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

74–729PDF 2012

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY USER FACILITIES: 

UTILIZING THE TOOLS OF SCIENCE TO DRIVE 

INNOVATION THROUGH FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2012 

Serial No. 112–92 

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. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI,Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, June 21, 2012 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Andy Harris, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Antonio Lanzirotti, Chairman, National User Facility Organization 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Dr. Persis Drell, Director, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 

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

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

Dr. Stephen Wasserman, Senior Research Fellow, Translational Scientist and 

Technologies, Ely Lilly and Company 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 71 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 73 

Ms. Suzy Tichenor, Director, Industrial Partnerships Program, Computing 

and Computational Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 87 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 89 

Dr. Ernest Hall, Chief Scientist, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering/Materials Characterization, GE Global Research 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 95 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 98 

Discussion 106 

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Antonio Lanzirotti, Chairman, National User Facility Organization ........... 121 

Dr. Persis Drell, Director, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory ..................... 135 

Dr. Stephen Wasserman, Senior Research Fellow, Translational Scientist and 

Technologies, Ely Lilly and Company ................................................................ 138 

Ms. Suzy Tichenor, Director, Industrial Partnerships Program, Computing 

and Computational Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory ........................ 140 

Dr. Ernest Hall, Chief Scientist, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering/Materials Characterization, GE Global Research ...................................................... 144 
Page

IV 

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record 

Proprietary User Agreement, UChicago Argonne, LLC, Operator of Argonne 

National Laboratory ............................................................................................. 148 
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY USER FACILITIES: 

UTILIZING THE TOOLS OF SCIENCE TO DRIVE 

INNOVATION THROUGH FUNDAMENTAL 

RESEARCH 

THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Harris 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

RALPH M, HALL, TEXAS 

CHAIRMAN 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. TEXAS 

RANKING M"MGER 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFr:I(~E BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Department of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science to 

Drive Innovation through Fundamelltal Research 

Thursday, June 21, 2012 

9:30 a.m. - 11 :30 a.m. 

2318 Raybum House Office Building 

Dr. Antonio Lanzirotti, Chainnan, National User Facility Organization 

Dr. Persis Drell, Director, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 

Dr. Stephen Wasserman, Senior Research Fellow, Translational Science & Technologies, 

Ely Lilly and Company 

Ms. Suzy Tichenor, Director, Industrial Partnership~ Program, Computing and 

Computational Sciences, Oak Ridgc National Laboratory 

Dr. Ernest Hall, Chief Scientist, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering/Materials 

Characterization, GE Global Research 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT 

HEARING CHARTER 

Department of Energy U .. er Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science to 

Drive Innovatioll through Fundamental Research 

PURPOSE 

Thursday, June 21, 2012 

9:30 a.m. - 11 :30 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Thursday, June 21, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, 

the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology will hold a hearing entitled "Department a/Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the 

Tools a/Science to Drive Innovation through Fundamental Research." The purpose of this 

hearing is to examine the role the Department of Energy's (DOE) national scientific user 

facilities play in enabling basic research that drives innovation and economic growth. 

Additionally, the hearing will examine challenges and opportunities associated with user facility 

planning and management. 

WITNESS LIST 

• Dr. Antonio Lanzirotti, Chairman, National User Facility Organization 

• Dr. Persis Drell, Director, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 

• Dr. Stephen Wasserman, Senior Research Fellow, Translational Science & Technologies, 

Ely Lilly and Company 

Ms. Suzy Tichenor, Director, Industrial Partnerships Program, Computing and 

Computational Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Dr. Ernest Hall, Chief Scientist, Chemistry and Chemical EnginccringlMaterials 

Characterization, GE Global Research 

Officc of Scicnce Overview 

The mission of the Department of Energy's Office ofScienee (SC) is the delivery of scientific 

discoveries, capabilities, and major scientific tools to transform the understanding of nature and 
4 

to advance the energy, economic, and national security of the United States.! To achieve this 

mission, SC supports basic research activities in the following areas: advanced scientific 

computing, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research, fusion energy sciences, 

high energy physics, and nuclear physics. SC's operations take place in three main areas: 

selection and management of research (47 percent ofSC's $4.9 billion FY 2013 budget request); 

operation of world-class, state-of-the-art scientific facilities (38 percent); and design and 

construction ofncw facilities (14 percent) (Figure J). 

