to Commercialization (Sections 4 and 6)

The Federal Government is uniquely positioned to fund basic research. Historically, it has been the primary source of basic research funds for universities. The

Federal Government plays an especially important role in supporting higher-risk,

exploratory research for which the economic benefits may not be realized for decades.

We applaud the Committee for recognizing that appropriate critical areas of basic

research must have a mechanism for translating research into commercial applications. This must be balanced with sustained emphasis on continuing the exploratory

research itself, which is required to answer remaining fundamental questions in the

science and engineering of nanotechnology. We believe that industry can play an important role in establishing this balance by providing insights on appropriate goals

and needs for both ‘‘directed’’ basic research and its potential commercialization.

This input can be provided through the revised Advisory Panel, consortia, and various industry advisory liaisons’ input into federal agency merit review processes. Direct agency partnership through pre-competitive industry consortia is one of the

best mechanisms to achieve close industry-government collaboration and facilitate

commercialization of promising research.

Nanomanufacturing

The language in Section 6 calling for instrumentation and tools for nanoscale

manufacturing is an important one for the semiconductor industry. As we move to

nanoelectronics, measurement, or metrology, challenges will only increase. NIST is

best suited to address these challenges given its mission of metrology and its laboratory resources.

Using the NRI research as an example, the new nanoelectronics switch must be

extremely reliable, fast, low power, functionally dense, and capable of being manufactured in commercial volumes at low cost. There are a number of candidates for

the new nanoelectronics switch, including devices based on spin or other quantum

state variables rather than classical bulk electric charge. Commercialization of such

devices into a new class of integrated circuits may very well require an entirely new

nanomanufacturing paradigm.

Role of the States

Section 4 of the draft legislation highlights technology transfer and explicitly identifies the important role of State leverage through research, development, and technology transfer initiatives.

We agree that State governments should play an important role in leveraging federal funds and facilitating commercialization from universities to industry. For example, Texas created a $200 million Emerging Technology Fund. The fund has three

goals: invest in public-private endeavors around emerging scientific or technology

fields tied to competitiveness; match federal and other sponsored investment in

science; and attract and enhance research talent superiority in Texas. Several other

states have similar mechanisms. Of course, State governments are also critical in

supporting public research universities from an overall budget perspective.

As part of the establishment of the third regional NRI center, the Southwest

Academy of Nanoelectronics (SWAN), the State of Texas, the University of Texas

System, and Texas industry collaborated to establish a complementary package of

leveraged support. The resulting $30 million of matching funds is focused on attracting and supporting top academic researchers in nanoelectronics. Specifically, this is

a three-way match, with the State of Texas contributing $10 million from the

Emerging Technology Fund, the University of Texas System matching with $10 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
69

lion, and the remaining $10 million being contributed by Texas industry for endowed chairs, including $5 million from TI.

The other regional NRI centers provide similar State and local leverage to industry, NSF, and NIST funds. Overall, states are contributing approximately $15 million annually to the NRI in funding, equipment, and endowments, in addition to the

major investments in new buildings. New York has provided significant research

funding for the Institute for Nanoelectronics Discovery and Engineering (INDEX),

as well as a major expansion of the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering

Complex in Albany. The State of Georgia, a partner in INDEX through Georgia

Tech, has provided new facilities. The Western Institute of Nanoelectronics (WIN)

Center has leveraged funds through the University of California’s Discovery program. The recently-established Midwest Academy for Nanoelectronics and Architectures (MANA) at Notre Dame has attracted Indiana State funds and even city resources from South Bend, as well as a commitment to a nanoelectronics building

and adjacent innovation park for commercialization activities.

While the states have provided these resources to the four regional NRI centers,

it is important to note that the regional centers are ‘‘virtual’’ and involve researchers from several universities outside these states, thus the local investments benefit

research on a national level.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology issued a five-year

assessment report on the NNI in 2005. One of the recommendations was to increase

federal cooperation with the states, especially by leveraging State research investments. Further, the report recognized the important role of states in commercializing nanotechnology research results. We agree with these conclusions and endorse the draft legislation’s emphasis on the role of the states in nanotechnology.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on National Nanotechnology Initiative

Amendments Act of 2008. The draft bill makes a number of improvements to the

planning and implementation of the NNI. We strongly support the focus on areas

of national interest, and specifically the language on nanoelectronics. The translation of basic research to commercialization must occur to ensure that the NNI

maximizes the contributions to U.S. economic competitiveness and maintains our

country’s leadership in nanotechnology. TI and the semiconductor industry look forward to continuing to work closely with the Committee as this bill proceeds towards

final passage.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ROBERT R. DOERING

Dr. Doering is a Senior Fellow and Technology Strategy Manager at Texas Instruments. He is also a member of TI’s Technical Advisory Board. His previous positions

at TI include: Manager of Future-Factory Strategy, Director of Scaled-Technology

Integration, and Director of the Microelectronics Manufacturing Science and Technology (MMST) Program. The MMST Program was a five-year R&D effort, funded

by DARPA, the U.S. Air Force, and Texas Instruments, which developed a wide

range of new technologies for advanced semiconductor manufacturing. The major

highlight of the program was the demonstration, in 1993, of sub-three-day cycle

time for manufacturing 350-nm CMOS integrated circuits. This was principally enabled by the development of 100 percent single-wafer processing.

He received a B.S. degree in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1968 and a Ph.D. in physics from Michigan State University in 1974. He

joined TI in 1980, after several years on the faculty of the Physics Department at

the University of Virginia. His physics research was on nuclear reactions and was

highlighted by the discovery of the Giant Spin-Isospin Resonance in heavy nuclei

in 1973 and by pioneering experiments in medium-energy heavy-ion reactions in the

late 70’s. His early work at Texas Instruments was on SRAM, DRAM, and NMOS/

CMOS device physics and process-flow design. Management responsibilities during

his first 10 years at TI included advanced lithography and plasma etch as well as

CMOS and DRAM technology development.

Dr. Doering is an IEEE Fellow and Chair of the Semiconductor Manufacturing

Technical Committee of the IEEE Electron Devices Society. He represents Texas Instruments on many industry committees, including: the Technology Strategy Committee of the Semiconductor Industry Association, the Board of Directors of the

Semiconductor Research Corporation, the Governing Council of the Focus Center

Research Program, the Governing Council of the Focus Center Research Program,

the Governing Council of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, and the Corporate

Associates Advisory Committee of the American Institute of Physics. Dr. Doering is

70

also a founder of the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors and one

of the two U.S. representatives to the International Roadmap Committee, which

governs the ITRS. He has authored/presented over 150 publications and invited papers/talks and has 20 U.S. patents.

DISCUSSION

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Doering. You are absolutely

right. We have got to do more than authorize. We have also got to

follow up with those appropriations. Thank you.

At this point, we will open ourselves for the first round of questions, and the Chair recognizes himself. There has been a lot of discussion this morning about health and safety, environmental concerns about nanotechnology. Let me tell you the reasons that I am

particularly concerned about that. One is my seven-year-old daughter, and I know all of us have reasons of some nature, that same

interest. The other is I want to make sure that America gets as

much bang for the buck of our investment as we can. I want us

to be first to market. I want us to be able to create jobs in this

country built around nanotechnology. And as a son of a farmer, I

am haunted to some extent about what I have seen with genetically altered grain. I have seen how it has been rejected, even

though in my opinion we have had good research to the contrary

around the world. I don’t want that to happen here. I think that

means we have got to get out in front. There are already 600 products on the market, and it concerns me that we are going to have

a horror story with one out of 600, and it could put a taint on the

entire industry.

For that reason, the draft bill requires that 10 percent of the

NNI’s total funding be designated for the environmental, health,

and safety research component area there at NNI. This would be

about $150 million under the current 2009 request. Now, this is a

provision that has been really recommended by a number of companies within industry, academia, NGO. It is consistent with the National Academy of Science 2006 review of NNI. But it is not unanimous, and Mr. Kvamme, you have stated, and I will quote, that it

is misguided and may have the unintended consequence of reducing research on beneficial applications and on risk. So let me ask

you, do you feel like your panel is satisfied with the current level

of funding on health, environment, and safety?

Mr. KVAMME. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, we in our

report, we call for increased spending in that area and particularly

since the industry is picking up more and more research funding

in the nano area, we think the Government’s role will in fact

change. As you know very well, the 2009——

Chairman GORDON. Change in what direction?

Mr. KVAMME. In an increasing direction. In the 2009 request——

Chairman GORDON. In an increasing direction? You said it was

going to change. From what to what?

Mr. KVAMME. More spending in the EHS area is requested and is happening. It is roughly double of 2006 numbers from $37 to $76

million in the 2009 area. So I think that will happen.

Chairman GORDON. Did your panel discuss an appropriate level?

Mr. KVAMME. We talked about what is happening and what is

the strategy behind what is happening. We have not yet completed

71

review of the NEHI report because it just came out in February,

we looked more at what activities are in that we believe that the

activities called for in that report and the subsequent EPA research

strategy are appropriate things to fund, and we believe that these

funding levels can support that level of research.

Chairman GORDON. So would it be fair to say that you’re not satisfied with the current level, think there should be additional

spending but do not want to put a specific 10 percent——

Mr. KVAMME. I think that is a fair statement. Namely, we have

encouraged the increased spending in this area. Now, the particular area that we do call out that we haven’t mentioned yet is

in NIOSH. We believe that the workplace is the most critical area,

and we do call for an acceleration of the funding in the NIOSH

area.

Chairman GORDON. I know some the witnesses have a contrary

view, and so what I would like to do is for each of the witnesses

to respond to Mr. Kvamme’s statement and see what recommendation you would have. And so we will start and just go straight

down.

Mr. MURDOCK. As I said earlier, we don’t know the exact appropriate level for this funding. We think 10 percent is ultimately reasonable estimate but that should be determined by strategic planning process. I think Ray David, Dr. David mentioned the National

Academy’s BEST study which we have also supported to figure out

what that number is. I think it is also important that we continue

to make the investments in some of the characterization in metrology equipment, the measurement techniques in particular for the

workplace exposure. Absolutely.

Chairman GORDON. If there was a strategic review that determined that there should be a base-level funding, you would go

along with that?

Mr. MURDOCK. Correct.

Chairman GORDON. Go ahead, sir.

Dr. KRAJCIK. You know, this really isn’t my area of expertise, so

I will pass on comments with respect to this question.

Chairman GORDON. As my mother said, if you don’t have something good to say, just don’t say anything at all. That is a good policy to follow. Yes, Doctor?

Dr. MAYNARD. Let me just start by saying I very much agree

with Mr. Kvamme that NIOSH is one of those agencies that is

doing tremendous work with virtually no dollars to do it, and that

is a critical area where more investment is needed if we are going

to make real progress toward developing safe nanotechnologies.

If you look at funding in general, one thing I think is indisputable. We need more money to do targeted H&S research. If we

don’t have more money, we will not get the answers that people

need in order to make good decisions. And that means you have got

to set some sort of guidelines, and you can do it one of two ways.

You can either set a baseline level, say $100 million, $150 million

a year which are the figures that are being recommended, or you

can set it as a percentage of the overall funding for nanotechnology

research. I actually think it makes it simpler to set that 10 percent

level, and it is a reasonable level. Any less than that, it is really

72

hard to see how we are going to get the information we need in

order to ensure the safety and success of these technologies.

But that funding has got to be allayed with a strategy. You cannot just look at the dollars. You have got to understand where

those dollars are going, what you are going to achieve with them,

and if you don’t have that strategy, if you don’t have that accountability, you could put $100 million, $200 million per year in this

area and achieve absolutely nothing.

Chairman GORDON. Dr. David.

Dr. DAVID. I think Andrew has made some very good points, and

I agree with him. I think it is very difficult to come up with an

exact figure and certainly a percentage probably is the most appropriate way to approach it. Whether 10 percent is the correct number or some other percentage, I think that that is a difficult question to answer without having some external recommendation. I

can tell you that within industry, companies can spend anywhere

from two to five percent of their budget on R&D efforts. Pharmaceutical companies, it is 15 percent. And that simply is a reflection

of the kinds of products that they are generating or what is required to determine that those products are safe for consumer uses.

And so 10 percent lies somewhere in between that number and is

probably as reasonable a starting point as any. But I think it is

probably an excellent idea to have the National Academies come

back with an actual recommendation. That seems to make the most

sense to me.

Chairman GORDON. Just for your information, a part of the bill

does set forth a strategic plan that we will develop for each agency.

And so we hope to get that good advice, and the Academy is reviewing that plan now.

And finally, Dr. Doering.

Dr. DOERING. The semiconductor industry is certainly very interested in ESH and feels it is an important topic. The SI in fact has

a committee on environmental safety and health. The industry has

two R&D consortia in the United States, the Semiconductor Research Corporation as well as Semitech which co-fund a center on

environmentally benign manufacturing for semiconductors at the

University of Arizona. It has partner universities around the country that are part of that center as well. In addition, the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, which is a very

detailed document, approximately 1,000 pages of the research

needs that we have for our industry, the pre-competitive needs, has

a whole chapter on environmental safety and health which goes

into a lot of detail on very specific things, including some in the

area of nanoelectronics.

