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

88–145PDF 2014

NANOTECHNOLOGY: FROM LABORATORIES 

TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 20, 2014 

Serial No. 113–75 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

FEDERICA WILSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

May 20, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Timothy Persons, Chief Scientist, United States Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

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

Dr. Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy Director of the Center for Nanoscale Science 

and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 42 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 44 

Dr. Keith Stevenson, Professor, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 51 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 53 

Dr. Mark Hersam, Professor, Department of Materials Science & Engineering, 

McCormick School of Engineering & Applied Science, Northwestern University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 66 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 68 

Mr. Les Ivie, President & CEO, F Cubed, LLC 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 75 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 77 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 90 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy Director of the Center for Nanoscale Science 

and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology .................. 102 

Mr. Les Ivie, President & CEO, F Cubed, LLC .................................................... 109 
Page

IV 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement for the record by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 114 
(1) 

NANOTECHNOLOGY: FROM LABORATORIES 

TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS 

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry Bucshon 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Chairman BUCSHON. The Subcommittee on Research and Technology will come to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘Nanotechnology: From Laboratories to Commercial Products.’’ In front of you 

are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and 

truth-and-testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Nanotechnology is an area of great promise for the future of the 

U.S. economy, the leaps and bounds in scientific knowledge base, 

and in terms of potential products and employment opportunities 

as the technology continues to mature. Many believe it has the potential to be the next industrial revolution, leading to significant 

social and economic impact. Nanotechnology is already prevalent in 

our lives; it is in sunscreens, and cosmetics, batteries, stain-resistant clothing, eyeglasses, windshields, and sporting equipment. 

The development of nanomaterials that are stronger, lighter, and 

more durable may lead to better technology for items such as bulletproof vests and fuel-efficient vehicles. Just recently, I learned of 

a new technology developed at Sandia National Laboratories and 

the University of New Mexico Cancer Center in which a hybrid 

particle, made up of a porous silicon nanoparticle core, contains 

small peptides that are targeted to proteins expressed specifically 

by cancer cells. It is an ideal vehicle to deliver the custom drug 

combinations needed for personalized medicine and may transform 

how we deliver antibiotics and antivirals. 

As a cardiothoracic surgeon and medical professional, I find this 

application of nanoscience to medicine not only fascinating but also 

having important implications for our Nation to keep medical costs 

down and subsequently may have some affect on national security 

and our economy. 

In 2013 the National Science Foundation nanotechnology investment supported 5,000 active projects over 30 research centers and 

several infrastructure networks for device development, computation, and education. It impacted over 10,000 students and teachers. 

Approximately 150 small businesses were funded to perform research and product development in nanotechnology through the 

Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs. It is also my understanding that three 

new exciting directions are planned for 2015, including nanostructure composite materials, nanoscale optics, and photonics. 

Unfortunately, despite these promising activities funded directly 

by the National Science Foundation, the President’s budget for key 

directorates that carry out nanotechnology research within the 

NSF’s Research and Related Activities Account is disappointing 

with a $1.5 million overall decrease. 

On the other hand, the Frontiers in Innovation Research and 

Science and Technology, or FIRST Act, of which I am an original 

cosponsor, passed our Subcommittee this past March with increases to several key directorates that fund nanotechnology basic 

science research. In addition to the NSF, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI, is the U.S. Government’s effort to coordinate the nanotechnology research and development activities of the 

federal agencies. 
8 

While nanotechnology is not a new scientific field, it still remains 

an emerging, important, and relevant area. The House passed an 

NNI reauthorization bill in both 110th and 111th Congresses only 

to see it die in the Senate. 

This hearing today provides us with an opportunity to get feedback on the future of NNI and have a serious discussion about the 

national priorities for this technology. The President’s proposed 

budget for NNI in Fiscal Year 2015 is $13.3 million less than Fiscal 

Year 2013 and is estimated to be less than it spent in Fiscal Year 

2014. These budget numbers are concerning, especially for an area 

of R&D that holds an important place in our Nation’s economy and 

national security. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and to a productive 

and fruitful discussion on U.S. nanotechnology investments, priorities, and policies. Again, thank all of you for joining us today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHAIRMAN LARRY BUCSHON

I would like to welcome everyone to today’s Research and Technology Subcommittee hearing titled ‘‘Nanotechnology: From Laboratories to Commercial Products.’’ 

Nanotechnology is an area of great promise h for the future of the U.S. economy, 

the leaps and bounds in the scientific knowledge base, and in terms of potential 

products and employment opportunities as the technology continues to mature. 

Many believe it has the potential to be the next industrial revolution, leading to significant social and economic impact. Nanotechnology is already prevalent in our 

lives; it is in sunscreens and cosmetics, batteries, stain-resistant clothing, eyeglasses, windshields, and sporting equipment. The development of nanomaterials 

that are stronger, lighter, and more durable may lead to better technology for items 

such as bulletproof vests and fuel efficient vehicles. This is especially important as 

gas prices continue to remain high. 

Just recently, I learned of a new technology (developed at Sandia National Laboratories and the University of New Mexico Cancer Center) in which a hybrid particle, made up of a porous silica nanoparticle core, contains small peptides that are 

targeted to proteins expressed specifically by cancer cells. It is an ideal vehicle to 

deliver the custom drug combinations needed for personalized medicine, and will 

transform how we deliver antibiotics and antivirals. 

As a cardiothoracic surgeon and medical professional, I find this application of 

nanoscience to medicine not only fascinating but also having important implications 

for our Nation’s national security and economy, including ways to lower medical 

costs. 

In 2013, the National Science Foundation (NSF) nanotechnology investment supported 5,000 active projects, over 30 research centers and several infrastructure networks for device development, computation, and education. It impacted over 10,000 

students and teachers. Approximately 150 small businesses were funded to perform 

research and product development in nanotechnology through the Small Business 

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

Programs. It is also my understanding that three new exciting directions are 

planned for 2015, including nanostructured composite materials, nanoscale optics, 

and photonics. 

Unfortunately, despite these promising activities funded directly by the NSF, the 

President’s budget for key directorates that carry out nanotechnology research within NSF’s Research and Related Activities Account (RRA) is disappointing, with a 

$1.5 Million overall decrease. On the other hand, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology (FIRST) Act, of which I am an original co-sponsor, 

passed our Subcommittee this past March with increases to several key directorates 

that fund nanotechnology basic science research. 

In addition to the NSF, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is the U.S. 

government’s effort to coordinate the nanotechnology research and development activities of the federal agencies. While nanotechnology is not a new scientific field, 

it still remains an emerging, important and relevant area. The House passed an 

NNI reauthorization bill in both the 110th and 111th Congresses, only to see it die 
9 

in the Senate. This hearing today provides us with an opportunity to get feedback 

on the future of NNI and have a serious discussion about national priorities for this 

technology. The President’s proposed budget for NNI in fiscal year (FY) 2015 ($1,536.9M) is $13.3 Million less than FY2013 ($1,550.2), and is estimated to be less than what 

is spent for FY14 (1,537.5). These budget numbers are concerning, especially for an 

area of R&D that holds an important place in our nation’s economic and national 

security. 

I look forward to hearing today’s testimony and to a productive and fruitful discussion on U.S. nanotechnology investments, priorities, and policies. Again, thank 

you all for joining us today. 

Chairman BUCSHON. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, and thank you for 

holding this hearing today on nanotechnology. 

It has been a little more than three years since this Committee 

last held a hearing on nanotech, so I am happy we are returning 

to one of my favorite topics. 

Federal investments in nanotechnology research have already led 

to job creation in my state and across the Nation, and I believe the 

potential for return on our relatively modest federal investment is 

many times what we have already witnessed. I am fond of saying 

I drank the nanotech Kool-Aid the first time I visited Chad 

Mirkin’s lab at Northwestern University. I am very happy that we 

have someone from Northwestern here today. 

I was amazed by what could be done at the scale of a single 

atom. In nanotechnology there is now a branch of engineering that 

simply did not exist 26 years ago when I was getting my degree 

in mechanical engineering at Northwestern also. By controlling individual atoms, we can create new materials and products, and 

with that, companies and jobs. 

The Science Committee recognized the promise of nanotechnology 

early on-holding our first hearing close to 15 years ago to review 

federal activities in the field. The Committee was subsequently instrumental in the development and enactment of the statute in 

2003 that authorized the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative, the NNI, as the Chairman spoke about. 

We have passed a widely supported bipartisan update to the NNI 

bill in the House three times since 2008. Unfortunately, all three 

times this bill has died in the Senate. I hope with the Chairman’s 

help we will have an opportunity to take up an NNI reauthorization bill once again in this Congress, and who knows, maybe the 

fourth time will be the charm. 