Figure 1. Office of Science funding distribution. 

c 

FY 2010 Funding 

Total::: $4.904 billion 

SC aims to carry out its mission through support in the following three areas: 3 

Energy and Environmental Science, focused on advancing a clean energy agenda through 

fundamental research on energy production, storage, transmission, and use, and on 

advancing our understanding of the earth's climate through basic research in atmospheric 

and environmental sciences and climate change; 

1 http://science.energy.gov/about/ 

, Ibid. 

'Ibid. 

2 
5 

• The Frontiers of Science, focused on unraveling nature's mysteries-from the study of 

subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules that make up the materials of our everyday 

world to DNA, proteins, cells, and entire biological systems; and 

• The 21st Century Tools of Science, national scientific user facilities providing the 

Nation's researchers with the most advanced tools of modem science including 

accelerators, eolliders, supercomputers, light sources, neutron sources, and facilities for 

studying the nanoworld. 

Office of Science User Facilities 

This third category-national scientific user facilities-·-is a unique and defining characteristic of 

SC. The origins of these facilities trace back to the Manhattan Project, where the challenges 

associated with building the first nnc1car weapons demanded large, multi-purpose facilities that 

later became the focus of the country's first national laboratories. DOE states that these 

facilities-thc large machines for modern sciencc-"offer capabilities unmatched anywhere in 

the world and enable U.S. researchers and industries to remain at the forefront of science, 

technology, and innovation. Approximately 26,500 researchers from universities, national 

laboratories, industry, and international partners arc expected to usc the Office of Science 

scientific user facilities in FY 2013.,,4 According to the National User Facility Organization 

(NUFO), scientific user facilities (most but not all of which are supported by SC) were home to 

experiments that have resulted in 23 Nobel Prizes from 1939 nntil today5 

A January 6, 2012 Office of Science memorandnm provides the following definition of a user 

facility: 6 

"A user facility is a federally sponsored research facility available for external use to advance 

scientific or technical knowledge under the following conditions: 

• The facility is open to all interested potenlialusers without regard to nationality or 

institutional affiliation. 

Allocation of facility resources is dctcnnined by merit review of the proposed work. 

User fees arc not charged for non-proprietary work if the user intends to publish the 

research results in the open ]iteratnre. Full cost recovery is required for proprietary work. 

• The facility provides resources sufficient for llsers to conduct work safely and efficiently. 

• The facility supports a formal user organization to represent the users and facilitate 

sharing of infonnation, fomling collaborations, and organizing research efforts among 

users. 

• The facility capability docs not compete with all available private sector capability." 

4 http://science.energy.gov/about/ 

5 http://www.nufo.org/files/NUFO Brochure.pdf 

6 http://science.energy.gov/N/media/ /pdf/user.facilities/Office of Science User Facility Definition Memo.pdf 

3 
6 

Currently, the Office of Science supports 31 user facilities (Appendices I and IJ) across its six 

program directorates. They include supercomputers, particle accelerators, x-ray light sources, 

neutron scattering sources, and other large scale facilities that enable researchers to pursue new 

scientific discoveries. 

Over half of these are located in the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) directorate and are focused on 

enabling cutting-edge physical and life sciences research with a broad range of potential 

applications. For example, BES supports five x-ray light sources used to examine the atomic and 

electronic structure of a wide array of materials and chemicals. 7 The research undertaken at 

these light sources by academia, government, and industry has resulted in numerous 

breakthroughs and innovations ultimately applied to advances in industry sectors such as 

aerospace, mcdicine, semiconductors, chemicals, and energy. 