However, we haven’t really done the kind of analysis that would

put any particular number on what this need is. I definitely agree

with most everyone else that some kind of analysis is appropriate

to figure out what the plan would call for in terms of a figure, but

the semiconductor industry can’t suggest any number at this point.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, and Dr. Ehlers, excuse me for

running over time, and that certainly will extend to you or others

that might have a threshold question like that.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I timed it at 30 minutes. Seriously, a

lot of good questions, good answers. But I would just like to thin

73

this down a bit. First of all, how does the 10 percent, singling that

out, how is it going to affect the other research that is done? Mr.

Kvamme, I would like to have you give me some overview of how

you see this working. Let me add another question to the mix. So

many different agencies and organizations involved. We are using

different bookkeeping methods. How are we going to specify the 10

percent and make sure that it is fairly administered? The two questions, how do you do it and how do you administer it fairly? Secondly, what impact is that likely to have on the other research programs out there?

Mr. KVAMME. Well, let me try the second one first. That is part

of the reason I inserted the graph that I did in my written statement which lists the 13 agencies that do EHS research against the

five different question areas that the NEHI Report outlined as the

questions. It seems to me what would have to happen, and I am

no authority on governmental processes or appropriations or those

kinds of things. That is not where I come from. But it seems like

what you would then have to do is go down the 13 agencies and

essentially say, okay, NIH, you have got to spend 6.7 percent, and

NIST, you have got to spend X percent and EPA, you have got to

spend 18.7 percent, et cetera. You would have to do something because they set the goals. Somebody would have to then sum the

total and say, we are at 9.6 percent, we need 0.4 percent and twist

NSF’s arm to increase their thing a bit or something like that. I

don’t understand that process. That is not what I am saying. So I

think that is the practical issue that I see from our analysis because you have to understand, these organizations voluntarily

joined the NNI. And in the early days of our first report, we were

twisting arms to get people to become part of the program to start

with. And by the way, are still twisting a couple of arms which we

think are important to join, so the Department of Education will

come along.

So I think that is an issue relative to how you would do it, but

that is in your hands. I just point that out as the practical thing.

Now, obviously the other issue that you have is the $1.5 billion

supports a lot of buildings, a lot of instrumentation, a lot of other

kinds of things. If you actually talk about dollars and cents going

to researchers, the numbers, the $76 million that is talked about

now is probably pretty close to a high single-digit number. I can’t

say a specific number because I don’t have that breakout at my

hands, but it would obviously mean that the other research would

be .9 of what it has been.

But the other point that I would make that I think is very, very

important to realize is that the applications research embodies

EHS research in a number of areas. For example, at NIH, with our

discussions with them, they have to worry about the health implications. The example I like to use is in isolation, nobody would

agree to chemotherapy. It is not good for you. The plus is that it

does good stuff. It eliminates cancer cells. And so you have to have

that balance. Now, if you are working on a chemotherapy drug, are

you working on EHS issues or are you working on cancer cures?

That is a tough question to answer. And how many dollars are you

allocating to the EHS piece of what you are doing versus the application piece. The way the numbers are done now, and I am sure

74

the way Andrew came up with $13 million he says zero, I would

suspect, for the EHS piece in that research. I don’t happen to agree

with that assessment, and I think the $68 million in 2006 is accurate.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. A good example, your cancer case. I

don’t know if you saw the 60 Minutes program Sunday evening

where they were injecting gold nanoparticles into patients, which

are selectively absorbed by the cancer cells, then using radio waves

to heat them up and destroying the cells.

Mr. KVAMME. Amazing stuff.

Mr. EHLERS. It is a classic example of exactly what you were

talking about. No one knew what the impact would be, and it will

take considerable time to find out.

I appreciate your comments on that. Dr. Maynard, in a similar

vein, you said you are not sure how these decisions are made, who

decides? Dr. Maynard, you said you need leadership from the top.

What do you mean by the top?

Dr. MAYNARD. Somewhere above the federal agencies themselves,

probably within OSTP. And I say that in going back to your question of how could you make this 10 percent work? You can see ways

you could make it work if you actually had somebody at the top

level who was working with the agencies to ensure that that 10

percent funding was actually being correctly allocated across the

agencies. So you have got a partnership there. But that partnership would only occur and only succeed if you had coordination and

leadership from the highest possible level within government. So

that is what I was thinking about in terms of leadership. It is actually making sure that somebody is pulling the process forward

rather than it being pushed forward from the bottom up, in which

case you have got—it is pretty much lost whether you are going to

do the right thing or the wrong thing there. At least with leadership you are sure you are heading in something approximating to

the right dimension.

I would also, if you will allow me, like to address the issue of

what research is being done in the area of EHS issues and also

whether that will impact on looking at the development of applications research and basic research.

This is a critical issue because there is no point in funding basic

research and applications research if we get the risk side of things

wrong. We just will not see any of that translate into viable products. So we have got to put a realistic amount of our investment,

our research investment, into understanding the risks. Now, the

way we do that has got to be fairly sophisticated, and Mr. Kvamme

was right. My $13 million is specifically looking at questions that

ask things like if you have this titanium dioxide, how am I going

to use it safely. That is a question you won’t find answered by looking at cancer research. It is a question you would only answer by

asking very specific questions. But you have got to be more sophisticated than that. You have also got to look at how other areas of

research can be applied to understanding environmental, safety,

and health. And if you look at our written testimony, we actually

delve into that level of sophistication. But the first and foremost

thing we need to do is ask the obvious questions. How can you ensure the nanotechnologies being developed now are as safe as posVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
75

sible? We will not do that by trying to tag along to applicationsbased research. We have got to ask those specific questions, and

that is what is not being done at the moment.

Mr. EHLERS. Dr. Krajcik, I just wanted to make a brief comment.

Since I have spent so much of my life trying to improve math and

science education, I agree with your comments. This is another example of an area where we desperately need education. I can see

all kinds of horror stories getting propagated through the media

about nanotechnology based on some incidents that might happen

in the future, and the public just doesn’t have the capability to decide. So education certainly has to be an important part of this.

One last question. Dr. David, in your testimony, you commented,

we need to, you had a whole list of things we need to do. My question is, who is going to pay for it? Would you expect industry to

carry this out? Do you think that we should appropriate money to

do all those different things?

Dr. DAVID. I think it has to be a coalition. I think that it has to

be a coalition of industry, of government-sponsored programs that

support academia, or support programs within the various federal

agencies. The task can be so enormous and some of the development of technology can be so daunting that I think it will require

that kind of coalition in order to get the answers that we need to

do, at least in a timely fashion.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you all for your responses, your testimony.

I was fascinated with this topic because it has such enormous potential, and it can change our lives in ways we can’t imagine. And

yet, I don’t think we quite have a handle on how we are going to

use it, what we are likely to find, and above all, what the dangers

are. I am not one of these people who cries wolf at every corner,

but I am afraid, given the history of what has happened with pesticides and other things, that the public and especially the public

service agencies or entities will be waiting to jump on the first incident and try to create a Three Mile Island out of it. So we face a

very ticklish job here together, and I appreciate your willingness to

come here and help us understand it better.

Thank you.

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Hooley is recognized.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, am very concerned

about the educational piece. There are a lot of things that I am

concerned about in nanotechnology. I think it also has enormous

potential for the future, and I appreciate all of you being here to

testify today.

When we had a hearing on this last fall, several witnesses spoke

of the importance of early nanotechnology education for generating

awareness and excitement about nanotechnology, particularly for

young students and in fact the general public. Do you feel like this

legislation accomplishes those two goals, how the general public

views nanotechnology? Do you think people understand what

nanotechnology is? What kind of a job do you thin we are doing

with nanotechnology in our schools? Anyone on the panel that

would like to answer? Don’t be bashful.

Dr. KRAJCIK. I think we have a long ways to go. I think some

of the fundamental ideas that underlie nanotechnology our society

is pretty naı ́ve about. Most people don’t even understand where the

76

nano-range lies. They have a hard time distinguishing—once something gets smaller than a cell or a hair, it is undistinguishable. It

is not there. So most of our children, most of our adult population,

does not understand even the scale that we are talking about, let

alone some of the important underlying concepts. The wonderful

thing about nanotechnology is it actually brought new ideas to us.

Dr. Maynard raised some of these. We now know that when you

get down to the nano level, materials now get new properties.

Ms. HOOLEY. Right.

Dr. KRAJCIK. Those ideas aren’t even in our science textbooks.

We have science textbooks out there that don’t have those ideas in

them. Kids are learning that, you know, properties are always the

same. They don’t learn the idea that as you change scale, properties change. We have a long way to go. Our country is in serious,

serious trouble when it comes to educating our children and the

population with respect to nanotechnology. We have some efforts,

you know. I know that the NISE network, informal science education group, is trying to do something through the museums, the

Nanoscale Center for Engineering and Science is doing things, but

we have a lot more that we have to be able to do because it is not

pervasive in our schools, it certainly does not appear in any of our

standards, and unless it gets into our standards, unless we start

testing for it, we are not going to see it in schools. So we have a

long ways to go if we are really going to make a difference.

If you want to speak about safety, our kids can’t decide—you

know, no one knows—you mentioned sunscreen. We don’t know

when you put this—you know, we don’t see the white stuff on our

face anymore. That is good, we look nice when we are at the beach

and it keeps away the ultraviolet light, but we don’t know if it is

harmful to us, and we don’t have the resources. People generally

don’t have the resources to make that decision. They don’t even

know, should I be worried about it? That’s a problem. You know,

we can make the decision that, okay, I am going to put this on, and

it might penetrate my skin, and it might do something bad to me

30 years down the line. But people should be able to make that decision, and right now they don’t have the intellectual resources to

even make those kind of decisions. So I think we have a lot of work

that we have to do to educate our country so we are more informed

citizens.

Ms. HOOLEY. What is the one thing that we should do to in fact

make the public more aware, make sure that our students are

more aware of nanotechnology, of what is possible in

nanotechnology, as well as what are some of the problems with

nanotechnologies?

Dr. KRAJCIK. I wish I could say it was one thing. It isn’t. It is

a big complex system, right?

Ms. HOOLEY. You can give me two or three things, yeah.

Dr. KRAJCIK. So that is what I tried to outline very clearly. I

think we really have to do sustained professional development. I

think we have to change our national science education standards.

They did our country good, but they are old, and they need to get

revamped with new, emerging ideas in science. We have to have

new instructional materials. We have to provide resources for our

classrooms and we have to change our undergraduate programs,

77

both science courses but also our teacher preparation programs.

Unless we do all these things, we are always going to be in this

mess that we are in this country. We will never see ourselves back

in the forefront with respect to science.

Ms. HOOLEY. For any of the panelists, how involved do you think

businesses need to be in helping us reach the public in general and

our educational institutions. Dr. Maynard?

Dr. MAYNARD. Very involved, but I think this is something that

both business and government have got to be involved with simply

because you have got the two sides of education. You have got to

side of education where you are enthusing people so that they really understand and invest time and effort into nanotechnology to become the next generation of nanotechnologists. But also, you have

got the side of empowering people to make informed decisions and

actually engage in the process of nanotechnology and science in a

broader sense. That cannot all be done by industry. Some of it has

got to be done in partnership with other organizations including

the government.

Ms. HOOLEY. I am just curious again——

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Hooley, if you don’t mind, I am sorry.

We are going to have to be a little stricter on our five minutes. We

are going to have votes in 10 or 15 minutes——

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can take——

Chairman GORDON. And we will get back to you if we——

Ms. HOOLEY. I would love to just—want to have a dialogue.

Chairman GORDON. Oh, this is very important. Hopefully, this

will be the start of an ongoing dialogue, both formal and informal.

Ms. Biggert, you are recognized for a crisp five minutes.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murdock, I have

been amazed at the rapid growth of nanotech startups in my district, many of which I think you are familiar with. Many of these

startups are commercializing nanotechnologies developed from

basic nano research at places like Northwestern or the Center for

Nano Materials at Argon. Do these start-ups face the same challenges that other small start-ups do, or are the challenges different

because they are trying to build business around nanotechnology?

Mr. MURDOCK. Thank you very much. I believe that some of the

challenges are the same, and some are, I’ll call it more acute. These

start-ups are different than software information technology based

start-ups. They require more capital, and they require a much

longer involvement cycles. You know, this isn’t a business model

that, you know when I was at Kellogg, friends could leave and start

a company and scale something out in a couple years on a couple

million dollars. It takes a lot longer, and it takes a lot more investment to make it go. And so we often talk about the Valley of Death,

the period between, you know, the formation of the company when

you start to generate revenues and cash flows, and many of these

technologies that come off, whether they be argon federal laboratories where the start-ups are platform-oriented technologies. And

there is a fair amount of research and development to make it robust, repeatable, scalable, and all those wonderful things before

you can actually manufacture a product on it and create revenues.