I don’t think the NNI requires major revisions. It seems to be 

working pretty well, but I do think there are opportunities to formalize some of the recommendations we have received in the last 

few years from PCAST and the National Academies on how to 

strengthen the program even further without any additional cost. 

These opportunities include ways to strengthen technology transfer 

and streamline the reporting requirements for the program. I welcome thoughts from our witnesses today on how we can continue 

to improve upon the existing program. 

Nanotechnology is a broad field encompassing much more than 

just material science or semiconductors. For instance, nanotechnology is beginning to help us understand biology at the cellular 

level. We are now seeing applications that were not even imagined 
10 

13 years ago when NNI was first created. 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. I am sure that we will hear 

about some of those applications from today’s witnesses, including 

Mr. Ivie from F Cubed. 

Part of our discussion on nanotechnology must include the barriers and opportunities surrounding nanomanufacturing. I know 

that Dr. Persons will talk about some of the challenges the United 

States is facing in this area today, including a need for more U.S. 

involvement in international standards setting, continued sustained investment in this area, and a national vision for U.S. nanomanufacturing capability. 

Finally, I think it is also important to talk about the environmental, health, and safety, or EHS research, that must be part of 

any comprehensive nanotechnology research strategy. I know that 

Professor Hersam was part of a report on nanotechnology research 

directions that included a review of recommendations for nano EHS 

research and hope we can spend some time during the Q&A on this 

important topic. 

Once again, I am happy we are having this hearing today. I look 

forward to all the witness testimony and the Q&A. Thank you all 

for being here and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DAN LIPINSKI

Thank you Chairman Bucshon for holding this hearing today on nanotechnology. 

It has been a little more than three years since the committee last held a hearing 

on nanotechnology, so I am happy we are returning to one of my favorite topics. 

Federal investments in nanotechnology research have already led to job creation in 

my state and across the nation, and I believe the potential for return on our relatively modest federal investment is many times what we’vealready witnessed. 

I’m fond of saying that I ‘‘drank the nanotech kool-aid’’ the first time I visited 

Chad Mirkin’s lab at Northwestern. I was amazed by what he could do at the scale 

of a single atom. In nanotechnology there is now a branch of engineering that simply did not exist 26 years ago when I was getting my degree in mechanical engineering. By controlling individual atoms we can create new materials and products, and 

with that, companies and jobs. 

The Science Committee recognized the promise of nanotechnology early on, holding our first hearing close to 15 years 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. 

We have passed a widely supported, bipartisan update to the NNI bill in the 

House three times since 2008. Unfortunately, all three times the bill died in the 

Senate. But I hope that with the Chairman’s help we will have an opportunity to 

take up an NNI Reauthorization bill once again in this Congress. Who knows, 

maybe the 4th time will be the charm? 

I don’t think the NNI requires major revisions. It seems to be working pretty well. 

But I do think there are opportunities to formalize some of the recommendations 

we have received in the last few years from PCAST and the National Academies 

on how to strengthen the program even further, without any additional costs. These 

opportunities include ways to strengthen technology transfer and streamline the reporting requirements for the program. I welcome thoughts from our witnesses today 

on how we can continue to improve upon the existing program. 

Nanotechnology is a broad field encompassing much more than just materials 

science or semiconductors. For instance, nanotechnology is beginning to help us understand biology at the cellular level. We are now seeing applications that were not 

even imagined 13 years ago when the National Nanotechnology Initiative was first 

created. The range of potential applications is broad and will have enormous con-
11 

sequences for electronics, energy transformation and storage, materials, and medicine and health, to name just a few examples. I am sure that we will hear about 

some of those applications from today’s witnesses including Mr. Ivie from F Cubed. 

Part of our discussion of nanotechnology must include the barriers and opportunities surrounding nanomanufacturing. I know that Dr. Persons will talk about some 

of the challenges that the United States is facing in this area today including a need 

for more U.S. involvement in international standard setting, continued sustained investment in this area, and a national vision for a U.S. nanomanufacturing capability. 

Finally, I think it is also important to talk about the environmental, health, and 

safety—or EHS—research that must be part of any comprehensive nanotechnology 

research strategy. I know that Professor Hersam was part of a report on nanotechnology research directions that included a review and recommendations for nanoEHS research and hope we can spend some time during the Q&A on this important 

topic. 

Once again, I am very happy we are having this hearing today. I look forward 

to all of the witness testimony and the Q&A, and I thank you all for being here 

today. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. I now recognize 

the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for her 

opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning. 

This morning, we are discussing nanotechnology. As a long-time 

member of the Committee, I am proud that the Committee recognized a need for an increased level of investment and better interagency coordination in this area almost 15 years ago. That recognition led to the creation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, 

or the NNI as it is called, which has invested nearly $20 billion in 

nanotechnology research and development since 2001. 

The investment in NNI is one of the reasons that the United 

States is a global leader in nanotechnology research and development. Unfortunately, like too many other research areas, our leadership position is now being challenged. In a 2014 report on nanomanufacturing, which I am sure Dr. Persons will discuss this 

morning, the GAO reported that the United States is facing challenges to maintaining its leadership position in nanotechnology and 

nanomanufacturing. Several of our global competitors like the European Union and Japan are making significant and sustained investments in nanotechnology while we are busy debating on how 

much to cut our research agencies. If we are going to maintain 

competitiveness, then the United States needs to make strong and 

sustained investment in nanotechnology and enact federal policies 

that help technology and manufacturing development and play a 

central role in international standards development. 

While we need to strengthen our leadership position in nanotechnology, we should also recognize that there are opportunities to 

work with our global partners. One area for collaboration is the 

area of environmental, health, and safety research, or EHS research. Unlike the nanomanufacturing research, there is no obvious competitive advantage in EHS research. Instead, all global 

nanotechnology partners benefit from a greater understanding of 

potential environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanotechnology. 

As a former nurse, I recognize the need to understand and mitigate the potential risks to new technologies, including nanotechnology. Without a strong EHS research program on nanotech-
12 

nology, we would be left with the uncertainties of surrounding potential risks for people and environments that are exposed to nanomaterials and nano-enabled products. 

In addition to concerns about public health and safety, I am worried that these uncertainties could also lead to unsubstantiated 

negative public perceptions about nanotechnology, which could 

have serious consequences for its acceptance and use. The NNI has 

always included activities for increasing understanding of the environmental and safety aspects of nanotechnology, but I believe that 

EHS research did not receive sufficient attention to funding for 

many years and I applaud the current Administration’s increased 

emphasis on EHS. But I remain concerned about our new slow 

progress in this area of research. 

We need a strong nano EHS research program to protect the 

public and to ensure that any nanotechnology regulations will be 

grounded in science, not perception. I hope to hear from our witnesses today about their thoughts on this issue. 

And in closing, I am hopeful that we can work together to ensure 

that the United States remains the leader in nanotechnology and 

nanomanufacturing while working with our global partners. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here and I want to thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEEE

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This morning we are discussing nanotechnology. As 

a long-time Member of this Committee, I am proud that the Committee recognized 

the need for an increased level of investment and better interagency coordination 

in this area almost 15 years ago. 

That recognition led to the creation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, or the NNI as it is called, which has invested nearly $20 billion in nanotechnology research and development since 2001. 

The investment in the NNI is one of the reasons that the United States is the 

global leader in nanotechnology research and development. Unfortunately, like too 

many other research areas, our leadership position is now being challenged. 

In a 2014 report on Nanomanufacturing, which I am sure Dr. Persons will discuss 

this morning, the GAO reported that the United States is facing challenges to maintaining its leadership position in nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing. Several 

of our global competitors like the European Union and Japan are making significant 

and sustained investments in nanotechnology while we are busy debating how much 

to cut our research agencies. 

If we are going to remain competitive, then the U.S. needs to make strong and 

sustained investments in nanotechnology; enact federal policies that help technology 

and manufacturing development; and play a central role in international standards 

development. 

While we need to strengthen our leadership position in nanotechnology, we should 

also recognize that there are opportunities to work with our global partners. One 

area for collaboration is in the area of environmental, health and safety research 

or EHS research. 

Unlike with nanomanufacturing research, there is no obvious competitive advantage in EHS research. Instead, all global nanotechnology partners benefit from a 

greater understanding of potential environmental, health, and safety aspects of 

nanotechnology. 

As a former nurse, I recognize the need to understand and mitigate the potential 

risks to new technologies including nanotechnology. Without a strong EHS research 

program on nanotechnology, we will be left with uncertainties surrounding potential 

risks for people and environments that are exposed to nanomaterials and nano-enabled products. In addition to concerns about public health and safety, I am worried 

that these uncertainties could also lead to unsubstantiated negative public percep-
13 

tions about nanotechnology, which could have serious consequences for its acceptance and use. 