Budget, Planning. Management, and Operations 

Most SC user facilities are expensive to construct and operate, typically costing several hundred 

million dollars or more. For example, two ofthe most recently completed facilities-the 

Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Linac Coherent Light 

Source at SLAC National Accelerator Facility--cost $1.6 billion and approximately $415 

million to constmct, respectively.g 

The Office of Science is generally well regarded for its effectiveness in planning, developing, 

and constmcting user facilities on time and on budget. This record is considered successful in 

part due to a rigorous planning and budget control process known as the Critical Decision, or 

CD, process. The CD process, formalized in DOE Order 413.3A-Program and Project 

Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets-requires a series of high level reviews and 

decision-making as a facility project advances9 

According to DOE, each oftbe five Critical Decisions mark "an increase in commitment of 

resources by the Department and requires successful completion of the preceding phase or 

Critical Decision."lo Collectively, the Critical Decisions affirm the following: 

CD 0: There is a need that cannot be met through other than matcrial means; 

CD 1: The selected alternative and approach is the optimum solution; 

CD 2: Definitive scope, schedule and cost baselines have been devcloped; 

CD 3: The project is ready for implementation; and 

CD 4: Thc project is ready for turnover or transition to operations. 

Once facility construction has completed and transitioned into operations and research, Office of 

Science programs typically provide significant ongoing support to manage and operate facilities 

(Table l). Support for merit-reviewed research undertaken by both intramural and extramural 

scientists is also provided by SC, as well as by other Federal agencies. 

7 http://scie nee. energy.gov /-/media/bes/suf/pdf /BES F aci lities. pdf 

, http://energy.gov / sites/prod/files/ ma prod/ docu ments/LClS. pdf 

9 hltp:l/science.energy.govHmedia/pdf/opa/pdf/o4133a .pdf 

10 Ibid. 

4 
7 

Table 1. Office of Science Program and Facility Operations Budgets.l1 

Program FY12 Total iFY12 User Facility 

Budget pperations* 

($ millions) $ millions) 

Advanced Scientific 440.9 248.3 

Computing Research (ASCR) 

Basic Energv Sciences (BES) 1,688.1 730.6 

Biological and Environmental 609.6 201.7 

Research (BER) * 

High Energy Physics (HEP) 790.8 221.6 

Nuclear Phvsics (HP) 547.4 289.3 

Fusion Energy Sciences 401.0 129.7 

(FES)* 

* Table figures do not include facilities research support, with the exception of BER and FES directorates, 

which do. 

Innovation and Industrial Use 

A 2010 report by DOE's Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC), Science for 

Energy Technology: Strengthening the Link Between Basic Research and Industry, examined 

challenges and opportunities associated with realizing the technological and economic potential 

of scientific user facilities. 12 The rcport noted that these user facilities allow researchers to "peer 

deep inside objects and probe surfaces in ever increasing detail, enabling an understanding of 

complex materials and chemistry with resolution and sensitivity that is not achievable by any 

other means. Facilities of this type are well beyond the resources of individual research 

institutions or companies."I] 

The report also concluded that opportunities exist for user facilities to better engage and improve 

industrial usage without deviating from their fundamental mission to broadly advance science. 

Specifically, the report made the following recommcndations with respect to user facilities: 

• The user facilities are ideally suited to addressing a wide range of science questions with 

significant technological impact. BES and the user facilities could consider a number of 

options that would allow the facilities to better serve the industrial user community 

without deviating from their mission to advance scientific understanding of materials and 

chemical processes. 

• To the extent possible, it would be desirable to have more uniform procedures for access 

and use across the various user facilities to expedite coordinated use of multiple facilities 

by industry and other research organizations. 

• Evaluation of proposals could take into consideration technological impact in addition to 

scientific merit. 

11 Source Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request. 

11 http://sdence.energy.gov/-lmed ia/bes/pdf Ireports/files/set rpt.pdf 

"Ibid. 