And that is where, you know, programs like DSBR, STTR, and the

TIPR are very——

78

Ms. BIGGERT. So do you think that the tech transfer provisions

in the draft bill will address these unique challenges?

Mr. MURDOCK. I think that they will be helpful. I think there are

other—you know, I understand the SBIR reauthorization is coming

up and there are some changes in that program that will also be

helpful. So they certainly moved the needle in the right directly

and will help the efforts to commercialize these technologies.

Ms. BIGGERT. Dr. Doering, do you think that the bill will help

these challenges?

Dr. DOERING. One of the aspects that hasn’t been mentioned yet

with regard to that is the role of the states which is encouraged

by the bill. The states obviously have a lot of interest in creating

jobs locally and new business locally. And as I mentioned in my

testimony, we have had some success through our consortia in

working with the states, and I believe that role we need to continue

to encourage.

Ms. BIGGERT. Again, Mr. Murdock, Dr. Doering, there has been

a lot of talk today about what the government can and should be

doing and to what degree, 10 percent more or less, to address EHS

issue. What role can business play, and what role should business

play to address EHS issue and help American consumers better understand the health and safety implications of nanotech technology

and nano products themselves?

Mr. MURDOCK. If I could respond to that briefly, obviously businesses are responsible and accountable to make sure their products

are safe. That is true for nanotechnology, that is true with everything. And you know, the member companies—it is important to

understand that most of these companies are ultimately in the research phase. They are helping a prototype. Most of these technologies are not yet to the market, but they need to do the safety

testing and they do based upon what is known and to ensure that

those are safe.

The government, you know, we have talked about needs to develop the standards and the characterization protocols if you will

to characterize these materials and the test methods to continue to

evolve those based on the stated science to having our best understanding of what is in fact safe. And then industry needs to apply

that.

As just a little segue, members of the NanoBusiness Alliance

have invited NIOSH to their facilities, to monitor, to take measurements on the site of the air quality, to test for nanoparticulate matter in the air. Members are participating in the EPA’s voluntary

nanomaterials stewardship program. And so there are businesses

engaging in those ways and trying to help provide the information

to improve our state of knowledge.

Ms. BIGGERT. Dr. Doering, do you have anything to add?

Dr. DOERING. Yes. Speaking for the semiconductor industry, as

I had mentioned earlier, we take ES&H very seriously. Most of us

have very large ES&H departments within our companies that

work closely with the parts of the Federal Government that help

control new materials generally, whether or not they are classified

as nanotechnology. As new nanomaterial come along, we take a

very hard look at each one before incorporating them. We are also

interested in the educational aspects on this. We primarily do that

79

in collaboration with each other through our trade association, the

Semiconductor Industry Association which has sponsored some

studies in this area. And we would be glad to work through them,

and the Federal Government, in any further education a program.

Ms. BIGGERT. I guess we have gotten over the Michael Creighton

book, Prey. Thank you very much. I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Biggert. Thank you. Ms.

Woolsey is recognized.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually sit here

today as an example of the benefits of nanotechnology. On March

5th I had huge back surgery. Here I am, back at work, have been

for the last three weeks, and I have some of the brilliance of your

industry implanted in my back. So thank you very much.

I agree with what you are saying. Luckily we have three Members on this committee, myself, Congressman Ehlers, and Congresswoman Biggert who are also on the Education and Labor

Committees, and we will be reauthorizing, fixing, making better,

No Child Left Behind. Therefore, I was looking out here, you are

a beautiful man, you are great, but you are all white, you are all

within 10- or 15-year span there. We have got to get every kid and

every young person involved in the future of this country which is

the new technologies, the nanotechnologies, the green technologies,

that we are going to be able to keep in this country hopefully, not

come up with all the good ideas in science and then give it away

to the rest of the world. We have to do that.

So, I am going to tie this right back now to education and labor

and No Child Left Behind. I would like to know from you what has

your association, or what have you done yourselves in order to give

us feedback on what is missing in this picture? We have got to hear

it from you. Have you been participants?

Mr. KVAMME. If I could make a couple of comments, the first

thing is open up. We live in a society—my parents were carpenters.

Yours were farmers, the Chairman indicated. You could know what

your parent did for a living. That is no longer true for many people

today. I had a unique experience some years ago which I will never

forget. We had our company picnic where 1,000 usually came of our

9,000 employees. We decided, hold it in the plant, have an open

house, and 23,000 people showed up. People want to know what

Mom and Dad do for a living, and we don’t do that very well in

our industries, and we don’t do it because of legal concerns, insurance concerns, et cetera. We have got to change that. We have got

to open up, and if there is any way legislation can do that, I highly

encourage it. I am no expert in legislation, but open up our companies so people don’t drive down some rows of buildings and haven’t

a clue what is going on in those buildings.

The second thing I would say is that when you are talking about

education, you have got to be careful. This is the point I tried to

make in my testimony relative to nanotechnology and technology.

What we have found is people don’t go into technology, they go into

curing cancer, they go into doing better energy research. They go

into——

Ms. WOOLSEY. Fixing my back.

Mr. KVAMME.—going to the Moon. They go into application kinds

of things, and nanotechnology is a tool to that end. What we have

80

learned at the University of California–Berkeley where I serve on

the engineering advisory board is that this center for information

technology in the interest of society, CITRIS, is drawing students

right and left because they see end applications for getting that

double-E degree, that ME degree, whatever degree it is. They want

to see societal things. I think as you introduce that to youngsters

at an early age, kids are fascinated by this stuff, but they want to

see, so what.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Right, they want the end result.

Mr. KVAMME. What do we got to do? So what?

Mr. MURDOCK. If I could build on that for a second, the question

was asked earlier about business’s role in educating the general

public, and I think we are just starting to move into the second

wave of nanotechnology commercialization where you’re really seeing some of these, you know, very exciting, transformational applications like solar energy. There is a portfolio of companies that are

really changing the cost structure of solar energy so that we are

going to see, you know, meaningful new penetration of that technology. Obviously, the 60 Minutes episode was just referenced in

terms of addressing cancer. And so as more and more of these compelling applications come to market, I think it will inspire. There

is an old saying, success is one percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration. Having said that, if you don’t have the inspiration first,

you don’t undertake the perspiration to follow. And so I think we

will see more of that.

The other thing that we have said in our previous testimony on

this issue is that we think it’s important that people also think

about education from the student’s view, and not just the teacher.

We absolutely agree with all of the investments that need to be

made, right, in terms of teacher capability standards and all of that

but to also adopt a student-centric view of the world, engage in

more self-directed learning and inquiry-driven learning that is applied and helps people relate as they are educated to adult benefits

in the applications associated with it.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Murdock, and thank you,

Ms. Woolsey and we are glad that you are our example.

Ms. WOOLSEY. You like my back. Yeah, I am a good example.

Chairman GORDON. And now the temporary but not ostracized

Ranking Member, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have

a little cold today. By the way, in the future, do you think

nanotechnology is going to help me with my cold? Is that possible?

Eating up those little bacterias or whatever that I caught from my

children?

Let me say something, and you tell me if there is anybody who

disagrees with this. From what I am hearing today, that everybody

on the panel believes that nanotechnology has such a great, significant promise for our society, that it should be a priority for the government and society to work to develop it and to prepare for it.

Would you all agree with that, it should be a priority for us? Let

me tell you, the biggest impediment that I have seen to progress

is that people who believe things that should be a priority for our

society are unwilling to prioritize, and I will tell you that we don’t

need people to come here and tell us simply to spend more money

81

on something. Everybody will tell us to spend more money on

something. What I need from you gentleman is for you to tell me

exactly how important it is compared to something else that you

would like us to get the funding from, because I am open to that

idea. For example, fusion was a great dream. I mean, ever since

I was a kid, I saw little films on fusion was going to come along.

We spent billions of dollars on fusion research, and it continues

today. I have asked people, you know, what is the potential of that,

and they say, we will know if you just spend another billion dollars

we will know what the potential is. Well, you guys seem to know

what the potential of nanotechnology is. Do you think we should—

is it fusion or somewhere else you can point to where we are spending a lot of money in research that this should have a priority over?

Anybody on the panel is fine.

Dr. KRAJCIK. You know what? I will say that for every penny we

spend on nanotechnology, we also have to spend money on education and the reason why——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Let me get to that.

Dr. KRAJCIK.—is that we cannot raise a public——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me get to that. I want a priority here. I

want where you are going to tell me where not to. I don’t want you

to go on another education speech.

Dr. KRAJCIK. I am not going to go on an education speech.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Where is something that you want to defund? Nothing. Now, let me tell you something. You can come before this panel——

Mr. KVAMME. I would be happy to give you a suggestion.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So what is it? What have you got for me?

Dr. KRAJCIK. Fusion. You can de-fund fusion.

Mr. KVAMME. By one count that we did, I think there are 220

different federal programs of some $10 million apiece for tech education K–12. There is no way that is an efficient spending of

money.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is no way what, now?

Mr. KVAMME. There is no way that is efficient spending. You

can’t have 210 or 220 programs and be efficient. I would look at

those and try to figure out a way how to spend half the money but

do it more efficiently.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So you don’t want to de-fund, you want

us to make it more efficient. Isn’t there anybody that ever——

Mr. KVAMME. I will cut it in half.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, can someone come here and tell me

what area of research is now wasted as compared to the money

that you want to spend on this? No? Okay. Well, let me tell you

something. People in the scientific community should not come to

Congress and tell us that they are willing to say how important

something is unless they are willing to compare it to what something is less important because that doesn’t mean anything. We

have a limited budget. We want to do what is right by that budget.

I personally would think that nanotechnology should receive a

large portion of the money that we should spend or that we will

save by eliminating fusion energy research because it hasn’t

panned out.

82

Back to education, to my friend who was about to talk about education, one of the problems that we have found on this committee

is that sociology teachers and history teachers and English literature teachers and physical education teachers and basket weaving teachers in high school are demanding that they receive the

same pay level as mathematics teachers and science teachers. Do

you support a differential in pay that would permit schools to pay

more money in education to mathematics and science teachers?

Dr. KRAJCIK. I think we have to have high quality math and

science teachers.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you are not willing to say spend more?

There is the other thing. There are these heavy interest groups in

our society. We know the teachers unions are not going to support

somebody else getting more money because it happens to be important for our society.

Dr. KRAJCIK. Well, if it takes getting good science teachers, and

we need good science teachers, if it takes paying them more money,

then we should pay them more money.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Pay them more money than the other teachers?

Dr. KRAJCIK. The way we can attract our best graduates to go

onto science teaching?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah.

Dr. KRAJCIK. Then I would say let us give them more money.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is the only way we are going to do it and

it is——

Dr. KRAJCIK. If that is the case, then I think we should do it because we have a lot of really smart people, and we really need

them in education.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And we can sing their accolades all day long,

but the bottom line is we want more young people to get involved,

we want higher quality math and science teachers, we have got to

pay them more money, and we have got to pay more money to our

engineers and our scientists, rather than having them tied to sociologists and political scientists, whatever that word is.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, and we hope

you feel better. Now, Mr. Honda, we are glad that you joined us

today, and you are recognized.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think I share Mr.

Rohrabacher’s frustration about the constant barrage of criticism

about we need to do more in education. I don’t think that comes

when Woolsey’s question was answered. She asked what is it that

you have done, rather than telling us what you think are some of

the factors. And I am sure that Dr. Krajcik is a professor of education and he has spoken about the kinds of things that need to

be done in the area of teacher preparation and curricula and those

kinds of things. And if you are suggesting there are over 200 programs that could be cut that is in education, I would like to know

how diverse those programs are before they are consolidated or cut

because the last eight years, my friend, you know that education

and everything else has been cut, including ATP and other things

that require innovated people to be funded to—along.

So I think the idea of participating and following through with

some of the ideas you do have about how to improve education

83

would be of great help, but being a teacher myself, I want to take

this moment, Mr. Chairman, if I could and I will just tell you that

all those programs and all the subject matters are important for

the development of a good citizen and for development of a society

that can reach its highest point. Music, performing arts, they are

all embedded with science, and like nano, you know, once we understand nano, we understand that everything that functions in

this world is at a nanoscale, it is just that we are just getting

there. You can’t take nano away from technology and expect that

things are going to be the same. We suspect that with nano, you

know, messing around in that whole area, would push Moore’s Law

another 150 years old and probably more.

And so I don’t disagree that we should be putting money into

basic research. I don’t disagree that we should be putting money

from the feds to partner with industry and—research to get beyond

the gap or the value of this so they can get to commercialization.