The NNI has always included activities for increasing understanding of the environmental and safety aspects of nanotechnology. But I believe that EHS research 

did not receive sufficient attention or funding for many years. 

I applaud the current Administration’s increased emphasis on EHS, but I remain 

concerned about our slow progress in this area of research. We need a strong nanoEHS research program to protect the public and to ensure that any nanotechnology 

regulations will be grounded in science not perception. I hope to hear from our witnesses today about their thoughts on this issue. 

In closing, I am hopeful that we can work together to ensure that the United 

States remains the leader in nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing while working 

with our global partners. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses, a very distinguished panel. Our first witness today is Dr. Timothy Persons, 

Chief Scientist of the United States Government Accountability Office. He is also the Co-Director of the GAO Center for Science, 

Technology, and Engineering, a group of highly specialized scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and information technologists. 

He works with the GAO’s chief technologist to lead the production 

of technology assessments for the U.S. Congress. 

Prior to joining the GAO, Dr. Persons has held key leadership 

roles in the national security community. In 2007 Dr. Persons was 

awarded a Director of National Intelligence Science and Technology 

Fellowship focusing on computational imaging systems research. 

He received his bachelor’s in physics from James Madison, a master’s in nuclear physics from Emory University, and a master’s in 

computer science and a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering from Wake 

Forest. 

Our second witness is Dr. Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director of 

the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy Director of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Dr. Whitman received a bachelor’s in physics from Brown and a 

master’s and Ph.D. in physics from Cornell. After a National Research Council post-doctorate research fellowship at NIST, Dr. 

Whitman joined the research staff at the National Research Laboratory. At NRL, Lloyd was the head of the Surface Nanoscience 

and Sensor Technology Section. In addition to leading research at 

NRL, Dr. Whitman served as a Science Advisor to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense and Chemical Demilitarization Programs. 

Our next witness is Dr. Keith Stevenson, Professor in the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the University Of Texas 

at Austin. Dr. Stevenson is a well-established electrochemist, materials chemist, and nanoscientist with over 145 referred publications, six patents, and five book chapters. He is the Director of the 

38 million Center for Nano- and Molecular Science and Technology. 

He is also acting Thrust Leader on an 11.2 million DOE Energy 

Frontiers Research Center at UT Austin. 
14 

In addition to being the State Director of the Welch Foundation 

Summer Scholars Program, he is one of the founding faculty members of a program now known as the Freshman Research Initiative 

at UT Austin. 

At this point I now recognize the Ranking Member Mr. Lipinski 

to introduce our next witness. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

As a Northwestern alum, I am very excited to have a Professor 

from Northwestern University here this morning even though he 

has his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. 

Dr. Hersam is a Professor—Yes, that is the Chairman’s school. 

Dr. Hersam is a Professor of Material Science and Engineering 

Department, as well as being Director of the Materials Research 

Center. His interdisciplinary research group focuses on analyzing 

and manipulating nanomaterials at the atomic and molecular scale. 

Professor Hersam is a nationally recognized leader in research in 

nanotechnology, a member of several scientific societies, and winner of numerous teaching and research awards. 

In addition to his work at Northwestern, Dr. Hersam founded a 

company NanoIntegris that is a leading supplier of high purity 

semiconducting and metallic inks. 

It is my pleasure to welcome Dr. Hersam to our Committee 

today. 

Chairman BUCSHON. And our final witness is Mr. Les Ivie, President and CEO of F Cubed, LLC. Mr. Ivie was also Founder and 

Chief Operating Officer of Gas Clip Technology, Inc. Prior to founding F Cubed, he was Chief Technology Officer at Honeywell International. 

Mr. Ivie was Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 

of Zellweger Luwa AG in Switzerland. He was a Founder, Board 

Member, and later Chairman of the Board of Textillio AG, an 

Internet company based in Zurich, Switzerland. Mr. Ivie held a variety of positions at United Technologies Corporation. 

Mr. Ivie graduated from Portland State University with a bachelor of science and mathematics and a bachelor of science and economics from the University of Denver with a master’s of business 

administration. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here. It is 

going to be an interesting hearing. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each after which Members of the Committee have five 

minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will be included in the record of the hearing. 

At this point I now recognize Dr. Persons for five minutes to 

present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. TIMOTHY PERSONS, CHIEF SCIENTIST, 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Dr. PERSONS. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, 

Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee, good 

morning. 

I am pleased to be here to discuss the ongoing transition of nanotechnology from the laboratory into commercial products, or also 

known as nanomanufacturing. 
15 

As a reminder, nanotechnology is defined as the control or restructuring of matter at the atomic or molecular scale, about—a 

range of about 1 to 100 nanometers, the latter being about 1/1000 

the thickness of a human hair. 

Last year, the Controller General of the United States convened 

a strategic forum on this topic, which brought together experts 

from a wide range of relevant backgrounds to discuss the status 

and implications of this issue. We recently issued a report on the 

forum, a portion of which I am covering in today’s remarks. 

Specifically, my testimony will highlight how the United States 

compares with other countries in nanotechnology R&D and competitiveness, identify some key challenges to innovation, briefly 

present some key policy issues, and discuss two examples of publicprivate partnerships designed to promote U.S. innovation in nanomanufacturing. 

And I ask that Figure 1 be brought up on the screen. 

[Slide] 

Dr. PERSONS. This slide illustrates several examples of some 

nanoscale science discoveries in transition from the lab into realworld nanotechnology-enabled products. Moving from left to right, 

the first column of the figure contains examples of nanoscale components discovered by the basic science community. The second column contains new or enhanced prototypes enabled by the nano 

components, and the third column then shows new or improved 

products of the commercial sector which may require manufacturing at large-scale, that is either size and number. 

As a quick example, following the top row of the chart, research 

on nanoscale transistors enables more powerful and sophisticated 

semiconductor chips, which then result in lighter, faster, and more 

powerful computers and smartphones like what used to be a supercomputer I hold essentially in the palm of my hand because of 

nanotechnology. The experts at our forum told us that the United 

States likely leads in nanotechnology R&D today but the United 

States faces global-scale competition. In terms of R&D funding levels, the United States is still considered the overall leader, yet is 

possibly lagging in public sector support in comparison to some 

other major nations. For scientific publications, the United States 

is considered the leader in quality, yet it terms of quantity has already been surpassed by China. 

Turning to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing itself, the 

four industry sectors we studied indicate that the United States remains the leader in some areas, namely nanomedicine and semiconductor design. On the other hand, experts said the United 

States has been challenged in semiconductor manufacturing, the 

development of nano-enabled concrete materials, as well as lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles, even though a recent announcement by a major American manufacturer of electric vehicles 

to build a large battery production plant could reverse this latter 

assessment. 

Our forum participants identified several challenges, including 

significant global competition, the unintended consequences of prior 

off-shoring of manufacturing, direct foreign threats to U.S. intellectual property, and the fact that the United States currently lacks 

a holistic strategy for nanomanufacturing. 
16 

Moreover, another major challenge is a key funding gap called 

the ‘‘missing middle,’’ which I hold up in Figure 2, which occurs between the proof-of-concept and production environment demonstration phases of the manufacturing innovation process. This challenge was a particular concern to our experts in terms of the barrier it represents to small and medium-sized U.S. enterprises 

where a good deal of innovation occurs. 

In terms of policy issues, forum participants said the United 

States could improve its competitive posture by pursuing one or 

more of the following three approaches: first, strengthen innovation 

across the U.S. economy by continuing and/or updating policies and 

programs which support innovation in general; second, promote innovation in U.S. manufacturing possibly in the form of public-private partnerships; third, design a holistic strategy for U.S. nanomanufacturing led and facilitated but not overly driven by the federal government. 

Insufficient efforts by the United States to participate in international development of basic nanotechnology standards and the 

need for a revitalized integrative and collaborative approach to environment, health, and safety issues were other policy considerations our participants identified. Two examples of public-private 

partnerships designed to address the ‘‘missing middle’’ were identified in our study. The first is the Center for Nanomanufacturing 

Systems for Mobile Computing and Mobile Energy Technologies, or 

NASCENT, a manufacturing innovation ecosystem founded at the 

University of Texas at Austin in 2012. NASCENT is designed to 

partner with industry and create processes and tools for manufacturing nano-enabled components in the mobile and energy sectors, 

among others. 

The second is the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, 

or CNSE, in Albany, New York, established in 2004. CNSE is a 

precompetitive R&D prototyping and educational public-private 

partnership for advancing nanotechnology for the semiconductor industry. Equipped with state-of-the-art tools and partnered with a 

global consortium of the major computer chip manufacture, CNSE’s 

collaborative work allows for the development of chips just short of 

mass production. 