5 
8 

• Pecr review of proposals could include a greater number of industry reviewers. 

• The facilities might consider setting aside a modest fraction of the facility time for "quick 

response" projects from industry and basic science users. 

• User facility staff researchers could be incentivized and rewarded for assisting non-expert 

users from industry, aud facilities could increase their outreach to industry by holding 

workshops to gain greater understanding of industJial nceds and barriers to increased 

participation. 

• These activities are within the technology transfer mission of the laboratories and could 

significantly enhance the development of clean energy technology. 

• User facilities could be encouraged to develop and broaden industrial participation. Some 

possibilities include greater industrial participation on Scientific Advisory Committees, 

or possibly the development of a separate Industrial Advisory Board. 

• These would help to develop better communications with the facility Director and staff 

regarding industrial needs for access, as well as new capabilities, instrumentation and 

beamlines. 

6 
9 

Appendix 1'4 

U.S. Department ofEller~ 

Otlice of Science U SCI" Facilities, FY 2012 

Facility 

Advanced Scientific Rcsearch Computing (ASCR) 

:!'\;ational En~rgy Rt':;earch S-.:ientltlc Computing C~llter (i\;""ERSC) 

Energy SC1ences Network (ESnet) 

Basic Em'Tgy Sciences (HIi':"") 

Light Sources 

Advanced I,ight Source (ALS) 

Advanced Photon Source 

Stanford 

1\' eulrolt Sources 

High FILLx Isotope Reactor (HFfR) 

SpallatIon !'eutwn Source 

Lujan at Los Alamos N~ulron Center (LAN Sa) 

/Vanoscale Science Research Centers 

Center for Functional Kanomaterials (CFN) 

Electron Aficr()scopy Centers 

National Center for Electron J\1icroscopy (NCEi\'f) 

Electron 1\1icroscopy Center for ?vfaterials Research 

Shared fZe"earch Equipment Program (Shal<'E) 

Biological and Envi.-onm('ntal Reseal'eh (HER) 

Environmentlt Molecular Sciences Labomtol)< -(EMSL) 

Atnwsphcric RautatlOn Measurement ClImate Research (ARl"f) 

Joint Genome InstItuh~ (JOl) 

I,'usion En('rgy Scien(.'es (YES) 

DIII-D 

Torus E>..-periment (NSTX) 

High Enel'!~Y Physics (HEP) 

Proton Acc.:lerator Complex 

Faelhty for Advanced Accdemtor Expt\rimentnl Tests (FACET) 

Nuclear Physics (NP) 

Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) 

Holifield RadioactivC' Ion Beam Facility OTRIBF) 

RelatIVIstic Ileay)' 

(ATLAS) 

Host institution 

LENl. 

AN1~ 

ORN1. 

LBNL 

L131':L 

A]\;L 

SLAC 

HNL 

SLAC 

Ofu'IL 

Ol~. 

U\NL 

BNL 

Sandia'l,A.,1\,L. 

ORNL 

ANI, 

LPNL 

LBNL 

ANL 

ORNL 

P.i-...TL"·,j"L 

Global nchvork 

LBNL 

General Atomics 

PPPL 

.MIT 

FNAL 

SLAC 

T.1NAF 

OI,Nl~ 

BNL 

ANt. 

Note: This lIst reflects facility st.:"1tus as of the beginning of the fiscal year and does not reflect changes in facllity 

status enacted in appropriations 1m·\-' for FI' 2012 

14 http://scie nce.energy.gov /N /med ia/ .J pdf/user. faci lities/Office _ oC Science_User Jacility _ Defi n ition _ Me mo. pdf 

7 
10 

Appendix II 

Office of Science User Facility Descriptions (condensed from DOE materials)'; 

ASCR User Facilities 

The Agyance,l Scientific Computing Research program supports thc operation of the following national 

scientitic user facilities: 

Ell~rgy Sciences Network (ESnet): 

The Energy Sciences Network, or ESnet, is a high-speed network serving thousands of 

Department of Energy researchers and collaborators worldwide. Managed and operated by the 

ESnet staff at Lawl:c.l1fc .. B<;rkeley National Laboratory, ESnet provides direct connections to 

more than 30 DOE sites at speeds up to 10 gigabits per second. Connectivity to the global Intel11et 

is maintained through "peeling" al1'angemcnts with more than 100 other Intel11et service 

providers. 