But I think that terminology or rhetoric that is so broad without

detail rings hollow to me, and I appreciate this dialogue. I think

the dialogue is needed to be said, and when we concern about ourselves with other countries and say they are doing better than we

are, I think we better be prepared to have the details there because, you know, when people say China has 300,000 engineers,

you better be prepared to say, of those how many are the kinds of

engineers and technologists that we have that think new things

rather than—be it civil engineers or other kinds of engineers that

they need for their own development of their infrastructure in their

own country.

So I think that if you can be precise, then our terminology needs

to be precise, so we can solve the kinds of problems we face as a

country together and then move forward without the fear of fear

and invest in our own children in the proper way. And that challenge will have to go right down to how we plan our cities, how we

look at the issue of equity because the way we do things with education is not equity, it is parity. Unless we are willing to change

our whole assessment of what a neighborhood is, what a school is,

and how we fund our children, then we are not prepared to move

forward in education. And just like nanotechnology, it is an eyeopener. Things change when we get to that point. And I appreciate

your work, all of your work, in the area of nano because I will have

a better fishing pole as a result.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me wax on.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Honda.

Mr. MURDOCK. If I could make just one quick comment? In terms

of what we are doing, the nanotech companies are relatively small

in the grand scheme of things, but we are starting the process of

addressing this education. Several member companies that are in

the instrumentation business have done R&D to create lower cost

machinery so that we can get something that is viable to get into

the community colleges and the classrooms so that people can have

those hands-on learning experiences, one. Two, the Alliance itself

is working with companies to try to set up an internship program

in some of these pioneering nanotech companies so that folks can

experience firsthand some of the transformational work that is taking place to lead that inspiration. It is not going to solve things,

84

and it is not going to do it overnight by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a start and you got to start somewhere.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Honda, let me just—I shouldn’t have to

remind everyone but I will once again that last year this committee

passed out on a bipartisan basis, the President signed last August

the America COMPETES Act. The America COMPETES Act does

a variety of things. It doubles our investment over a seven-year period in the National Science Foundation, in NIST, in the Office of

Science within the Department of Energy. It also goes to the issue

of our students in the math and science area, recognizing that it

all starts with the teacher and that we certainly are as bright as

any other country around, but you have to have teachers that not

only know how to teach but also have a core knowledge within that

subject area.

Just very quickly, one of the things we discovered was that 63

percent of the middle school math teachers had neither a major nor

a certification to teach math. Ninety-three percent of the physical

science teachers had neither a major nor certification. So no matter

how good you might be in terms of your ability, you have to have

a core knowledge; and that is why within the National Science

Foundation, there is a program called the Noyce Scholarship Program that we scaled out that will provide scholarships for those

students that want to go into math or science and education and

agree to teach for five years. It will also bring back those good

teachers that need more course work, a stipend for them to come

in the summer. They will then be able to get their AP course, their

master’s, certification, whatever it might be. There will be scholarships for those folks that want to go into pure research. We really

don’t have to argue about this much longer. I mean, we have a

plan. When Norm Augustine brought in his group that reported

back on the Rising Above the Gathering Storm, I told him that

they didn’t bring us anything we didn’t know. They just put it in

a good package. We said we don’t need to study it anymore, we just

need to do it and that means funding it. And I have a letter here

that I think it was 225 of the major industries have signed recommending that, as I say, Mr. Ehlers in a bipartisan effort and Ms.

Biggert, who is not here now, are trying to do.

So hopefully we are going to be able to see that funding and from

that we are going to see the realization of what we have all been

talking about. Mr. Lipinski, a beneficiary of that math and science

education is here and, before we hear the bells ring, is recognized.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have stated many

times before, I have drunk the Kool Aid on nanotechnology, but I

don’t want anyone to think that because I walked in here with a

camera I was that excited in coming to take your pictures here. I

just came from the White House with seeing the Pope there, so I

just wanted to make sure I got back here as soon as I could because I wanted to—I know how important this is. I believe it is

critical that we really do have an investment on behalf of the Federal Government in nanotechnology. It is really critical for our future.

In one area that I wanted to ask about, let me throw this out

to whomever wants to pick up on this, I want to ask about

nanoelectronics. It is certainly an important field, and I am just cuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
85

rious to hear a little more about what is going on in

nanoelectronics, what research is being conducted, what are really

the key things that the research is focusing on right now.

Dr. DOERING. I guess I will take that one. Nanoelectronics research right now is really focused on how do we replace this incumbent technology that we call CMOS for short. It is just an acronym.

I won’t go into the details. But it is a technology that we have used

for over 30 years now. It is the workhorse of all electronics, big and

small, that you see throughout the world today, and we have been

miniaturizing it, or scaling it we like to say in the industry, for

these 30 years and it is reaching some pretty fundamental limits

in terms of what it costs per function, to try to make it smaller,

what its energy efficiency is, what its speed can be, how much density of storage of information you can get with it. And so the really

big, grand challenge that the industry is looking at right now in

nanoelectronics is how can we find a new component, basically a

new transistor which is the guts of CMOS that can take us to the

next level in cost and energy efficiency and just pure performance.

And so this is basically the challenge that nanoelectronics research

initiative has taken up partnering so far within NSF and NIST and

the Federal Government and with a number of states across the

country, and we are hoping that before we have a situation where

CMOS completely runs out of gas that we definitely have a new

switch that can replace today’s transistor.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Anyone else?

Mr. KVAMME. May I could comment. You specifically said electronics, but as you probably know, there are an awful lot of things

going on in photonics where photons are replacing electrons to do

certain functions, particularly in the communications sector. And

today, you know, we are able now to put 80 simultaneous TV channels under a single fiber. That is largely due to what is happening

from the standpoint of the constant miniaturization of what is

going on in the photonics world as well, so that is another example.

Sean mentioned, and I am familiar with a company that is using

nanomaterials from the standpoint of depositing solar cells, so they

lower the cost dramatically. Again, not electronics, that is material

science, but it is still nano and it is going to affect electronics, because it creates electrons in that particular case. So there are two

other examples, photonics and energy——

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I am going to jump in there. You mentioned

about solar. What else is going on in terms of nano research and

development in regard to energy? What kind of projects are going

on right now?

Mr. MURDOCK. I think there is tremendous activity and yet opportunity for more with respect to nanotechnology and energy. I

think there is clear recognition now of the immense potential impact of using nanomaterials for solar energy to absorb more of the

energy spectrum and to use different processes. The way we make

most conventional solar cells right now is a lot like the way a Pentium chip is made, you know, polycrystalline silicon and an expensive fab, et cetera. The new approaches are using nanomaterials

and doing them in more roll-to-roll processes which is more analogous to the way a newspaper is printed. So that is one big area.

Another is in battery technologies. There is a lot of work with imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
86

proving lithium batteries, charge rates, and that but not just that.

Fireflights, an Illinois company, has figured out how to essentially

get the lead out of lead acid batteries and give new life to that

technology which then becomes an important part of an integrated

solar energy system. Fuel cells, I think if you look down almost

every aspect of energy, the frontier of what is being explored,

nanoscience will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of those

technologies.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, for blessing this

hearing and now we will yield five minutes to Ms. Richardson.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually I am kind

of proud to be here because I am from the home state of California,

and in California, the California Nanosystems Institute was founded back in 2002; and two UC campuses who have been very engaged in that process was both UCLA and UC–Santa Barbara

which I attended both of them. So this subject matter is of great

interest to me as well.

I just wanted to ask one quick question, and I think it is to Dr.

Maynard’s office and some of the work that you have done. What

can we learn from the European Union’s approach to

nanotechnology risk research?

Dr. MAYNARD. I don’t think anybody has really got this fixed yet,

but if you look at what Europe is doing, they are taking a formal

strategic and systematic approach to risk-based research. So they

are currently in their seventh framework research program where

they are investing a lot of research across the board in

nanotechnology. But they have specifically focused a number of

very targeted research programs asking very specific questions,

like what is the toxicity of certain nanomaterials, how do you

measure exposure to nanomaterials, and half-a-dozen other

projects. What they are doing is they are starting out by asking

what do we need to know if we are going to make this technology

succeed, and then they are asking groups of researchers to address

those very specific questions. And they are putting a lot of money

into it as well. But they are also doing something else which really

isn’t occurring in the States, and that is they are partnering between government and industry. And so every European research

project that comes out also has its industrial partners, and that

means not only are you leveraging money from within government

and industry but you are also using the expertise that you have

within those industrial partners who are developing the applications and the technologies which we hopefully are going to see

being used. So that is a big difference there. And of course, I show

even back as far as 2006, if you look at research which is primarily

focused on understanding risks of these very, very specific questions, they are actually investing or were investing more in Europe

than we were in the United States.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. And before we

close, let me also give my thanks to Ranking Member Hall for

being a part of the bipartisan group that is signing the letter to the

appropriators and the President asking for additional funding and

supplemental for our math and science education and for the COMPETES bill. Let me also say that I think this is a good work, alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
87

though this is a work in process, that we have a good draft here.

We welcome the good advice we have, we want to get additional advice, we want to get the best bipartisan bill that we can put together on this very important subject. And so I thank our witnesses

for being a part of that today. We will leave the record open for

additional Members that have questions, and with that, the witnesses are excused and the meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(89)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

90

1See http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/PCAST¥NNAP¥NNI¥Assessment¥2008.pdf

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by E. Floyd Kvamme, Co-Chair, President’s Council of Advisors on Science

and Technology

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. Is the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) satisfied that the NNI is adequately coordinating environmental, health and safety

research internationally so as to avoid unnecessary overlap and to gain maximum benefit from the overall international research investment?

A1. Yes. As noted in PCAST’s second review of the NNI: ‘‘The [National

Nanotechnology Advisory Panel] NNAP has paid particular attention to EHS funding and current research efforts in this review. The panel finds that from a scientific

point of view, while there is still plenty to learn, the research being funded is leading to an ever-increasing body of knowledge about EHS issues. Budgetary support

for EHS has been growing at a rate well above that of the entire NNI program and,

as such, the panel believes it is of the right order of magnitude to continue building

knowledge of EHS issues as knowledge of the science increases. The panel does note

that if expenditures of other countries in the global economy were as significant in

the EHS field as those in the United States, and with ongoing, appropriately multinational communication efforts, the entire field would benefit greatly.’’ 1

The NNI maintains a leading role in coordinating EHS activities internationally,

particularly within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD) and the International Standardization Organization (ISO). The U.S. (EPA)

chairs the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN), which

is the body that is leading efforts to share EHS information and coordinate the collaborative development of information that is needed by governments and industries

worldwide. The WPMN also interfaces with the broader strategic policy coordination

under the Working Party on Nanotechnology, which is also chaired by the U.S. (Department of State). Also, Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology

Coordinating Office (NNCO), chairs the U.S. ANSI-accredited Technical Advisory

Group and heads the U.S. delegation to the ISO technical committee on

nanotechnologies, which is working to develop standards for instrumentation, reference materials, test methods, and EHS practices. ISO standards often are adopted

widely. PCAST endorses the NNI’s continued participation and leadership in these

activities, which it called for in its first report as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP).

Q2. The NNTI Advisory Panel in its recent assessment of the program encourages

investment in infrastructure and instrumentation under the NNI.

• Does the Advisory Panel believe the current allocation of resources is adequate

to maintain the existing facilities and provide for upgrades as needed to keep

them at the leading edge of technology?

• Did the Advisory Panel assess whether the capabilities of the current facilities

are meeting the needs of the research community in terms of accessibility and

capabilities of the available instrumentation and equipment?

A2. The NNAP assessment of the NNI is conducted at a high-level in terms of the

performance of the NNI program as a whole. The panel believes that resource allocation for facility maintenance and accessibility is generally adequate and appropriate and needs to be sustained. As noted in the report, the infrastructure and instrumentation developed through the NNI is a preeminent feature of U.S. leadership in nanotechnology and constitutes a lasting legacy of the initiative. As instrumentation and methodologies for nanotechnology research continue to be developed,

this structure of centers, networks, and user facilities serves to incorporate the state

of the science and make it available to the maximum number of researchers in academia and industry, primarily for pre-competitive, non-proprietary research but also

with an eye towards technology transfer and commercialization, as appropriate. For

example, in the DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers, user access is allocated

via merit-based peer review of proposals from qualified researchers. Use of the facilities and staff assistance are provided to users free of charge, provided that the

results of the research are published in the open literature. Proprietary research of

merit can also be conducted at an NSRC on a full cost recovery basis. Beyond the

user facilities, most NNI-funded research centers are open to collaboration with inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
91

dustry, and in some cases industry participation is a requirement for successful proposals (for example, NSF and NCI centers).

To date much of the investment of the NNI has been to build and resource the

research facilities that now make up the 81 centers, networks, and user facilities

that constitute the backbone of the NNI. In the coming years, NNI funding will shift

from building to maintenance and increased support of the research these facilities

were designed to carry out. Current budget levels should be adequate to support

this next phase of the program.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does the draft before

us preserve the elements that led to these successes? What parts of the NNI have

failed? Are there elements the Committee should consider terminating?