In conclusion, based on the views of a wide range of experts, 

nanoscale control and fabrication are creating important new opportunities and challenges for our Nation. As such, our experts see 

potential benefit in pursuing forward-looking strategies designed to 

help the global economic position of the United States as it moves 

further into the 21st century. 

Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of 

the Committee—Ranking Member Johnson, excuse me—this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Persons follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Dr. Persons. 

I now recognize Dr. Whitman for five minutes for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. LLOYD WHITMAN, 

INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY 

COORDINATION OFFICE AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 

THE CENTER FOR NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. WHITMAN. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, 

Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee, it is a 

privilege to be here today to discuss nanotechnology and the U.S. 

National Nanotechnology Initiative, known as the NNI. 

As Dr. Persons noted, the field of nanotechnology aims to understand and control matter at sizes of about 1 to 100 nanometers. A 

nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. If I reference a sheet of 

paper, it is about 100,000 nanometers thick, and a DNA double 

helix is about two nanometers in diameter. So nanotechnology involves working at the scale of atoms and molecules. 

The reason this size range is so interesting is because things this 

small often have properties completely different than both larger 

objects of the same material and the individual atoms and molecules within. By changing the size and composition of nanoscale 

materials, one can create things with unique properties that have 

a tremendous range of promising applications. 

Consider gold, for example. Bulk gold like that in jewelry is of 

course gold-colored and chemically inert, but gold nanoparticles, depending upon their size, may look pink or purple or red and can 

actually be used to catalyze chemical reactions. They can even be 

used to target and kill cancer cells. You can read about many other 

nanotech breakthroughs, including many aimed at improving our 

national security, at our Nano.Gov website. 

So how did the NNI get where it is today? In the 1990s, the tools 

to make and measure things on the nanoscale developed very rapidly, making the promise of nanotech increasingly clear. In response to this promise, the NNI was launched in 2000 and authorized by Congress in 2003. There are now 20 federal agencies actively participating in the initiative supported by R&D funding totaling over $1.5 billion per year. 

It is important to emphasize that the NNI is not a distinctly 

funded program with a centralized budget and management but 

rather a well-coordinated multiagency initiative. The NNI is coordinated through the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology 

Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council. The 

National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, which I direct, provides support for the Subcommittee and acts as the primary point 

of contact on the NNI, among other duties specified in the 2003 act. 

The NNI functions as a collaborative effort of the participating 

federal agencies, thereby leveraging the funding, avoiding duplication, and providing an effective way for these agencies to work towards common goals and objectives. These goals are outlined in the 

NNI’s strategic plan, which was just updated in February and are 

highlighted— and budget details, along with research accomplishments and plans, are highlighted every year in the NNI supplement to the President’s budget. 
43 

Federal nanotechnology innovation in the United States is 

strong. We are advancing research, developing and maintaining the 

U.S. workforce and infrastructure, supporting responsible development, and fostering commercialization. The most recent reviews of 

the NNI by the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel and by 

the National Academies agree with this assessment. However, 

there is always room for improvement. 

This year’s updated strategic plan describes a number of ways 

federal agencies will further strengthen the NNI laying out specific 

interagency objectives under each of the goals. The plan calls out 

the importance of the nanotechnology signature initiatives, which 

agencies collaboratively established to spotlight areas of national 

significance that can be advanced more rapidly through focused, coordinated research. It also introduces revised budget categories 

called program component areas, which have evolved over the 

years as the field has matured. 

The sustained strategic federal investment in nanotechnology, 

combined with strong private sector investments, has made the 

United States the global leader in nano. For example, it is estimated that in 2012 U.S. companies invested over $4 billion in 

nanotech R&D, far more than investments made by companies in 

any other country. Although the annual federal investment is relatively modest in comparison, it plays a very different role, namely 

supporting a critical pipeline of foundational research innovations 

that will form the seeds for future industry investment. The NNI 

also demonstrates the government’s long-term commitment to the 

field, very important to sustaining the private sector support needed to bring nanotech products from lab to market. 

The 21st century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act 

of 2003 has provided an excellent framework for the coordination 

and oversight of the NNI. It has brought federal agencies together 

to develop and implement an efficient and effective national strategy for nanotech R&D, including a robust, well-coordinated program of environmental health and safety research needed to ensure 

that new nanotech products are safe. 

In conclusion, the NNI has sustained vital support for fundamental groundbreaking research, development, infrastructure, and 

education and training, programs that collectively constitute a 

major U.S. innovation enterprise. It is essential that the United 

States continue to lead the way. The Nation’s economic growth and 

global competitiveness depend on it. 

So I thank the Chairman and the Members of the Committee for 

the opportunity to appear before you today and I would be pleased 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Whitman follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Dr. Whitman. 

I now recognize Dr. Stevenson for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. KEITH STEVENSON, PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY & BIOCHEMISTRY, 

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

Dr. STEVENSON. Thank you, Chairman. And on behalf of the 

State of Texas and the University of Texas at Austin, I am happy 

to represent and provide testimony today on the nanotechnology 

state of affairs. 

You have asked me to summarize the current state of R&D in 

the area, as well as provide future prospects. In addition, as Lloyd 

just spoke about, talk about the details and the impact of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and what it has done over the last 

14 years. 

I also have been asked to talk about the importance of the federal fundamental funding in this area, as well as how my university has contributed to the STEM-based initiatives and growth of 

the nanotechnology workforce. 

First, I would like to address the importance of the nanotechnology initiative. I myself started my career in 2000 and grew up 

with the growth of this program. I think it is safe to say now this 

program has been assessed and reviewed and measured with many 

different types of quantitative outcomes, and it is clear to say that 

it has been very successful across many levels. In particular, I 

would say most importantly bringing fundamental new knowledge, 

new understanding to the area. The growth of—and establishment 

of over 50 journals dedicated to nanotechnology and science across 

many different subdisciplines, you are starting to lose count with 

that. 

Additionally, the amount of infrastructure that has been built up 

across the Nation, every national lab has typically a subset of dedicated nanotechnology and nanofabrication tools. They also have 

many large-scale universities that interact with both national labs 

but also with other state institutions like the University of Texas 

at Austin that facilitate interactions not only from national labs 

but also with new industries. 

Also, the training of the nanotechnology workforce, without the 

establishment of infrastructure on this scale, it is clear to say that 

we have really dedicated, well-trained staff that help enable the 

science based around the broad context of nanotechnology in this 

area. 

The importance of continually investing in fundamental research 

is hard to describe in simple terms, but really I think what you can 

see from the past developments in the area is that the growth of 

this field has really accelerated things on many levels, not only just 

from the fundamental understanding like I said but the connections that it makes to the next level. It was talked about the ability 

to make new discoveries, but there does rely in some sense a continued investment at the next level to bridge the gap, as was highlighted by the GAO, to be able to transition those fundamental discoveries into actually new technologies, innovations, and products 

that we can then lead to the productivity of new areas. 
52 

There are several fundamental questions that we would like to 

be able to address. For instance, can we—we still need to figure out 

how we can perfect the synthesis and fabrication of precise multifunctional structures that really create new technologies. We don’t 

really know how to scale nanoscience right now. It has been very 

costly in the sense and it is not very efficient. 

Additionally, at UT Austin in particular, the ability to be able to 

train students in this area, we have invested in several different 

initiatives at many different levels. One is to really hook students 

at the very earliest level at STEM education, so what we could do 

is we recruit students at the freshman level and put them into the 

research lab and expose them to the concepts of nanoscience and 

technology. We have been able then to then escort them through 

a two-year program which then they then transition into more advanced science and engineering labs. And then from that they then 

typically are encouraged and given fellowships and internships at 

the next level to then go to graduate school in the STEM-based 

areas. 

Additionally, at UT Austin we have established a core of—a suite 

of user instrumentation that has allowed us to train hundreds if 

not thousands of students in the area of nanoscience and technology. We have a graduate level portfolio program that gives them 

certification in the area. It is not a degree-granting program but it 

allows them to really work interdisciplinary across as many as 14 

different departments to be able to really foster nanoscience. 

The outcome of this is that over 120 of these students are now 

at many levels, academic institutions, national labs, startup small 

businesses based on what they have learned as graduate students, 

and work for the government agencies. 

And with that I would like to conclude and thank everyone for 

the opportunity to be able to testify on behalf of the State of Texas. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Stevenson follows:] 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much, Dr. Stevenson. 