Oak Ridgc National LaboratoryL_<;ildcrship Computing Facility (QLCEt 

Home to Jaguar, a Cray XK6 capablc of 3.3 thousand trillion calculations a second-or 3.3 

petallops-the OLCI' combincs world-class staff with cutting-edge facilities and support systems. 

The center serves elite scientists from all areas of the research community through programs such 

as the Department of Energy's Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and 

Experiment Ol\LCITE) program, ensuring it will be a computing powerhouse for the foresceable 

future. In 2012, nearly a billion processor hours on Jaguar were awarded to 35 INCITE projects 

from universities, private industry, and governmcnt research laboratories, reprcscnting a wide 

array of scientific inquiry, from combustion to climate to chemistry. 

Argonne L"adership Computing Facility (ALCF)6': 

The ALCF provides the computational science community with a world-class computing 

capability dedicated to breakthrough science and engineering. It began operation in 2006 to 

coincide with the award of the 2006 INCITE projects and the research being conducted at the 

ALCI' spans a diverse range of scientific areas - from studying exploding stars to designing more 

efficient jet engines to exploring the molecular basis of Parkinson's disease. The resources at the 

ALeF include an IBM Blue Gene/P system nicknamed Intrepid, and a BG/P system named 

Surveyor. Intrepid possess a peak speed of 557 Teraflops and a Unpack speed of 450 Teraflops, 

making it one of the fastest supercomputers in the world. 

National Energy Research Scientific Computing (NERSC) Center: 0' 

As a national resource to enable scientific advances to support the missions of the Departnlent of 

Energy's Omce of Science, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center 

(NERSC), operated by the l1l-",,:ence Berkcley National Labori!t.Q!}'O', annually serves 

approximately 3,000 scientists throughout the United States. These researchers work at DOE 

laboratories, universities, industrial laboratories and other Federal agencies. Computational 

science couducted at NERSC covers the entire range of scientific disciplines, but is focused on 

research that sllppOl1s DOE's missions and scientific goals. 

15 http://science.energy.gov(user-facilities 

8 
11 

BES User Facilities 

The Basic Energy Sciences program supports the operation of the following national scientific user 

facilities: 

Synchrotron Radiation Light Sources 

National Synchrotron Light Source ili~LSj~ 

The NSLS at Brookhaven National LaboratolY, commissioned in 1982, consists of two distinct 

electron storage rings. The x-ray storage ring is 170 meters in circumference and can 

accommodate 60 beamlines or experimental stations, and the vacuum-ultraviolet (VUV) storage 

ring call provide 25 additional beamlines around its circumference of 51 meters. Synchrotron 

light from the x-ray ring is used to determine the atomic structure of materials using diffraction, 

absorption, and imaging tcchniques. Experiments at the VUV ring help solve the atomic and 

electronic structure as well as the magnetic propertics of a wide array of materials. These data are 

fundamentally important to virtually all of the physical and life sciences as well as providing 

immensely useful information for practical applications. NSLS will be replaced by a new light 

SOllree, NSLS-IIO', which is currently under construction. 

~ta_n(oxsL~nchrotron Radiation Lightsouree (SSRL): CI 

The SSRL at ~:LL~~CJ"LatiOllal Accelerator Laboratoryc9 was built in 1974 to take and use for 

synchrotron studies the intense x-ray beams from the SPEAR storage ring that was originally 

built for particle. The facility is used by researchers from industry, government laboratories, and 

universities~ These include astronomers, biologists, chemical enginecrs, chemists, electrical 

engineers, environmental scientists, geologists, materials scientists, and physicists. 