A1. The recent PCAST report on the NNI lists examples and case studies in a variety of areas of the progress towards real-world applications resulting from the NNI.

But the overarching success of the NNI has been the leadership and competitive

edge that it has afforded the U.S. in the development and expansion of this novel

area of technology development. Given the fact that spending in nanotechnology in

Europe and Asia are approximately the same as U.S. spending, it is a credit to the

NNI that America is still considered the leader across the many areas

nanotechnology impacts. Thus, given the significant implications that

nanotechnology development holds for nearly every industry, the additional attention and support that the NNI has brought to bear has been and remains critical

for the U.S. to lead the world in capitalizing on the economic and societal benefits.

I believe the draft reauthorization presents an opportunity to support the NNI by

maintaining the high-profile of nanotechnology and stressing the importance of ongoing interagency, cross-sector and international coordination. However, the current

draft does appear to add unnecessary administrative burdens tending towards

micro-management and that could have the unintended effect of inhibiting rather

than strengthening coordination among the agencies. While there have been no systemic failures in the NNI to date, I am concerned that the onerous reporting requirements for example with nanomanufacturing and nanotechnology EHS research

projects will be counterproductive and could lead to less effective collaboration. No

other area of federal R&D receives such detailed scrutiny as is being proposed, and

frankly the benefit of such granularity versus the cost is not clear to me. Funding

that would be necessary to carry out these reporting functions could better be spent

increasing public communication and education about nanotechnology as proposed

in our report.

Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive Congress as

picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of national importance

in the legislation?

A2. I don’t feel this is a necessary addition to the legislation. The NNI previously

organized its investments around ‘‘grand challenges’’ that included some of the proposed areas of ‘‘national importance.’’ Programmatically, however, the organization

of the NNI around Program Component Areas has been far more effective for managing and coordinating the program. Calling out particular areas of focus as ‘‘winners’’ by definition lowers the priority of other areas of equal (if perhaps less urgent)

importance, such as fundamental basic research, which is absolutely critical to the

ongoing success of our system of innovation. Furthermore adding such crosscuts

over and above the PCAs may compromise the purpose of that structure for managing and coordinating the NNI.

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the benefits of

nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their products, for fear of

public backlash. I understand their concerns, as I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough

to enhance public awareness and education in the held of nanotechnology? Is additional international cooperation needed to assist the United States in educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what other countries are

doing to inform and educate their people?

A1. Yes. Strengthening our public outreach and communication efforts is essential

to avoid the drawbacks of hyping both anticipated benefits and feared risks by

92

grounding the public dialogue in actual science and fact. As noted in our report,

PCAST remains concerned that the economic and societal benefits of nanotechnology

are being overlooked or minimized by the emphasis on uncertainties and speculation

that is unconstrained by actual, realistic exposure and hazard assessment.

I’m not positioned to speak in anything other than broad terms with respect to

the outreach and public engagement efforts of other countries on nanotechnology,

but it certainly will serve our efforts for the NNI to continue engaging with other

countries, as it has with the Working Party on Nanotechnology of the OECD, in

international workshops and programs aimed at improving communication and

broad stakeholder engagement by exchanging best practices and evaluating various

policies in societal context.

Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that is certainly

important, and I am curious to hear a little more about its current status. Could

you give me a better sense of the work being conducted in this specific area, and

what has resulted thus far from this research? Approximately how much funding is currently devoted to nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for

what is needed to tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed

to smooth the transfer of the research into commercial products?

A2. The industrial sector has historically taken the lead in collaborative, pre-competitive work on developing the fundamental technologies that are fundamental to

electronics, including circuit component and chip design that looks beyond the current state-of-the-art. NNI continues to facilitate this work through its industrial liaison working group which is working with the semiconductor industry and through

funding of collaborative, cross-sector programs like the model Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI; nri.src.org). NSF and NIST have formed public-private partnerships with the NRI to support ground-breaking nanoelectronics R&D. Both agencies and the industry members of the NRI each provide funding to support research

towards that target, conducted through university-based centers.

The NNI tracks annual funding by Program Component Area rather than application area, but a rough estimate by the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office

of funding for nanoelectronics (including nanomagnetics and nanophotonics for processing, storage, and/or communications devices, which are difficult to separate out)

across the NNI is approximately $100 million. PCAST did not formally assess the

adequacy of funding for particular application areas within the NNI, but its broader

assessment of technology transfer and commercialization through the NNI was positive, noting that the NNI plays a key role in surmounting the barriers to

nanotechnology innovation and commercial application by supporting both basic and

targeted research, developing and maintaining critical infrastructure, and training

researchers with interdisciplinary capabilities to capture the revolutionary potential

of nanotechnology.

93

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. Is there a need to expand the availability of nanotechnology user facilities that

would be relevant to industry’s needs? If so, would the NSF Industry-University

Research Centers model be a viable mechanism for expanding the number and

diversity of nanotechnology user facilities? Under such a model, federal funding

would support the initial start-up costs, administration, and staffing needs of

the user facility, while industry would provide the bulk of funding through user

fees for use of the facilities.

A1. There is a need to expand the availability of nanotechnology user facilities that

are relevant to industry’s needs, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 will help address that need. The NSF Industry-University Research Centers model is a viable mechanism, provided that nanotechnology companies are made aware of its availability and that administrative requirements (and

IP policies) are not onerous for companies seeking to participate. Furthermore, it is

critical that the user fees are based upon the marginal cost of provisioning services

(plus a markup) so that general university (as opposed to true facility) overheads

are not built into the user fees. Otherwise, overhead costs often become significant

and create a disincentive for industry use.

Q2. To what extent are nanotechnology businesses engaged in educational outreach

activities with high school students or post-secondary students? Do your companies sponsor activities at informal science institutions?

A2. Nanotechnology businesses are in many cases engaged in educational outreach

activities with high school and post-secondary students. Although most

nanotechnology businesses are small businesses that lack the resources to support

substantial programs, a number of companies have established internships for high

school or college students. The NanoBusiness Alliance itself has an internship program that places talented students with leading nanotechnology companies. In addition, nanotechnology tools manufacturers are designing relatively inexpensive, userfriendly tools for classroom use.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does the draft before

us preserve the elements that led to these successes? What parts of the NNI have

failed? Are there elements the Committee should consider terminating?

A1. The NNI has been extraordinarily successful over the past five years in accomplishing its central task of coordinating and accelerating federal nanotechnology research and development. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act

of 2008 preserves the elements of the NNI’s structure that led to those successes.

The NNI has been less successful at the admittedly difficult task of setting and environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research agenda, and the bill takes steps to

address that issue. The Alliance does not recommend terminating any portion of the

NNI at this point.

Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive Congress as

picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of national importance

in the legislation?

A2. The Alliance believes it is important that the Federal Government not pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Foreign countries are focusing their investments

and supporting companies directly to help establish nanotechnology and to compete

with the United States. The Alliance argued for the inclusion of support for

translational nanotechnology research in areas on national importance to level the

playing field, but has recommended keeping these areas broad so as to avoid picking

winners and losers. Furthermore, funding in these areas of national importance will

take place on a competitive basis, so the actual winners and losers will depend upon

market competitiveness.

94

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. Sean, you mentioned in your testimony that we should focus our efforts on goaloriented research in areas of national importance. It seems to me that the Nation’s Centers on Nanotechnology are critical to solving the grand challenges of

our time, such as those we face on the environment and energy. Can you give

us some examples of the products that have resulted from the research being conducted at these Centers? And in what other areas do you suggest we focus our

efforts?

A1. There are important products beginning to emerge from these centers. A case

study that may be of particular interest to Congressman Lipinski because of its

proximity to his district is Northwestern University’s Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC). Nanosphere, which is based in Northbrook, Illinois has recently received approval for a molecular diagnostic test for susceptibility to warfarin, a blood thinner used for stroke victims in emergency room situations. Because

the test will provide information on genetic susceptibility in real time, it will save

lives. NanoInk is commercializing NanoEncryptionΤΜ Technology based upon dip

pen nanolithography developed by Chad Mirkin at Northwestern. The technology

makes it possible to secure the Nation’s pharmaceutical drug supply by encoding a

nanoscale mark on each pill that is manufactured, which technology will protect patient safety and reduce the opportunity for criminals and terrorists to sell counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Many more products are on the way from Northwestern’s center and others throughout the Nation. We are just beginning to see the return on

our nation’s investment in nanoscience centers of excellence.

The Alliance supports the areas of national importance listed in the bill. In general, we believe that the United States has comparative advantages in most of the

areas that make nanotechnology a benefit from an EHS perspective: cleaner energy,

better health care, improved water and air quality, and so on—as well as

nanoelectronics.

Q2. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the benefits of

nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their products, for fear of

public backlash. I understand their concerns, as I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough

to enhance public awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is

additional international cooperation needed to assist the United States in educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what other countries are

doing to inform and educate their people?

A2. The general public still does not have a solid understanding of nanotechnology,

despite the best efforts of the Alliance, its members, and countless educational institutions throughout the country. The bill takes some steps to help address this situation, which is important because the public’s lack of a clear understanding of

nanotechnology is one of the greatest risks that the nanobusiness community faces.

International cooperation is critically important, especially in the area of standards

development—but when it comes to educating the public, I believe that we need to

be educating Europe rather than asking for their help to educate us. It seems that

not a month goes by without an over-hyped scare story from Europe, or another argument for the precautionary principle in the EU. Coverage of and education about

nanotechnology in the United States is much more balanced and takes into account

the very real benefits of nanotechnology even as it speculates about risks.

Q3. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that is certainly

important, and I am curious to hear a little more about its current status. Could

you give me a better sense of the work being conducted in this specific area, and

what has resulted thus far from this research? Approximately how much funding is currently devoted to nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for

what is needed to tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed

to smooth the transfer of the research into commercial products?

A3. Nanoelectronics research provides a great example of the leverage we as a nation can get when we focus on goal oriented research. The Semiconductor Industry

Association has established a Nanoelectronics Research Initiative which has teamed

with National Science Foundation and NIST to help shape and provide industry

funding for critical beyond CMOS nanoelectronics research.

95

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Joseph S. Krajcik, Professor of Science Education; Associate Dean of

Research, University of Michigan

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does the draft before

us preserve the elements that led to these successes? What parts of the NNI have

failed? Are there elements the Committee should consider terminating?

A1. I will limit my responses to my area of expertise: science education. Two bright

areas resulted from the NNI over the past five years: The Nanoscale Informal

Science Education (NISE) Network and the National Center for Teaching and

Learning Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NCLT). (Note: I am a co-principal investigator of NCLT and this relationship needs to be taken into consideration when

reading my remarks.)

NISE, funded through the National Science Foundation, 2005, is designed to bring

the education and research communities together in an effort to inform the public

about nanoscience. In particular the NISE Network:

• creates new methods and approaches to communicate the work of nanoscale

scientists and engineers to the public;

• informs the public about the advances in the scientific research; and

• captures the imagination of youth who may choose careers in nanoscale

science and engineering.

NISE has done much to bring nanoscale science to the public and I would encourage continual funding of the effort. Through a new web site, the NISE Network Resource Center (http://www.nisenet.org), teachers and the public can access a vast

collection of educational resources and join in this creative community effort. For

teachers, students, or anyone interested in nanoscience and the many potential

nanotechnology applications, the web site’s content includes study materials, academic approaches, collections of graphics, a newsletter, links to other institutions

working in the field, and much more. To learn more about the NISE network see:

http://www.nisenet.org/project/what.html.

NCLT, funded by the National Science Foundation in 2004, was established to

build national capacity in nanoscale science and engineering education as well as

explore how to how to improve the teaching and learning of nanoscience in grades

seven through college. Housed at Northwestern University, NCLT collaborates with

scientists and educators at the following research institutions: University of Michigan, Purdue University, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign, Argonne National Laboratory, Alabama A&M University, Fisk

University, Hampton University, Morehouse College, and University of Texas at El

Paso. Through the educational research produced by NCLT researchers, important

ideas related to the teaching and learning of nanoscience are being uncovered.

Through its web portal NCLT, http://nclt.us/, offers a variety of educational resources to help teachers and science educators with nanotechnology-related concepts, simulations, and activities for the classroom that include:

• Educational materials for science teachers and students in grades 7–12, college and university students and faculty, researchers, and post-doc students,

covering information on Nano Courses & Units in engineering, physics, materials science, chemistry, and education.

• Seminars to advance education initiatives.

• Learning Research and Methods, a collection of papers, presentations and resources to promote the best teaching practices and methodologies.

• Nanoconcepts and Applications, instructional materials focusing on the key

ideas in nanoscale science and engineering.

• NSEE Resources and Calendar of Events for nanoscale science and engineering education.

• NSEE News and Network and a Glossary.