Dr. Hersam, you are recognized for five minutes. By the way, I 

graduated from the University of Illinois, so welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK HERSAM, PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF MATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING, 

MCCORMICK SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING & APPLIED SCIENCE, 

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 

Dr. HERSAM. Very glad to hear it. 

On behalf of Northwestern University, I would like to thank 

Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, Ranking Member 

Johnson, the entire Subcommittee on Research and Technology for 

the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. 

I am currently Professor of Material Science and Engineering, 

Chemistry, and Medicine, and Director of the Materials Research 

Center at Northwestern University. My research group studies and 

develops nanomaterials for use in a wide range of technologies, including electronics, photovoltaics, batteries, catalysis, and bioimaging. 

A significant portion of our research has been patented and commercialized, including our work on carbon nanomaterials that serve 

as the basis of a startup company that I cofounded called 

NanoIntegris. I have also been deeply involved in the development 

of education and outreach activities based on nanoscience and 

nanotechnology. 

The vast majority of my research has been funded by the National Nanotechnology Initiative. While much of this research focuses on applied technologies, the systematic application developments have been punctuated by discontinuous unanticipated breakthroughs. 

Therefore, while I strongly support the emergence of applied 

nanotechnology research funding, nanoscience remains an extremely fertile ground for discovery and therefore a diversified federal funding portfolio that includes strong support for fundamental 

research is critical to realize the full potential of nanotechnology. 

In particular, an expansion of the National Science Foundation 

Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers would foster fundamental research, bring new discoveries, and accelerate innovation 

in nanotechnology education and outreach. 

With its ability to impact diverse and interdisciplinary problems 

in medicine, health, environment, water, energy, catalysis, electronics, photonics, magnetics, and infrastructure, nanotechnology 

touches essentially all technological sectors and will continue to impact economic and job growth for the foreseeable future. In my role 

as Co-Chair of the National Science Foundation’s sanctioned global 

study entitled, ‘‘Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal 

Needs in 2020,’’ it is apparent that this opinion is now widely held 

globally leading to substantial investments in nanotechnology by 

governments throughout the industrialized world. 

Consequently, to maintain American global competitiveness and 

fully realize nanotechnology applications, sustained and predictable 

support of the National Science Foundation Nanosystems Engineering Research Centers and related applied research centers across 

all funded agencies would be required. In addition, the National 
67 

Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network should be reinstated to 

provide regional hubs and enable universal access to nanotechnology infrastructure. 

The ultimate judge of the utility of any technology is its ability 

to succeed as a commercial product in the marketplace. Towards 

that end, the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center at Northwestern University has launched 14 startup companies in diverse 

technologies ranging from biomedical diagnostics to nanoelectronic 

materials. 

The company that spun out of my lab, NanoIntegris, is among 

those 14 startups. In its early stages, NanoIntegris benefited significantly from federal funding in the form of small business innovation research grants that supported the scale-up of our carbon 

nanomaterial technology. By accelerating our technical milestones, 

federal funding allowed NanoIntegris to more quickly focus on business development, ultimately growing revenue and creating jobs. 

Expansion of the Small Business Innovation Research program will 

thus enable more nanotechnology startup companies to negotiate 

the so-called Valley of Death. 

Furthermore, reforms targeting improved efficiency of the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, where I have consistently experienced waits of four to five years for a nanotechnology patent be 

issued, will allow valuable intellectual property to be secured 

quickly, thereby reducing commercialization risks and accelerating 

economic growth. 

It is well documented that the United States is trailing many 

other industrialized nations in STEM education. While this problem is multifaceted with no simple solution, the situation is certainly improved when the most talented American students are inspired to pursue careers in science and engineering. In that regard, 

the incorporation of nanotechnology content into education and outreach efforts has been exceedingly successful. 

For example, under the support of the National Science Foundation, I incorporated nanotechnology into our materials science and 

engineering curriculum, resulting in a doubling of our domestic undergraduate population. From the perspective of commercialization, 

the Small Business Evaluation and Entrepreneur Program has 

united science, engineering, and business students in the development of business plans that have helped spawn multiple startup 

companies from Northwestern University. 

At the graduate level, the National Science Foundation, the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship Programs have been superlative at recruiting and retaining the top domestic science and engineering talent. Therefore, beyond its clear 

successes in producing significant discoveries and fostering innovation, the National Nanotechnology Initiative has proven to be one 

of the best federal programs for enhancing STEM education and 

thus American global competitiveness. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you again for this opportunity and your ongoing support of nanotechnology research, education, and commercialization. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hersam follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Dr. Hersam. 

I now recognize Mr. Ivie for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. LES IVIE, PRESIDENT & CEO, F CUBED, 

LLC 

Mr. IVIE. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and 

honorable Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Les Ivie and 

I am President and CEO of F Cubed, a company engaged in the 

commercialization of molecular detection technology for the rapid 

identification of pathogenic bacteria such as MRSA in wounds, Listeria in food—in contaminated foods, and E. coli in water samples. 

Our particular technology rests on exclusive of licenses obtained 

from the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, as well 

as the Israel Institute of technology in Haifa, as well as several inhouse patented inventions. 

Our investors have been extremely generous. However, we would 

not exist today if the underlying science behind our technology had 

not found support from the National Science Foundation or the National Nanotechnology Initiative. 

F Cubed is not a direct recipient of any federal funding. However, the University of Notre Dame has received approximately 

$3.9 million in federal grants that were specifically used to develop 

our technology. I would respectfully suggest that funding basic research in an academic environment it is a good social and financial 

investment. Entrepreneurs will pursue and fund these technologies 

assuming that the economic environment is supportive, human resources are available, and regulatory obstacles remain manageable. 

With regard to human resources, STEM education is of critical 

importance to F Cubed. In the field of nanotechnology, the availability of well-educated employees is critical to every company. 

STEM graduates come in at least two varieties. The typical STEM 

graduate is an individual with a bachelor, master, or doctoral degree. 

However, there is another type of STEM graduate that is important and often forgotten in this educational debate. In the area of 

nanotechnology there are valuable two-year programs that produce 

individuals with associate degrees. The NSF-supported Nanotechnology Applications and Career Knowledge network, or NACK, is 

a good example of such a program. These two-year programs are 

important because they graduate individuals that have knowledge 

and capability to operate and prepare robotic and electronic equipment that is used to manufacture nanotechnology products. 

STEM education is not monolithic. It is critical to support both 

traditional four-year and advanced degree programs, as well as 

two-year programs that produce the technicians that actually operate production lines for nanotechnology products. 

F Cubed is an advisory member of NSF NACK and is fortunate 

enough to have a two-year nanotechnology program offered by Ivy 

Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana. It is the only 

such program in Indiana. Many states have no comparable programs whatsoever. This deficiency is absolutely worth correcting. 

F Cubed has exclusive licenses with two prestigious academic institutions and significant experience in identifying technologies and 
76 

negotiating contracts with technology transfer offices. As an experienced licensee, we can state that the most challenging barrier to 

technology transfer is the time consumed in concluding negotiations. It is undeniable that startups are the engine that converts 

intellectual property into commercially interesting products. 

Startups license and commercialize new ideas and de-risk emerging 

technologies. 

With a few adjustments in the enabling language of grants, the 

federal government could reduce a major obstacle associated with 

technology transfer, thus ensuring that recipients are incentivized 

to quickly commercialize intellectual property and get it into the 

hands of companies willing to make a development risk benefiting 

the licensor and licensee, benefiting taxpayers who will see a greater and faster return on their tax dollars, and bolstering the economy at large. 

With regard to regulations, the materials used in nanotechnology 

are often new and exotic. Nanomaterials are used in minute quantities and are often so expensive the companies are economically 

incentivized to use as little as possible and absolutely minimize 

waste. Life science community benefits from an existing array of 

laboratory material safety practices, as well as good manufacturing 

practices that are not only customary within the industry but required by federal agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

F Cubed strongly supports objective and thoroughly peer-reviewed scientific investigations into the potential impact that nanomaterials may have on health and the environment under the guidance of the National Science Foundation or programs such as the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule process established by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It maybe that the quantity of nanomaterials in the environment is so low that additional 

regulation is unnecessary beyond current industry safety practices. 

The United States is a worldwide leader in nanotechnology. Our 

national approach to regulation must be rational and objective, not 

driven by misunderstanding of the materials in question or unsubstantiated fears. 

In conclusion, nanotechnology is important to our universities, 

businesses, and consumers, many of whom will advance—will benefit from advances in medicine, food safety, and a cleaner environment. Federal funding is a large component of basic research and 

translation of such research into products by privately financed 

companies must be faster and more deliberate if we are to maintain our worldwide lead. It is critical that qualified technicians, engineers, and scientists emerge from STEM programs, and finally, 

regulation must be informed and intelligent. Safety is paramount. 