Advanced Light Source (ALS): c9 

The ALS at Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratorylY, began operations in October 1993 as one 

of the world's brightest sources of high-quality, reliable vacuum-ultraviolet (VUV) light and longwavelength (soft) x-rays for probing the electronic and magnetic structure of atoms, molecules, 

and solids, such as those for high-temperature superconductors. The high brightness and 

coherence of the ALS light are particularly suited for soft x-ray imaging of biological structures, 

environmental samples, polymers, magnetic nanostructures, and other inhomogeneous materials. 

Other uses of the ALS include holography, interferometry, and the study ofmoIceules adsorbed 

on solid smfaces. The pulsed nature of the ALS light offers special opportunities for time 

resolved research, such as the dynamics of chemical reactions, Shorter wavelength x-rays are also 

used at stmetural hiology experimental stations for x-ray crystallography and x-ray spectroscopy 

of proteins and other important biological macromolecules. 

Advanced Photon Source (t-J.'.S.t& 

The APS at Argonne National Laboratoryc9 is one of only three third-generation, hard x-ray 

synchrotron radiation light sources in the world. The 1,1 04-metcr circumference facility-large 

enough to house a baseball park in its center-includes 34 bending magnets and 34 insertion 

devices, which generate a capacity of 68 beamlines for experimental research. Instruments on 

these beamlines attract researchers to study the structure and properties of materials in a variety 

of disciplines, including condensed matter physics, materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, 

structural biology, medical imaging, and environmental sciences. The high-quality, reliable x-ray 

beams at the APS have already brought about new discoveries in materials structure. 

Linac £:oherent Light Source (LCLS): 

The LCLS at the SLAC National Accelerator LaboratOlY (SLAC) is the world's first hard x-ray 

free electron laser facility and became operational in June 20 I O. This is a milestone for x-ray user 

facilities that advances the state-of-the-art from storage-ring-based third generation synchrotron 

light sources to a fourth generation Linae-based light source. The LCLS provides laser-like 

9 
12 

radiation in the x-ray region of the spectrum that is 10 billion times greater in peak power and 

peak brightness than any existing coherent x-ray light source. 

High-Flux Neutron Sources 

Spallation Neutron~Quree (SNS): 

The SNS at Oak Ridge National !&horillo!Jr is a next-generation short-pulse spallation neutron 

source for neutron scattering that is significantly more powerful (by about a factor of 10) than the 

best spallation neutron source now in existencc. The SNS consists of a linac-ring accelerator 

system that delivers short (microsecond) proton pulses to a target/moderator system wherc 

neutrons arc produced by a process called spallation. The neutrons so produced are then used for 

neutron scattering experiments. Specially designed scientific instruments use these pulsed neutron 

beams for a wide variety of investigations. 

High Flux ISQtQQe Reactor (HFIR): c./ 

The HFJR at Oak RidgL]\[l!\ional Laboratoryl:'f is a light-water cooled and moderated reactor that 

began full-power opcrations in 1966 at the design power level of 100 megawatts. Currcntly, HFIR 

operates at 85 megawatts to provide state-of-the-art facilities for neutron scattering, materials 

irradiation, and neutron activation analysis and is the world's leading source of elements hcavier 

than plutoninm for research, medicine, and industrial applications. The neutron-scattering 

experiments at the reveal the stmcture and dynamics of a very wide range of materials. The 

neutron-scattering instruments installed on the four horizontal beam tubes are used in 

fundamental studies of materials of interest to solid-state physicists, chemists, biologists, polymer 

scientists, metallurgists, and colloid scientists. 

Los Alamos Neutron Science Ccnter (LANSCE): 

The Lujan Neutron Scattcring Center (Lujan Center) at Los Alamos National LaboratOIY provides 

an intense pulsed source of neutrons to a variety of spectrometcrs for neutron scattering studies. 