Both NISE and NCLT have done much to advance learning of nanoscience in formal and informal settings. As such, I would encourage that these aspects of The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 be preserved. As in

science, progress in education will only be made if continual support is provided for

projects and centers that focus on important national goals and that have proven

track records of collaborative partnerships that improve the teaching and learning

96

of nanoscience. As stated in my written testimony, advances in nanoscience require

a commensurate response from the educational community to prepare our youth.

The NNI also supports various national nanotechnology centers such as the Materials Research Science and Engineers Centers and the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network that have an educational outreach component within them.

Although I know more about the activities NNIN education activities that go on at

the University of Michigan, I know little about other NNIM and MRSEC education

activities. I know that the NNIN education activities bring new emerging activities

to students such as ‘‘nanocamps’’ that allow 6th–12th grade students opportunities

to explore clean rooms. Such activities have very high interest to many learners. As

such, I would encourage continual funding of these efforts. However, I would also

encourage that such centers partner with experts in science education and learning

science so that the engaging activities can be better incorporated into the structure

of the school curriculum. Building such connections between motivating activities

and classroom curriculum is critical to promote learning.

Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive Congress as

picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of national importance

in the legislation?

A2. There is no argument that STEM education in this country is in a crisis. U.S.

schools are failing to prepare students to live in a technological advanced society.

This is particularly true in our large urban districts. If we can turn this crisis

around, and we must, then we all win. Our economy will improve and perhaps more

importantly our children will have the standard of living and the quality of life that

we achieved. However, unless we can focus on improving education, our children

and their children will not have the quality of life that we find valuable. Congress

has to provide the direction of our national priorities.

I would also argue that advances in science and technology are blurring the lines

between the individual scientific disciplines that allow for advances in science and

technology. As science becomes more interdisciplinary, we can no longer rely on the

traditional ways of teaching science as a set of well-understood, clearly depicted,

stand-alone disciplines. If we do so, we are not preparing our students for the scientific enterprise they will experience in the work force. Yet, both at the K–12 level

and 13–16 level, we continue to teach in non-interdisciplinary fashion and without

stressing how important ideas cut across disciplinary boundaries.

Q3. You state in your testimony that ‘‘Unfortunately, the current education system

is failing to produce a populace scientifically literate enough to understand the

scientific advances of nanoscience.’’ Couldn’t the same be said for biology, physics, chemistry, computer science, or many other scientific disciplines? If current

science curricula concentrates on covering too much content, as you argue, and

yet you also recommend that all students need to know more about nanoscience,

then what content do you propose replacing?

A3. I agree that the U.S. educational system is failing to produce a populace that

is scientifically literate to understand the advances in all fields of science and not

just nanoscience. What we are failing to do as a Nation is help students understand

the ‘‘core’’ or ‘‘big’’ ideas of science that are essential in helping all learners understand advances across fields.

The U.S. science curriculum concentrates on covering too much content without

focusing on developing deep, meaningful understanding that learners will need to

grasp the central ideas of science and new areas or that they will need to make personal and professional decisions in their lives. Research has shown that students

lack fundamental understanding of science in such areas as the structure of matter,

forces, and properties of matter. These fundamental ideas are essential to understanding a number of areas of science.

As I tried to argue in my written testimony, a path to improve the U.S. educational system requires the development of new standards. New standards that

focus on the big ideas of science and cut across disciplines, and other knowledge essential for the 21st century need to be developed and adapted by schools. Important

ideas in nanoscience are not currently incorporated or stressed in the national

standards. Nanoscience education introduces students to emerging ideas of science

and supports understanding of the interconnections between the traditional scientific domains by providing compelling, real-world interdisciplinary examples of

science in action.

The national science education standards need renovation because there are too

many standards. We will need to make some tough choices in that all content cannot be covered. We know from successes in other countries and from research studies, that attempting to cover too many ideas lead students to develop superficial

97

knowledge that they cannot use to solve problems, make decisions, and understand

phenomena. Hence, our national science education standards need reworking, updating and consolidating.

Rather than focusing on covering too many ideas, our nation needs a long-term

developmental approach to learning science that focuses on the big ideas of science

we most care about and takes into consideration learners’ prior knowledge and how

ideas build upon each other. Big ideas provide a framework for thinking about the

long-term development of student understanding and they facilitate learners to understand a variety of different phenomena within and across science disciplines. If

we have a developmental approach starting in kindergarten through 12th grade,

learners will come away with a level of understanding that will allow them to pursue STEM careers, see the importance of science in their lives, and use science to

make decisions. If our nation takes a developmental approach to the standards that

emphasize how ideas build upon each other, it will allow curriculum designers to

develop coherent curriculum materials.

Let me provide just one short example. The atomic and kinetic theories are the

foundation for understanding the structure, properties and behavior of matter. Together, they can explain an enormous number of phenomena across a variety of disciplines. At the same time, understanding of these ideas is essential for building an

understanding about the structure, properties and behavior of matter at the

nanoscale. A development approach focusing on how these ideas build over time will

allow students to build the rich understanding that is needed to understand the

science of today and tomorrow and will facilitate the interdisciplinary connections

that students need to understand nanoscience and other emerging science (Stevens,

Sutherland, Shank & Krajcik, 2008). I encourage the Committee to read Steven,

Sutherland, Shank and Krajcik for more in-depth ideas in this area. I also encourage the Committee to read Taking Science to School, by Duschl, Schweinger, and

Shouse (2007).

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the benefits of

nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their products, for fear of

public backlash. I understand their concerns, as I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough

to enhance public awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is

additional international cooperation needed to assist the United States in educating our citizens? Can you give some examples of what other countries are

doing to inform and educate their people?

A1. An informed citizenship is critical in a democratic society. I am appalled by the

notion that information is being kept from the public because of fear of public backlash. To be a free, democratic and competitive country, our goal, as a nation, must

be to provide a solid education for ALL so that information is freely available to the

public and that they requisite skills to interpret and apply the information to their

lives. Given that nanoscience impacts virtually every sector of our economy and our

daily lives by enabling promising new materials and applications across many fields,

I would argue that the legislation does not go far enough to enhance public awareness and education in the field nanotechnology.

There are some bright spots in nanoeducation in this country. Two of them I have

discussed above—the NISE Network and the NCLT. NISE focuses primarily on informal education and NCLT on formal education. Information regarding NISE is

available at http://www.nisenet.org and for NCLT at http://www.nclt.us/. That

said, I believe the U.S. formal and informal education systems could learn through

international cooperation with other countries that are working to inform the public

regarding nanoscience. The NCLT web site has information on what other countries

are doing.

Below I will summarize some of the information about what other countries are

doing. See http://www.nclt.us/nclthome/major¥nano¥initiatives.html for further

information.

a. Taiwan is an international leader in nanotechnology education, with formal

and informal education initiatives for all levels and an especially strong K–

12 program. The National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C., established a

nanotechnology program for K–12 teachers in order to provide educational

opportunities on the cutting edge of advanced technology.

b. NanoForum, established with funding from the European Commission,

serves as the ‘‘European Nanotechnology Gateway,’’ providing articles,

98

events, funding information, research databases, and other services to support nanotechnology research, development, and education.

c. Nanotechnology Researchers Network Center of Japan (NanoNet), launched

in 2007, introduces various information on top nanotechnology through its

web site and an e-mail newsletter. The web site has a major section that is

tailored to children and includes games that can help children learn about

nanoscience.

Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that is certainly

important and I am curious to hear a little more about its current status. Could

you give me a better sense of the work being conducted in this specific area, and

what has resulted this far from this research? Approximately how much funding

is currently devoted to nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for what

is needed to tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed to

smooth the transfer of the research into commercial products?

A2. This is not my area of research, so I do not feel qualified to respond.

References:

Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school:

Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Stevens, S. Sutherland, L., Shank, P., Krajcik, J. (2008). Big Ideas in NanoScience.

http://www.hice.org/projects/nano/index.html.

99

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Andrew D. Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging

Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does the draft before

us preserve the elements that led to these successes? What parts of the NNI have

failed? Are there elements the Committee should consider terminating?

A1. Over the past five years, the NNI has stimulated innovative research enabling

the United States to lead the world in nanotech research and development. It is a

testament to this success that other countries are emulating the U.S. model. The

NNI has also effectively fostered a high degree of coordination across a large number of agencies and departments, resulting in multi-disciplinary research that is essential for supporting and sustaining successful nanotechnologies.

In my opinion, it is clear that the NNI has led to greater cross-government coordination for science and technology than with any previous initiative, and for this, its

instigators, supporters and implementers should be congratulated. But this does not

mean that there is cause for complacency. While the achievements of the NNI are

apparent, there are areas that are in desperate need of improvement:

• The lack of a robust environmental, health and safety (EHS) research strategy

has led to insufficient funding and leadership to effectively study and combatpossible EHS issues associated with nanotechnologies. From my assessment of

what is needed to underpin the long-term success of emerging

nanotechnologies and provide industry with the confidence to invest in this

area, a minimum 10 percent of the NNI budget should be directed towards

EHS research. But this funding must be directed within a top-down strategy

with clearly defined goals, and a plan for achieving them. At an absolute minimum, steps are needed to ensure sufficient funds are available to regulatory

and research agencies in support of strategic activities constituting the Environmental, Health, and Safety program component area, or any successor program component area.

• Full and transparent stakeholder involvement in the NNI is lacking. This is

most apparent in the development of the EHS R&D strategy. While there are

some interactions between the NNI and stakeholders representing industry,

labor, academia, citizens and the international community, more is needed to

ensure that government-funded research and development remains relevant.

For instance, the recent NNI EHS R&D strategy involved limited stakeholder

input at the review stage, but not as it was being developed. Had a wider

community been engaged at an earlier stage, it is likely that the strategy

would be more focused on addressing real priority needs, rather than justifying past actions.

• The NNI has struggled to support the translation of research into viable commercial products. In many ways, this is understandable, as the initial phase

of the NNI was focused on expanding the nanotechnology knowledge base

through research. But as nanotechnology commercialization becomes an increasingly pressing challenge, a change of emphasis and mode of action is

needed.

• The NNI has failed to educate and engage citizens effectively. This is critical

on three counts: First, as new nanotechnology-based products enter the market in increasing numbers, consumers need the ability and information to

make informed decisions on these products. Second, the future of

nanotechnology will depend on people in all walks of life being enthused and

inspired by the technology and what it can do—leading to the next generation

of nano-scientists and nano-engineers. And thirdly, I believe successful

science and technology in the twenty first century—including

nanotechnology—will depend on all citizens having an opportunity to contribute to the direction and use of future research. This will require education

(both formal and informal) to help people assess the value and challenges of

new science and technology, and mechanisms for giving people a voice as new

science directions are explored and new technologies are developed. According

to public research polls conducted by the Project on Emerging

100

1 Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies

(2007), Peter D. Hart Research Associates for The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/5888/hart¥presentation¥2007analysis.pdf 2Kahan, D., Slovic, P. Braman, D., Gastil, J., Cohen, G. 2007. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values. Conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale

Law School for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Available at: http://

www.nanotechproject.org/mint/pepper/tillkruess/downloads/tracker.php?uri=http%3A//

www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2710/

164¥nanotechriskperceptions¥dankahan.pdf. Also see: Awareness of and Attitudes Toward

Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies (2007), Peter D. Hart Research Associates for

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Available at: www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/5888/hart¥presentation¥2007analysis.pdf

Nanotechnologies (PEN),1 the public still knows very little about

nanotechnology.

Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive Congress as

picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of national importance

in the legislation?

A2. Addressing major challenges facing society needs leadership from the top.

Nanotechnology is an enabling technology and will provide the tools to solve many

of society’s pressing problems—including global climate change, pollution and disease. When resources are limited, strategic direction from the top is essential to ensure progress is made towards safe and successful technological solutions. This is

not choosing winners and losers; but rather foreseeing innovations and technologies

that the United States can lead the world in. Without Congress leading the way,

we risk jeopardizing nanotechnology innovation in the U.S. and lessening the chance

of nanotechnology R&D stimulating the economy, creating jobs, solving major environmental challenges and improving quality of life. Other economies around the

world are unlikely to hold back on strategic R&D leadership where there are clear

social and economic advantages, and for the U.S. to do so would place the country

at a disadvantage.

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the benefits of

nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their products, for fear of

public backlash. I understand their concerns, as I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough

to enhance public awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is

additional international cooperation needed to assist the United States in educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what countries are doing

to inform and educate their people?

A1. There is currently not enough being done to inform and educate members of

the public on how nanotechnology will impact their lives, or to engage them in how

future technologies are developed and used. And while the draft National

Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of 2008 addresses K though 12 and college education, it is lacking when it comes to supporting broader educational issues.

Formal education in terms of training future scientists is getting better and will improve further through various Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

Education initiatives. But empowering everyday people to make informed decisions

about the technologies that affect their lives is critically lacking.