Thank you for your support of nanotechnology. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ivie follows:] 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Ivie, for your testimony and 

all of the witnesses for their fascinating testimony. 

I want to remind the Members that the Committee rules limit 

questioning to five minutes and the Chair at this point will open 

the round of questions. I recognize myself for five minutes. 

First, Dr. Whitman, according to the President’s 2015 National 

Nanotechnology Initiative supplement, the proposed Fiscal Year 

2015 NNI budget is $1.537 billion, which is $1 million less than the 

estimated Fiscal Year 2014 spend amount and $13 million less 

than what was spent in Fiscal Year 2013. How can we remain competitive with flat or decreased funding? 

Dr. WHITMAN. So, first, let me comment that historically the actual budgets when they are reported are—can be quite a bit larger 

than that in the request. Many of the agencies, including the Department of Defense and even many programs within NIH and 

NSF and DOE aren’t specifically—aren’t nano-specific solicitations 

such that at the end of the process nano tends to be very competitive in competing for funds so that when the cross cut is done, it 

may in fact turn out that the nanotechnology budget may even 

have increased. 

So generally my comment would be that nanotechnology has continued to be quite competitive in solving problems and leading to 

funding in the current very tight budget environment. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Yes, that makes sense. 

Mr. Ivie, in your written testimony you write that our national 

approach to regulation of nanotechnology must be rational and objective and not driven by misunderstanding of materials in question or by unsubstantiated fear. What type of leadership and priorities should be coming from the federal government regarding research on the environmental and safety impacts of nanotechnology? 

Mr. IVIE. I think the—excuse me, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a process which I refer to in my written testimony 

as UMCR, the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, which 

has been very effective in identifying potential contaminants in the 

environment and has been very deliberate in the way they approach this problem, much as they do with some of the things we 

look for such as E. coli, Listeria, and terracoccus. That is a good 

starting place for regulation of the materials that we use I think. 

It has been very deliberate and they relied on scientific processes 

and scientific contribution to that so I think that is probably the 

best place to start. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

And as a physician, anyone want to comment? I was really interested in reading in the press about the gold nano particles you 

mentioned Dr. Whitman—being attached and used for anticancer 

therapy. I was really excited about the possibility of micro-targeting cancer because, as a cardiovascular surgeon, we macro-targeted it by removing it. But obviously that doesn’t cure cancer in 

many aspects; for example, lung cancer, even in earlier stages, 

there is still a percentage of people that eventually do not survive 

their cancer even though there is no detectable cancer in the body 

at the time. Does anyone want to comment about the future of 

that? 
91 

Dr. Hersam, I see you—I mean I—that is an exciting area. And, 

Dr. Persons. 

Dr. HERSAM. Yes. I think the opportunity for nanomaterials in 

this regard is the fact that in one particular material you can control multiple properties concurrently, so we can functionalize nanoparticles with a particular therapeutic agent. You can also 

functionalize it with a species that will direct where the agent will 

be delivered, and then you can have an external trigger such as an 

optical trigger, which can tell you exactly when the drug will be released. And I think it is that temporal control or time control of 

the release which gives you the opportunity to give clinicians a new 

knob to turn to realize new therapies, more effective therapies. 

Chairman BUCSHON. So in cancer cells is there a surface protein 

or something that you target? Is that how it works? 

Dr. HERSAM. You can do it in that way. You can take advantage 

of differences in the pH or the local acidity of the environment. It 

doesn’t mean it is a triggering release. Or you can have an external 

trigger, which would be dictated by the clinician. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Dr. Persons. 

Dr. PERSONS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We did do a profile on nanotherapeutics as part of our study and we did look at one particular 

group, but I would just add to what Dr. Hersam was saying. There 

is some exciting work on functionalizing these nanoparticles. First 

of all, we will be able to just make them with pristine accuracy 

down to that scale and even design them so that they do have sort 

of a Trojan horse effect if you will uptake into the cancer or the 

malignant cells. So the highly targeted nature of that is very exciting. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Anybody else have any comments on that? 

If not, then I yield to Mr. Lipinski for five minutes for his line 

of listening. Thank you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

I just wanted to start out by talking about a potential reauthorization of NNI, which, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we 

haven’t done since 2003. I just want to start by asking any recommendations that anyone has of—starting with Dr. Whitman, 

anything you would like to see in a reauthorization of NNI? 

Dr. WHITMAN. So as I commented in general, we think that the 

2003 act is fairly good. We have I think discussed in the past with 

a number of the Members one of the peculiar aspects of it is that 

there are actually multiple assessments called for in that act on 

different timescales and on different timescales than our other reporting. So we are—we have both a National Nanotechnology Assessment Panel and a National Research Council Panel on different 

timescales plus annual budget supplements and triennial strategic 

plans. So as the director of the office responsible for all of that, it 

is somewhat of a perpetual cycle of preparing for a review, responding for a review, and so having a somewhat more efficient schedule 

for those and perhaps not as much redundancy would be helpful. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Does anyone else have any recommendations? 

Dr. HERSAM. Yes. I mean what I would say is if we look at the 

maturity of nanotechnology, it is tempting to say there are winners 
92 

and we should invest in those winners and really develop technologies to a higher level and I think that that should happen. 

However, nanoscience itself remains a fertile area for breakthroughs, unanticipated new technologies. And so I think a diversified portfolio both on the fundamental research side and on the applied side is critical to take advantage of the full potential of this 

field. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Dr. Stevenson? 

Dr. STEVENSON. Yes. I would like to comment. 

We had an NNI site, one of these infrastructure nanotechnology 

network sites at our Pickle Research Campus that is home of the 

Materials Research and Engineering Center, and they were part of 

the NSF last round of funding and they decided not to fund any 

of the new NNI sites. And this had quite an impact on our local 

campus just being able to bridge the gap so that we have a lot of 

facilities that need care and feeding, and also there is a lot of large 

user base with dedicated staff scientists. And without that continued funding, then there is bridge funds essentially that are needed 

in order to keep that operational. 

The other thing to recognize is that a lot of this infrastructure 

that has—like these networks that have been built up, now there 

are several other new initiatives that actually are intertwined with 

the development and discoveries made in nanotechnology such as 

materials genome, the BRAIN Initiative, and a few others, 

mesoscale science in particular with the Department of Energy. 

Those types of new initiatives actually rely on a lot of the infrastructure and resources that were established by the NNI over the 

last 13 years. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Dr. Persons? 

Dr. PERSONS. Thank you, sir. I just would follow up. GAO in past 

work in looking at the NNI of course encourages a risk management-based approach on nano environment, health, and safety 

issues, so just would encourage based on our past work focus on 

that, although again in the same mode that Mr. Ivie was talking 

about in terms of a reasonable regulation type domain. 

I would also just echo what our study found, one of the large emphases on the need for international standards on these things as 

it moves into the commercial sector. Thank you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

I want to move on to technology transfer that I think is critical. 

I know, Dr. Hersam, when you were starting your company 

NanoIntegris that you applied and received SBIR grants, which 

you talked about. Can you talk about the importance of the SBIR 

program? And I will start with you and see if anyone else has any 

comments about what can be done to improve technology transfer 

when it comes to nanotech. 

Dr. HERSAM. Yeah. So I would say that the SBIR program has 

been absolutely critical. In the very early stages it allows prototype 

developments. I think that is key in order to get additional private 

capital injected into nanotech companies. The Phase 2 funding is 

especially important for going to the next level, which is often the 
93 

scale-up level. The scale-up is critical if you want to get your product to a larger market. 

I think there is an opportunity to reassess the Phase 3 program. 

Often when you are entering into Phase 3 you approach this valley 

of death where if the company doesn’t get a significant injection of 

capital, it can perish at that stage, and I think there is a lot of 

companies that are suffering at that moment. A little bit more investment from the federal government there would bring those to 

a profitable level and that of course would lead to economic growth. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Anyone else want to—okay. 

I will yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Collins for five minutes for his line of questioning. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon. 

Dr. Whitman, I am from western New York. Cornell University 

has been a big participant in the NNIN, and recently their funding 

has come to an end, as we have—now looking at the next gen. I 

just wonder could you help the Committee understand a little bit 

more about where the next generation NNIN stands? And I believe 

there was some proposals you were asking, you got a couple of 

groups that submitted but neither one was selected. 

And I know our big concern in New York is the State matches 

the funds that come out of the NNIN. And as Dr. Stevenson said, 

there is infrastructure there and you just can’t cut it off and then 

expect it to reappear if there is even a six month delay. And so, 

you know, on behalf of Cornell University and others, I would like 

to better understand where that initiative stands and is there a 

basic understanding you can’t just turn the spigot off and expect 

to turn it back on six months later. 