The Lujan Center features instruments for measurement of high-pressure and high-temperature 

samples, strain measurement, liquid studies, and texture measurement. The facility has a long 

histOlY and extensive experience in handling actinide samples. The L1uan Center is part of 

LANSCE, which is comprised of a high-power SOO-McV proton linear accelerator, a proton 

storage ring, production targets to the Lujan Center, the Weapons Neutron Research facility, 

Proton Radiography, and Ultra-Cold Neutron beam lines, in addition to an Isotope Production 

Facility, along with a variety of associated experimcnt areas and spectrometers for national 

securily research and civilian research. 

Electron Beam Microcharactcrization Centers 

rhe Electron MifSos,cQIlll!;nter (EMQioL\1_aterials Researchcr: 

The EMCMR at tllgonne National LabiJfi!tQryCt provides in-sitll, high-voltage and intermediate 

voltage, high-spatial resolution electron microscope capabilities for direct observation of ionsolid interactions during inadiation of samples with high-energy ion beams. The EMC employs 

both a tandem accelerator and an ion implanter in conjunction with a transmission electron 

microscope for simultaneous ion irradiation and electron beam microcharacterization. It is the 

only instrumentation of its type in the western hemisphere. Research at EMC includes 

microscopy based studies on high-temperature superconducting materials, irradiation effects in 

metals and semiconductors, phase transformations, and processing related structure and chemistry 

of interfaces in thin tilms. 

National Center for FI"ctron MicroscoQY (NCEM): 

The NCEM at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory provides instrumentation for highresolution, electron-opticalmicrocharacterization of atomic structure and composition of metals, 

10 
13 

ceramics, semiconductors, superconductors, and magnetic materials. This facility contains one of 

the highest resolution electron microscopes in the U.S. 

Shared Research Equipment (SHaRE): 0' 

The SHaRE User Facility at Qj!lc Ridge National LaboratoryO' makes available state-of-the-art 

electron beam microcharacterization facilities for collaboration with researchers trom 

universities, industry and other government laboratories. Most SHaRE projects seek correlations 

at the microscopic or atomic scalc between structure and properties in a wide range of metallic, 

ceramic, and other structural materials. A diversity of research projects has been conducted, such 

as the characterization of magnetic materials, catalysts, semiconductor device materials, high Tc 

supe"conductors, and surface-modi tied polymers. Analytical services (service microscopy) which 

can be purchased ti'OJn commercial laboratories are not possible through SHaRE. 

Nanoscale Science Research Centers 

Center for Natl(1])hase Materials Sciences (CNMS)~ 

The CNMS at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a research center and user facility that integrates 

nanoseale science research with neutron science, synthesis science, and 

theOly/modcling/simulation. The building provides state-of-the-art clean rooms, general 

laboratories, wet and dry laboratorics for sample preparation, fabrication and analysis. Equipmcnt 

to synthesize, manipnlatc, and characterize nanoseale materials and structures is included. The 

CNMS's major scicntitic thrusts are in nano-dimensioned soft materials, complex nanophase 

materials systems, and the crosscutting areas of interfaces and reduced dimensionality that 

become scienti fically critical on the nanoscale. A major focus of the CNMS is to exploit ORNL's 

unique capabilities in neutron scattering. 

Molecular Foundry: 

The Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley ~ational Lahoratory (LBNL) makes use of 

existing LBNL facilities such as the Advanced Light Source, the National Center for Electron 

Microscopy, and the National Energy Research ScientiJic Computing Center. The facility 

provides laboratories for materials science, physics, chemistty, biology, and molecular biology. 