Transparency is vital to the success of nanotechnology; not only regarding government investment, actions and plans, but also in providing people with information

on how nanotechnology is being used in products and processes that affect their

daily lives. Opinion polls—including those conducted by the Project on Emerging

Nanotechnologies2—show that people want to be informed, and a perception of being

kept in the dark seriously undermines confidence in new technologies and their promoters.

Yet to be useful, transparency must be linked to an ability to understand and use

information effectively. And this places a bright spotlight on education—especially

informal education, which takes place outside the classroom.

Effective nanotechnology education means meeting people where they are at—

whether through popular culture, the media or museums and exhibits. Government

and industry need to invest much more in informal education if an awareness and

understanding of nanotechnology is to diffuse through society. And this needs to be

an investment in education, rather than academic studies of how to educate.

101

3 EU Policy for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. 2004. European Commission. http://

ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/eu¥nano¥policy¥2004-07.pdf

But beyond education comes engagement—you cannot give people the tools to understand new technologies, but then deny them a voice in the decision-making process. Effective engagement efforts are currently lacking in the NNI, and in the draft

bill.

In contrast to the U.S., the European Union has clear goals for educating and engaging citizens. In its policy for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies,3 the European

Union recognizes ‘‘the need to devote due attention to the societal aspects of

nanotechnology’’ and sets forth the following:

a. calls upon the Member States to pursue an open and proactive approach to

governance in nanotechnology R&D to ensure public awareness and confidence;

b. encourages a dialogue with EU citizens/consumers to promote informed judgment on nanotechnology R&D based on impartial information and the exchange of ideas;

c. reaffirms its commitment to ethical principals in order to ensure that R&D

in nanotechnology is carried out in a responsible and transparent manner.

Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that is certainly

important, and I am curious to hear a little more about its current status. Could

you give me a better sense of the work being conducted in this specific area, and

what has resulted thus far from this research? Approximately how much funding is currently devoted to nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for

what is needed to tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed

to smooth the transfer of the research into commercial products?

A2. This is not my primary area of expertise, and I would defer to my fellow panel

member, Dr. Robert Doering, for a detailed answer to the question. But I would like

to make a couple of observations:

Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor technology—commonly referred to as

CMOS—is the foundation of modern electronics. Yet while the processing power of

semiconductor chips continues to double almost every two years, it will soon hit a

brick wall—the point where physical laws prevent conventional CMOS-based electronics getting any smaller or faster. Nanotechnology is a key technology for overcoming this barrier; enabling existing technologies to be used in innovative ways;

generating new electronics technologies to replace CMOS, and even discovering alternatives to using electrons—such as photons, in the area of photonics.

The timescale between innovation and implementation is long in the electronics

business however, and it is the research of today that will provide technological solutions of the next decade. As a result, there is an urgent need for extensive research now into new nanotechnology-based ‘‘electronics’’ or ‘‘nanoelectronics’’ if we

want to continue the current trend of faster, smaller, more efficient processors. Industry is acutely aware of this challenge, and is investing considerable resources in

supporting innovative research. But support from government is also needed, if

America is to remain at the forefront of the nanoelectronics revolution.

Question submitted by Representative Adrian Smith

Q1. At the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), researchers are studying

nanomedicine, which merges engineering science with pharmaceutical and medical sciences, to translate advances in nanotechnology research into clinical practice. UNMC researchers have been recognized nationally and internationally for

developing tiny particles, called nanomaterials, which are put in the body to deliver drugs precisely to diseased cells, to treat conditions such as cancer, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, and others. This unique nanotechnology delivers

drugs directly to diseased areas or tumors, which maximizes clinical benefits,

while limiting negative side effects. The use of nanoscale technologies to design

drug delivery systems is a rapidly developing area of biomedical research that

promises breakthrough advances in therapeutics and diagnostics. It is clear

from the medical research in Nebraska that the development of medical

nanotechnology is moving quickly toward human clinical trials. At the October

hearing on this subject, according to the briefing document, ‘‘there were concern

that the interagency planning for and implementation of the environment, health

and safety research component of NNI was not moving with the urgency it deserved.’’ Development of nanotechnology is breakthrough technology with the

102

ability to profoundly improve the treatment and cure of disease. This legislation

intends to strengthen the planning and implementation of the environment,

health and safety component and increase the emphasis on commercialization of

nanotechnology research results. To accomplish that, guidelines will be necessary. What progress is being made to establish safety guidelines for the use

of nanotechnology to deliver medication when it is ready for the marketplace and

adopted as standard of care by health care professionals?

A1. New nanotechnology-enabled drugs push the boundaries of our understanding

and abilities. They penetrate to places in the body and interact with cells and tissues in new ways, because of their nanoscale size and structure. They can be designed to carry out many functions; detecting and diagnosing disease, as well as

treating it. And they often blur the boundaries between distinct regulatory classes

of products. These characteristics offer the promise of innovative new medical treatments. But they also raise new concerns over possible health implications.

Some progress is being made to address the challenge of developing safe and beneficial nanotechnology-based drugs. For instance, the FDA, in partnership with National Cancer Institute and the National Institute for Standards and Technology,

has set up the Nanoparticle Characterization Laboratory to help evaluate the safety

of developmental nano-drugs. But the pace of development and the increasingly sophisticated nature of these medications are stretching the ability of researchers and

regulators to apply conventional understanding to these unconventional products.

The United States cannot afford to not develop drugs enhanced with

nanotechnology. They promise to be more effective treatments with fewer side effects; and have the ability to treat previously untreatable diseases. But if we lose

focus and don’t get the environment, health and safety aspects of these products of

nanotechnology right, those benefits will be lost. This is why adequate funding,

along with strong leadership and a robust risk research strategy, are essential to

ensuring nanotech-enabled drugs don’t lead to unanticipated harm. This is a small

price to pay in order to reap the enormous benefits nanotechnology could provide.

103

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology for Industrial Chemicals,

BASF Corporation

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. Is there a need to expand the availability of nanotechnology user facilities that

would be relevant to industry’s needs? If so, would the NNI Industry-University

Research Centers model be a viable mechanism for expanding the number and

diversity of nanotechnology user facilities? Under such a model, federal funding

would support the initial start-up costs, administration, and staffing needs of

the user facility, while industry would provide the bulk of funding through user

fees for use of the facilities.

A1. The Panel believes that there may be a lack of awareness of user facilities

available to the nanotechnology community, which may lead to their under-utilization by industry. Furthermore, some of the centers have very focused missions,

which do not allow for projects outside of their scope. For example, the

Nanomaterials Characterization Laboratory focuses on medical applications of

nanomaterials and the laboratory will not accept a project outside of that scope. A

partnership approach similar to the NSF Industry-University Research Centers may

be a more viable model, and would certainly be more flexible. It would also allow

SME nanotechnology companies to obtain the services they need without the extensive capital investment needed for instrumentation.

Q2. To what extent are nanotechnology businesses engaged in educational outreach

activities with high school students or post-secondary students? Do your companies sponsor activities at informal science institutions?

A2. Panel members experience indicates that outreach programs are most successful through large associations or scientific societies. For example, the Society of

Toxicology has an outreach program to elementary and secondary schools called

‘‘Paracelsus goes to school.’’ It is well organized and successful in educating students

about toxicology, dose-response, and specific hazards to avoid. The NNI could establish a similarly structured program. The companies of the ACC Nanotechnology

Panel also sponsor informational events for targeted audiences, maintain a web

page that provides information to the public, and engage in extensive outreach to

various constituencies to provide information pertinent to the safe and responsible

development of nanotechnology. Panel member companies would welcome the opportunity to provide input and experts for informal scientific sessions with students of

all ages.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. It is our understanding that responsible manufacturers and users of

nanomaterials, including presumably some ACC members, are generating information about their properties that could be relevant to understanding their biological and environmental behavior. How can that information be shared so that

risk assessment and risk management in general can be improved and so that

developers can design more benign materials and avoid pitfalls?

A1. Scientists from industry, academia, and government research facilities are engaged in developing data on the hazards of nanomaterials, and the physical/chemical properties that are associated with those hazards. Once these data are published in scientific journals, there are several public databases that capture and

catalogue the information for others to use in assessing the risks of exposure. Unfortunately, the Nanotechnology Panel believes that some of the published data fail to

accurately characterize the properties of the particles tested. International efforts

within the OECD, ISO and private efforts to heighten awareness for the need for

accurate characterization will help sort these issues out. In addition, EPA’s

Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) is designed to collect information for EPA’s use to develop risk assessment and management profiles. Additional

information will facilitate EPA’s ability to characterize nanoscale materials accurately. The Panel members will be participating in this program.

Q2. What are the successes of the NNl over the past five years? Does the draft before

us preserve the elements that led to these successes? What parts of the NNI have

failed? Are there elements the Committee should consider terminating?

104

A2. A key NNI success has been providing a mechanism for information exchange

between government agencies regarding nanotechnology. It appears that the enthusiasm for this is high as indicated by the broad participation of agencies. Participating agencies include those conducting research as well as regulatory bodies showing an awareness of the linkage between these normally separate approaches. The

main function of the NNI is to promote the development of nanotechnology and this

appears to have been a great success. A perceived weakness, however, has been an

incommensurate level of commitment of NNI agency resources to issues regarding

society and safety. Many view government agencies as an ‘‘honest broker’’ thus they

have a unique role and contribution to make to help ensure that nanotechnology undergoes responsible development. A commitment of the NNI for a significant increase in member agency funding over present levels to address EHS issues will

greatly contribute to its future success. A target of 8–15 percent of overall NNI

spending should be considered to fund EHS activities and is consistent with Goal

4 of the NNI Strategic Plan.

Q3. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive Congress as

picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of national importance

in the legislation?

A3. Neither Congress nor the NNl agencies should be viewed as picking winners or

losers. The breadth of activities and interests of the member agencies are sufficient

to encompass many of the activities for which funding will be sought. However, it

is appropriate for Congress to identify and focus attention on areas that it believes

will have particularly beneficial impacts.

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the benefits of

nanotechnology choose not to advertise this fact in their products, for fear of

public backlash. I understand their concerns, as I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough

to enhance public awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is

additional international cooperation needed to assist the United States in educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what other countries are

doing to inform and educate their people?

A1. The NNI amendments do not specifically address education of the general public. This could be addressed in any number of ways not the least of which are targeted informational programs through the Public Broadcasting Service, Public Service Announcements, or other media. The NNI amendments do provide for the education of secondary teachers and students, which in turn will lead to better educating the general public. The concern expressed in the question may be a symptom

of an overall lack of public understanding about the many positive contributions to

society and safety made through the use of science and engineering. The Act does

provide for funding to be available for projects in subcategories of education in formal (e.g., schools, colleges, universities) and informal settings (e.g., museums and

exhibits) as well as for public outreach and societal issues. The Department of Education is a new NNI agency and this could be an area where DOEd can make strong

contributions to the success of the NNI since education is its primary mission. In

addition, the NNI amendments could include scholarship funding for graduate level

courses to further train scientists in the various disciplines associated with

nanotechnology.

Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that is certainly

important, and I am curious to hear a little more about its current status. Could

you give me a better sense of the work being conducted in this specific area, and

what has resulted thus far from this research? Approximately how much funding is devoted to nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for what is needed to tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed to smooth the

transfer of the research into commercial products?

A2. The chemical industry is a key supplier of materials to the electronics industry.

While the specific question is best directed to those who are in the nanoelectronics

industry we are pleased to make essential contributions to their success. SEMI represents the semiconductor producers and may be able to provide additional information.

105

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Robert R. Doering, Senior Fellow and Research Strategy Manager,

Texas Instruments

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. Is there a need to expand the availability of nanotechnology user facilities that

would be relevant to industry’s needs? If so, would the NSF Industry-University

Research Centers model be a viable mechanism for expanding the number and

diversity of nanotechnology user facilities? Under such a model, federal funding

would support the initial start-up costs, administration, and staffing needs of

the user facility, while industry would provide the bulk of funding through user

fees for use of the facilities.

A1. In terms of infrastructure, many U.S. universities and some federal labs have

excellent facilities for doing micro-electronics research, but nanoelectronics may require more specialized tools for fabricating and characterizing these structures to

move beyond the initial single device lab demonstrations. SIA estimates this will require an order of magnitude above current National Nanotechnology Infrastructure

Network (NNIN) investments, which are roughly $15M. We are pleased to see the

revised bill includes an assessment of equipment/infrastructure needs in the areas

of national importance.

The Industry-University Research Centers model may be instructive, but given

the modest investment of NSF through this program, it would not be adequate for

addressing the needs in nanoelectronics, particularly once the technology demonstration phase begins. With its investment in equipment and facilities at a range

of universities, expanding the infrastructure created by NNIN may be a more appropriate model for the semiconductor industry. The NSECs also provide an excellent

resource for industry to work collaboratively with universities, such as through the

co-funding of proposals that NSF has undertaken with the Nanoelectronics Research

Initiative (NRI).