Dr. WHITMAN. So, unfortunately, although the NNCO is hosted 

by NSF, I am actually not part of the NSF organization so that is 

really a question that you would have to ask NSF leadership. I can 

briefly comment on what they have stated publicly, which is that 

the program is important and they are, actually recently had a 

‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter soliciting advice on how best to proceed 

with the program, so it is not—I think the intention from NSF appears to be to continue the program in some form. So, you know, 

I would be happy to take the question for the record to NSF and 

get a response but—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Yeah, maybe if you could. 

Dr. Stevenson, do you have any other comment as you have witnessed this firsthand? 

Dr. STEVENSON. Yeah. I mean it is a little bit—with all the pressure with the cuts and the deficit, especially with new centers, like 

there was encouragement to actually diversify and create other 

nanoscale research and engineering centers. Maybe that is not 

going to be the best way to go if we already have these established 

networks because these are serious investments. The—so there 

needs to be some pushback, I think a little bit to some of these 

agencies to say, hey, you already invested in this. You need to continue to do so. You can’t just leave these people hanging. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, and right now I think, you know, time is of 

the essence. 
94 

Dr. STEVENSON. Yeah, it—and this is really impacting our UT 

campus, our resources as well. 

Mr. COLLINS. So is there anything you could suggest that we 

could do on this Committee or in Congress to try to expedite this 

black hole that appears to be there? 

Dr. STEVENSON. Just to recognize that these resources just can’t 

be cut off and that there are people behind them that actually enable science, other funded initiatives and the growth of the technology base. So at the NNIN site in Texas they are—have several 

companies, over 50 that use this facility on a daily basis, and those 

companies need that access, too, especially the small companies. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, you know, again, Cornell shares that concern 

and so do I, so, you know, we will have to see what we might do 

to at least ask more questions and understand this is a resource 

that just can’t be turned off and then turned back on. 

With that, Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Ms. Johnson for her five minutes for her line of 

questioning. 

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

Dr. Whitman, the National Nanotechnology Initiative has had a 

workforce development component since it was established. Could 

you please speak to the efforts on education and workforce development and also talk a little bit about the education outreach activities at the elementary or secondary level and how the NNI agencies such as the National Science Foundation is providing resources 

for teachers or informal STEM educators so they can effectively integrate nanotechnology concepts into the classrooms and activities? 

Dr. WHITMAN. I will do my best. 

So this is not an area I have deep personal expertise, but I can 

tell you that nanotechnology—the federal government has worked 

hard to make nanotechnology a part of the federal-wide K–12 and 

postsecondary STEM education strategy. The NSF and the Department of Education have had a number of programs to do that. We 

in the NNCO do outreach at a variety of places. I actually personally attended the booth at the Science and Engineering Festival, 

which was a lot of fun. 

And there is also—NSF and other agencies support the National 

Nanomanufacturing Network, which also supports education, and 

there is also EHS-related work encouraging people to learn about 

the safe use of nanoparticles. 

Again, if you want to take that question for the record and I can 

provide additional information. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you. 

I am concerned about the turning off and on, as just been mentioned, and also in any kind of sustainability of how we can make 

sure there is a workforce, a research group in the future. Does anybody else on the panel have any comments? 

Dr. HERSAM. Yeah. I am happy to comment on that. 

So the National Science Foundation Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers would devote about, you know 1/4 to 1/3 of their 

budget to precisely STEM education and outreach. These programs 

were outstanding because you would have the latest in research 

impacting work being done at K–12 level, general public outreach, 
95 

undergraduate level. And these centers were designed to run for 

ten years, and the problem is after those ten years you have all 

this momentum and then, as you mentioned, the spigot is turned 

off and that gap in funding really decimates those programs. 

And consequently, having sustained and predictable funding will 

not only influence the fundamental research but perhaps more importantly STEM education and therefore American competitiveness. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

What about the gentleman, Mr. Ivie, the Notre Dame graduate, 

do you see any deficit in your work in the future for talent? 

Mr. IVIE. Yes. We see deficits in a couple of areas. One of them 

is in my written testimony and in my spoken testimony I highlighted the impact that people with associate’s degrees have on our 

business. For us this is important because these are the people that 

actually operate our production lines and these people are hard to 

come by right now, and that is primarily because the NSF program, NACK, the Nanotechnology Applications and Career Knowledge Network is just starting to take off. 

Typically in our business we hire people with bachelor’s degrees, 

master’s degrees, Ph.D.’s, and while they may be interested in—for 

working on a production line with a robot that is applying nanomaterials to our product for a few weeks, this isn’t something they 

want to make a career out of. So this is one thing we are particularly concerned about. 

I think the other thing we are concerned about in general is the 

issue that I am sort of hearing from some of the other testimonies, 

which is spreading federal government money over too much territory. As an entrepreneur, we view our business responsibility as 

taking this technology and commercializing it. We don’t see it as 

the university’s responsibility to do that for us. That is why we go 

out and find private individuals with a lot of money. Now, of 

course, Uncle Sam has a lot of money as well but that probably 

should be used somewhere else and I think that is also something 

that needs to be dealt with on the technology transfer side. 

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

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Johnson from Ohio for his line of questioning. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing today. 

Dr. Whitman, in your written testimony on the NNI you write, 

‘‘there is always room for improvement, as also suggested by the 

National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel and the National Academies.’’ Could you please give us an idea of which specific areas 

you think need improvement and why they are necessary? Can you 

expand on that, please? 

Dr. WHITMAN. Sure. So one of the areas, you know, we have been 

working hard at is improving our interface to the business community, both to provide resources to them and so that we can hear 

them as stakeholders. So, for example, we heard mention about the 

availability of things like the SBIR program so we have in our office a full-time industrial liaison person now and we have taken a 

number of steps to try to make our website a better resource for 
96 

industry and interface with groups like the Nanotechnology Business Commercialization Alliance to make sure they know who they 

need to talk to, bring people together, and support their needs as 

an industry community. That is one example. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. Hersam, in your testimony you write that you ‘‘have 28 nanotechnology patents pending, which implies that my commercialization attempts have largely occurred without formal patent protection.’’ So is this mainly due to the delays at the United States Patent and Trademark Office? 

Dr. HERSAM. That is correct. So the time from filing a patent to 

getting initial office action in my experience has typically been 

about three years, and then after the office action you are looking 

at another year or more before the patent is issued. This field 

moves so quickly that if you are going to commercialize, you have 

to go to market before your patent is issued, and therefore you are 

assuming risk because there is little legal recourse if your patent 

is not yet issued. 

So any effort that can streamline the operation or improve the 

efficiency of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office I think will improve the ability to commercialize nanotechnologies because you reduce risk that will allow easier time gaining investments and protecting IP, which was developed in the United States. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How many patents team you have with the Patent 

and Trademark Office now? 

Dr. HERSAM. Issued? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. How many do you have waiting? 

Dr. HERSAM. The 28 that you mentioned. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The 28 are still waiting? 

Dr. HERSAM. That is right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. And how long have they been there? 

Dr. HERSAM. It depends on the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Give me the oldest one. 

Dr. HERSAM. I have one that was filed in 2005 that is still pending. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Good grief, nine years. 

Dr. HERSAM. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How in your mind could the process be reformed 

at the Patent and Trademark Office and what specific policies do 

you think should be fixed and addressed, especially in this area 

that we are talking about, nanotechnology commercialization? 

Dr. HERSAM. You know, it is hard to know exactly why thing get 

delayed, but presumably it is not enough patent examiners in this 

field. I mean that is what I would anticipate as a limiting factor. 

It just takes—there is a large stack on the desk and it takes a long 

time to get through those. So getting them on the desk of the examiner more quickly presumably would be more examiners would 

help significantly. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But nine years. You think—I mean nanotechnology, I can’t imagine that there is—I mean maybe there are and 

maybe I am wrong, but I can’t imagine that there are that many 

people flooding the desk of the nanotechnology department at the 

Patent and Trademark Office. 
97 

Dr. HERSAM. Yes. So in that regard I guess I am as mystified as 

you are and it is not transparent or obvious to me why it takes so 

long. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. All right. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, that—those are all the questions I have. I 

yield back the remaining balance of my time. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Ms. Kelly for five minutes for her line of questioning. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Several of you mentioned successful public-private partnerships, 

including the College for Nanoscience and Engineering in New 

York. Are there lessons we can learn from public-private partnerships in nanotechnology, in particular partnerships that involve 

significant leveraging of private funds? And whoever cares to answer can answer, which I hope someone cares to answer. 

Mr. IVIE. I will take a stab at it. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. 

Mr. IVIE. The University of Notre Dame has a program called 

ESTEEM, which is a graduate one-year program for establishing 

science and entrepreneurship amongst STEM graduates. I think we 

have seen that as becoming successful because, number one, they 

implant interns into our organization. That is people with degrees 

that are useful, help us develop our products, and also to turn 

these students into entrepreneurs themselves. 

I think most four-year graduates, while they like the idea of becoming a business owner, what they don’t like is the idea of becoming impoverished in the process of doing that. However, what we 

have tried to explain to them is that if you are going to risk something, risk something before you have a home, several car payments, and children to support. 

So we have seen that partnership between us and them and 

other small businesses in our community become very successful. 

Ms. KELLY. That is great. I am sure they are worried about all 

the student loan debt. 

Mr. IVIE. They are, believe me. 

Ms. KELLY. Anyone else? 

Dr. WHITMAN. So it certainly works best when you have a combination of strong technology pull from the industry where they see 

a market and a need that can be met and a good technology push 

with a new technology. That is what you will see in something like 

the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative. It also works well when 

the nature of that public-private partnership involves a lot of—a 

significant amount of precompetitive work such that industries feel 

they can work together at that stage, so that certainly is the case 

there. And then the other one—there is one actually with the forest 

products related to nanocellulose. In fact, there is a workshop going 

on today about that field and the challenges and opportunities for 

commercialization, but there is already a public-private partnership in the area as well so you need those kind of combination of 

things that make it work. 

Dr. PERSONS. Yes, ma’am. And I would just add on to Dr. Whitman’s statement on—emphasizing the precompetitive research and 
98 

development sort of environment that is set up there. It is also— 

and seeing as each case is co-located with universities so you have 

this nice ecosystem of training, as has been mentioned a number 

of times. And there are strong involvement in integration with industry needs overall, so there is lots of industries coordination on 

that side and there is coordination on the STEM or the educational 

side. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Dr. STEVENSON. I would add one specific example that Texas— 

is that—is part of the establishment of the NNIN site. They 

worked with a local company that was founded at University of 

Texas, Molecular Imprints. It has now been sold to Canon. And 

with that agreement the Molecular Imprints gave them a significant discount on the state-of-the-art lithographic capabilities that 

then helped facilitate the training from people from local companies to use this technology at the NNIN site. And this was only enabled because of the partnership between the federal investments 

to establish the NNIN capabilities Texas but also the fact that this 

company is really innovating in that particular area a totally different way of doing nanofabrication than what is currently done in 

the commercial sense. 

So this partnership really had led not only the training of people 

at different companies but also students and graduate students in 

this area, so it was a very emerging cutting-edge technology that 

was enabled from that. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Stockman, five minutes. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I am from Texas so I am glad to hear so much 

about Texas, and I think University of Houston also had some 

nanotechnology, so I don’t want to—representing Houston, I don’t 

want to leave that out. 

I have a friend up in Dallas who spent I think close to $100 million of his own money—I wish I could say I spent that—but—and 

one of the things he found out is he developed a nanotechnology. 

The people in the government, particularly the EPA, were not as 

familiar with what he was doing and they came in there and—in 

a way that prohibited him from doing things and research, which 

I don’t—there is a gap between government regulations and what 

they know and what they are proposing. And then the DOD told 

him he can’t sell his product to pay for his research because they 

said it is classified, so DOD won’t buy it. And so what happens 

now—he is looking at going to—in transferring his entire company 

to Abu Dhabi, and I am wondering if we can’t get feedback from 

you on how we could make sure that we don’t lose private corporations because they feel restricted either through the EPA or the 

DOD. So feel free to answer. 

Dr. STEVENSON. I am happy to answer at least one aspect of that 

question. First of all, EPA seems to be bifurcated in their behavior 

towards certain materials. For example, contaminants that you 

would find in water such as Lake Michigan, they might spend 20 

to 25 years examining the problem, coming up with a prescription 

for the solution to the problem, and then implementing the solution. What we have seen in nanotechnology is there already are a 
99 

huge number of regulations we are required to comply with, whether that is laboratory safety, material safety, OSHA requirements, 

in Indiana, the Indiana Department of Safety and Health and then 

the University of Notre Dame, so there is already a very large contingent of regulations that we have to comply with. 

I think part of what we are seeing is probably a political reaction, number one, and secondly, a misunderstanding of what it is 

we are dealing with. They don’t understand the characteristics of 

the materials and many of their laboratories that they have in 

places like Cincinnati have not dealt with these things before. 

So the solution to what EPA is doing I am not sure what the solution is, but one thing I am certain is not a solution is not talking 

about it and that seems to be what is on the agenda right now. 

There isn’t a lot of public disclosure about what they are going to 

do. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Given that you are in the private sector, is there 

any way you can get to this Committee some of the problems you 

are seeing? Because I think for us we make laws for you to make 

and facilitate your productivity and we want to see you succeed, 

but if we don’t know the problems, we can’t correct that. And to 

me it was alarming because here is a guy who put in a lot of his 

own money and now is forced to leave because the people—given 

the rules and regulations, a lot of them don’t have a clue. I mean 

they don’t have a clue about what you are doing and so they just 

shoot in the dark at regulations saying, well, I hope this regulation 

is going to help. We don’t really know. There is no case study to 

prove our regulation is going to help and it is driving people out 

even before this industry takes off. 

And for me to see America’s competitiveness being driven down 

by people that don’t know what is going on is pretty alarming to 

me. 

Mr. IVIE. Well, I think in my opinion what I would rather see 

happen instead of giving F Cubed a grant, for example, or a small 

business loan, what I would refer to see is something like a program at the U.S. EPA for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rules that they already have in place to examine these 

things over a period of time with the NSF or an organization like 

that. We already know this has worked with other contaminants 

such as hexavalent chromium or hormones that are being injected 

into the water system through waste streams. That is probably the 

most important thing. I just don’t think they are being pressured 

to do that. That is where their true scientific capability lies. 

With regard to your friend who is going to Abu Dhabi, one thing 

I can say, we experience this on a daily basis. Many organizations 

in places, not so much the Middle East but in Asia, are spending 

a huge amount of money trying to do what we are doing. That is 

they are trying to develop entrepreneurs to take over nanotechnology. The difference is that so far from a cultural point of view 

they have not succeeded in doing that. It is not because they are 

not just spending the money to try, however. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Well, they don’t even make the distinction between friable and un-friable or in suspension. They just use a shotgun. 
100 

But I appreciate your feedback. If you can get us ways that we 

can improve the efficiency, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. IVIE. Certainly. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

the hearing. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. And—excuse me. At this point 

I would like to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, 

very fascinating subject, and the Members for their questions. The 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 

written questions from Members. 

The witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(101) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
102 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Lloyd Whitman 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 

Responses by Mr. Les Ivie 
110 
111 

(113) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
114 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF LAMAR S. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 

SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY

Thank you Chairman Bucshon for holding today’s hearing. 

Many believe nanotechnology has the potential to usher in the next industrial revolution. Last February, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that the Committee’s Chairman Emeritus, Mr. Hall, and I had requested, titled, ‘‘Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, 

the Environment, and Human Health.’’ 

The report described nanomanufacturing as a future megatrend with societal and 

economic impacts that could surpass even the digital revolution. It also predicted 

further scientific breakthroughs in this area that will lead to new engineering developments and improvements in the manufacturing sector. 

The report recommended that Congress update current innovation-related policies 

and programs and that we promote U.S. innovation in manufacturing through public-private partnerships. One such public-private partnership is the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN). The NNIN is a partnership of user facilities, supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), which serves the 

needs of nanoscale science, engineering and technology. 

The University of Texas at Austin is home to one of these facilities called the 

Microelectronics Research Center (MRC). This center performs research to improve 

materials used in the integrated circuit industry and related industries. 

The MRC is more than a clean room with open-access to advanced nano-fabrication equipment. It is a community of scientists who work together to share knowledge in order to ensure a more advanced and competitive America. 

More importantly, MRC is leading the way in the instrumentation for manufacturing—precisely the area that was recommended for emphasis in the GAO report. 

In 2013, NSF requested proposals for a Next Generation Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NG-NNIN). Two teams of universities responded to this call. 

Last March, NSF decided not to fund either of the NG-NNIN proposals under consideration. 

Given the importance of nanotechnology research and the GAO report recommendation that the U.S. maintain and enhance competitiveness in this area, I 

don’t know of a good explanation for NSF’s decision. 

I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony on how we can ensure that the U.S. 

remains the world leader in nanotechnology research. I would especially like to 

thank Chemistry Professor Keith Stevenson, from the University of Texas at Austin, 

for his participation this morning. 

Æ