In addition, the modeling capabilities NSF has funded through the Network for

Computational Nanotechnology (NCN, Purdue University) have been extremely

helpful for industry in experimental/test and theoretical simulations of various options under NRI. NCN is an excellent model of a university-based facility which is

easily accessible and frequently used by industry.

Q2. To what extent are nanotechnology businesses engaged in educational outreach

activities with high school students or post-secondary students? Do your companies sponsor activities at informal science institutions?

A2. At Texas Instruments, education is the highest priority for corporate philanthropy. Each year, TI makes financial contributions totaling millions of dollars in

grants and other gifts to schools, colleges and educational programs. TI supports a

number of programs focused on fostering student interest and achievement in

science, technology, engineering and math.

TI and Southern Methodist University co-developed the Infinity Project, which

uses MP3 players and cell phones to teach engineering and science concepts to high

school students in 275 schools in 37 states.

Since the early 1990s, TI engineers have been helping high school students in the

Texas BEST (Boosting Engineering, Science and Technology) competition that challenges students to build remote-controlled robots, attracting nearly 700 middle and

high schools and more than 8,000 students across several states each fall.

At the university level, TI was a leader in establishing and funding the Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium (TETC). TETC supports recruitment and retention of electrical engineering and computer science majors at 34 universities in

Texas. From 2001 to 2006, electrical engineering graduates at TETC funded institutions increased by 49 percent compared to a 10 percent increase by other state and

national institutions. Computer science graduates have declined across the U.S. The

number of graduates at TETC institutions have only declined by six percent compared to the national decline of 24 percent.

For details on TI educational activities, visit: http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/citizen/factsheets/cte.shtml

106

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. What are the successes of the NNI over the past five years? Does the draft before

us preserve the elements that led to these successes? What parts of the NNI have

failed? Are there elements the Committee should consider terminating?

A1. Over the past five years, the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office

(NNCO) has advanced U.S. nanotechnology research by providing a focal point for

federal activities in nanotechnology, leading to the development of strategic plans

that identified program component areas, and brought together key stakeholders for

workshops on major nanotechnology topics.

The NRI is certainly a model partnership under the NNI, leveraging

nanotechnology-focused federal investments such as the NSF’s activities at NSECs

and the NNIN, and NIST’s expertise in metrology at the nanoscale.

To quote the most recent NNI strategic plan profile of the NRI, ‘‘these government-industry-academic partnerships blend the discovery mission of NSF, the technology innovation mission of NIST, the practical perspective of industry, and the

technical expertise of U.S. universities to address a nanotechnology research and development priority. It is one example of the creative methods the NNI uses to accelerate research that contributes to the Nation’s economic competitiveness.’’

A major shortcoming of the NNI currently is that it does not have a mechanism

to prioritize interagency activity and resources around nanotechnology research that

addresses the most critical challenges facing our country. The bill’s identification of

areas of national importance is essential to ensuring that this occurs.

Further, the NNI would benefit from clearer metrics and time frames for both

near- and long-term objectives, including plans for technology transition with industry and the states. The bill’s call for this to be addressed in the strategic plan allows

better measurement of progress towards NNI goals. The explicit funding mechanism

for the NNCO and authorization of travel expenditures are also positive proposals

for improving the way the NNI is planned and implemented.

Q2. How would you address the concerns of those who might perceive Congress as

picking winners and losers by specifically naming areas of national importance

in the legislation?

A2. It is important that the bill recognizes that projects in these areas will be selected on a competitive and merit basis. It is appropriate for the legislation to identify some examples of areas of national importance, and call for the Advisory Panel

to identify additional areas. This will allow NNI to prioritize resources around national challenges that would benefit from breakthroughs in nanotechnology and

where the Federal Government has a unique role in funding exploratory research.

Q3. In your testimony you advocate for the inclusion of security as a major area of

national importance. Currently, the Department of Defense accounts for more

spending under NNI than any other agency. However, the Department of Homeland Security invests just one million dollars, less than all agencies except the

Department of Transportation. Are there specific areas where nanotechnology

can uniquely benefit homeland security that are being ignored currently?

A3. Security is an important national challenge that will benefit from

nanotechnology research. Even if not addressed in the legislation, this topic should

certainly be prominent in the interagency context. For example, nanoelectronics

benefits national security in very many ways, including even smarter weapons, better and quicker situational awareness, lightweight and low-power communication

devices, and a broad range of small sensors such as single-chip chemical and biological detection and analysis platforms. Nanomaterials will allow lighter and stronger

vehicles, equipment, and armor for military and first responders.

As noted, the Department of Defense invests more in nanotechnology research

than any other agency in NNI, and much of this research will have security applications. DHS should leverage promising nanotechnology research through NNI by providing its expertise and agency funding, where appropriate, for specific applications

related to its mission.

Q4. What difference can you identify between the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative

(NRI) and the partnerships described in Section 5 of the draft legislation? In

your opinion, what effect will these differences have on the success of further

partnerships?

A4. The NRI in its current form is a model of the partnerships envisioned in Section 5, involving an industry consortium, universities, and two federal agencies. The

NRI also leverages state investment, which was not an element in the initial draft

of Section 5, and we are pleased to see this aspect recognized in the revised text.

107

The major difference between the NRI and the partnerships envisioned in Section

5 is that currently under NNI, there is no designation as an area of national importance and such partnerships are not explicitly recognized. The legislation as drafted

will encourage such beneficial partnerships.

As NRI moves forward, its model may evolve to include technology demonstration

projects of promising concepts. This was not envisioned for partnerships in the original Section 5, but we are pleased to see the bill as introduced recognizes this need.

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. As we know, many companies who have taken advantage of the benefits of

nanotechnology choose not to advertise this facet in their products, for fear of

public backlash. I understand their concerns as I do not believe the general public has a solid understanding of nanotechnology. Does the legislation do enough

to enhance public awareness and education in the field of nanotechnology? Is

additional international cooperation needed to assist the United States in educating our citizens? Can you give us some examples of what other countries are

doing to inform and educate their people?

A1. Certainly improved public awareness of the benefits of nanotechnology and research around EHS issues will assist consumers in making informed decisions and

reducing fears around nanotechnology.

ESH issues are important, but should not eclipse the vast potential benefits of

nanotechnology. The semiconductor industry is committed to ensuring that its leadership in ESH continues as semiconductor technology advances.

To help meet the ESH challenges of the industry, the Semiconductor Research

Corporation and SEMATECH, two industry consortia, sponsor the SRC/SEMATECH

Engineering Research Center for Environmentally Benign Semiconductor Manufacturing, headquartered at the University of Arizona, and including researchers at 10

other leading universities.

The industry has an International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors

(ITRS) that is developed by over 1000 scientists and engineers worldwide. The roadmap includes an extensive section of ESH that provides direction to research centers, suppliers, and chip makers to focus on the both short-term (2005–2013) and

long-term (2014–2020) challenges in chemical assessment and reduction, energy and

water conservation, and sustainability and product stewardship. Specifically there

is recognition of how the industry’s ESH controls should be studied and adjusted

as needed for nanomaterials.

From an education standpoint, nanotechnology provides an excellent opportunity

to capture young imaginations to science—a nanometer is so small it could fit

50,000 times on the width of a typical human hair. The bill’s education provisions,

particularly the Nanotechnology Education Partnerships at the NSF, provide appropriate mechanisms to generate teacher and student enthusiasm and undergraduate

interest in this area.

SIA has been involved in the International Nanotechnology Conference on Communications and Coordination, which brings together industry, academia, and government officials working in nanotechnology. In addition to research topics, programs have included discussions on various approaches to societal and educational

dimensions of nanotechnology.

Q2. Nanoelectronics is an area within the field of nanotechnology that is certainly

important, and I am curious to hear a little more about its current status. Could

you give me a better sense of the work being conducted in this specific area, and

what has resulted thus far from this research? Approximately how much funding is currently devoted to nanoelectronics? And is this funding adequate for

what is needed to tackle the challenges of nanoelectronics and the work needed

to smooth the transfer of the research into commercial products?

A2. Nanoelectronics research is focused on finding the new ‘‘switch’’ to replace today’s transistor. The new switch must be extremely reliable, fast, low power, functionally dense, and capable of being manufactured in commercial volumes at low

cost. There are a number of candidates for the new nanoelectronics switch, including

devices based on spin or other quantum state variables rather than classical bulk

electric charge. The NRI has identified several promising new phenomena that have

potential to become advanced switches, such as pseudospintronics, ballistic anisotropic magneto-resistance, spin waves, molecular conformational changes, electron

wave interference, nanomagnet interactions, and excitons in both molecules and carbon nanotubes and graphene. In particular, there is a large amount of research

108

going into graphene, which is showing great promise as a new material to support

a number of new device technologies.

However, despite this long list of promising initial concepts, it should be emphasized that we have a long way to go. Our understanding of many of these new phenomena is in its infancy, and we will undoubtedly find many challenges and

showstoppers which will limit the ultimate potential of most of the candidates—this

is the nature of such far-out research. It also underlines the urgency for investing

heavily now in many different areas.

Commercialization of devices based on these phenomena into a new class of integrated circuits may very well require an entirely new nanomanufacturing paradigm.

Technology demonstration projects, as identified in the revised bill, will be required

to advance to the next phase and determine the viability of the various technologies.

Current direct NRI funding from all sources (federal, industry, and State) totals

about $25M annually, of which NIST funds about $3M per year, and NSF funds

$2M.

However, an aggregate figure for all federal agency investments in

nanoelectronics is currently extremely difficult to obtain—programs are

disaggregated across agencies, and often not reported at such a detailed level. There

are a number of activities relevant to nanoelectronics outside of the formal NRI

partnerships with NSF and NIST. For example, the Department of Defense, largely

through DARPA, is a major investor in nanoelectronics research. The Department

of Energy laboratories conduct activities and have capabilities relevant to

nanoelectronics as well.

The 2009 National Science Foundation budget request was the first time the

agency included a $20M initiative for research addressing ‘‘Science and Engineering

Beyond Moore’s Law,’’ thus establishing a centralized figure for the agency’s activity

on this topic.

The revision to Section 5 to track investments in the areas of national interest,

at the same level of detail as is currently done for the Program Component Areas

will be extremely valuable to have federal investment for these areas available in

a central location and to monitor trends.

Q3. States obviously play an important role in commercialization and translation of

promising research into innovation, which in turn enhances regional economic

growth. Does the legislation sufficiently address the role of the states in

nanotechnology?

A3. TI and SIA agree that State governments can play an important role. Section

4 of the draft legislation highlights technology transfer and explicitly identifies the

importance of State leverage through research, development, and technology transfer initiatives. We were pleased that the bill as introduced revised Section 5 to recognize that projects in areas of national importance should leverage State funding

where possible.

For example, Texas created a $200M Emerging Technology Fund to invest in public-private endeavors around emerging scientific or technology fields tied to competitiveness; match federal and other sponsored investment in science; and attract and

enhance research talent superiority in Texas. Several other states have similar

mechanisms. Of course, State governments are also critical in supporting public research universities from an overall budget perspective.

States have provided leveraged funding to NRI worth at least $15M annually in

funding, equipment, and faculty endowments. In addition, several states have invested in expansion or construction of new buildings related to nanotechnology. The

City of South Bend, with the new Midwest Academy of Nanoelectronics and Architectures (MANA) NRI center, will open an ‘‘Innovation Park’’ adjacent to the campus

designed to foster commercialization.

Questions submitted by Representative Michael T. McCaul

Q1. The NRI SWAN center based at the University of Texas Austin includes significant resources from the State of Texas, the University of Texas System, and

Texas industry. Specifically, how does this provide leverage to the federal investment in NRI research and benefit universities outside of the University of Texas

System?

A1. While Texas and other states have provided resources to the four regional NRI

centers, it is important to note that these regional centers are ‘‘virtual’’ and involve

researchers from several universities outside these states. Collaborative research occurs on a national level at all 35 participating universities. In addition to UT–AusVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:09 Sep 22, 2008 Jkt 041672 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\041608\41672 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
109

tin, SWAN involves researchers at UT–Dallas, Texas A&M, Rice, Arizona State,

Notre Dame, Maryland, NC State, and Univ. of Illinois–C.

The SWAN $30M in matching funds is focused on attracting and supporting top

academic researchers in nanoelectronics. Specifically, this is a three-way match,

with the State of Texas contributing $10M from the Emerging Technology Fund, the

University of Texas System matching with $10M, and the remaining $10M contributed by Texas industry for endowed chairs, including $5M from TI. Like similar investments in other states, these funds are restricted to support faculty at public institutions in the state. However, such state investments indirectly benefit other universities participating in the various centers by enabling research capacity and infrastructure that otherwise would not be funded. The NRI’s State and local investments leverage the federal and industry contributions to further advance

nanoelectronics research.

Æ