State-of-the-art equipment includes clean rooms, controlled cnvironmcntal rooms, scanning 

tunneliug microscopes, atomic force microscopes, transmission electron microscope, fluorescence 

microscopes, mass spectrometers, DNA synthesizer and sequencer, nuclear magnetic resonance 

spectrometer, ultrahigh vaCllum scanning-probc microscopes, photo, llV, and e-beam lithography 

equipmcnt, peptide synthesizer, advanced preparative and analytical chromatographic equipment, 

and cell culture facilities. 

f;enterfor Integrated Nanotechnologies (CINTJ~cjl 

The CINT focuscs on exploring the path from scientitic discove,y to the integration of 

nanostructurcs into the micro- and macro-worlds. This path involves experimental and theoretical 

exploration of behavior, understanding new perfonnanee regimes and concepts, testing designs, 

and integrating nanoscale materials and structures. CINT focus areas are nanophotonies and 

nanoelectronics, complex functional nanomaterials, nanomechanics, and the 

nanoscalelbiolmicroscale interfaces. 

Center for Functional Nanomatcrials (CFN):O' 

The CFN at Brookhaven National Laboratoryc'; focuses on understanding the chemical and 

physical response of nanomaterials to make functional materials such as sensors, activators, and 

energy-conversion devices. The facility uses existing facilities such as the National Synchrotron 

Light Source and the Laser Electron Accelerator facility. It also provides clean rooms, general 

laboratories, and wet and dry laboratories for sample preparation, fabrication, and analysis. 

Center for Nanoscale Materials (CNM);cf 

The CNM at Argoll]le National LaboratoryO' foclises on research in advanced magnctic materials, 

complex oxides, nanophotonics, and bio-inorganic hybrids. The facility uses existing facilities 

11 
14 

such as the Advanced Photon Source, the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source, and the Electron 

Microscopy Center. An x-ray nanoprobe beam line at the Advanced Photon Sourcc@ is mn by 

the Center for its users. 

BER User Facilities 

The Biological & Environmental Research program supports the operation of the following national 

scientific user facilities: 

William R. Wilev Environmental MolecclLaLSci®YJ!,,~aJ:tQl·atOly (EMSL): 

The mission of the EMSL at the Pacific Northwest NationilL1aj;l9xa(OIYfI'NNL) in Richland, 

Washington, is to provide integrated experimental and computational resources for discovery and 

technological innovation ill the environmental molecular sciences to support the needs of DOE 

and the nation. The facilities and capabilities of the EMSL are ilyniLaJ).1e to the general scientific 

and engineering cOlmnunities to conduct research in the environmental molecular sciences and 

related areas. 

Joint Genome Institute (JGl): 

The Office of Science ! U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, 

California, unites the expertise of five national laboratories-Lawrence Berkeley,@ Lawrence 

Liverm~@ L~o1LAlamos,@ Oak Ridge,lY and Pacific Nortll\Y~'i1C"-along with the 

Hudsot:lAlQlltt1nstitutec1 for Biotechnology to advance genomics in support of the DOE missions 

related to clean energy generation and environmental cbaracterization and cleanup. The vast 

majority ofJGf sequencing is conducted under the auspices orthe Community Sequencing 

Program (CSP), surveying the biosphere to characterize organisms relevant to the DOE science 

mission arcas of bioenergy, global carbon cycling, and biogeochemistry. 

AtnlQsnl:!i;t·ic Radiation Measurement (JjI'JateJ{~~~reh Facility: 

The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility is a mnlti-platfoml 

national scientific user facility, with instruments at tixed and varying locations around the globe 

for obtaining continuous field measurements of climate data. The ACRF promotes the 

advancement of atmospheric process understanding and climate models through precise 

observations of atmospheric phenomcna. 

FES User Facilities 

The Fusion Energy Scicng:;; program supports the operation of the following national scientific user 

facilities: 

DlU-D Tokamak Facility:ct 

DIll-I), located at General Atomics in San Diego, California, is the largest magnetic fhsion 

facility in the U.S. and is operated as a DOE national user facility. DlTf-D has been a major 

contributor to the world fusion program over the past decade in areas of plasma turbulence, 

energy and particle transport, electron-cyclotron plasma heating and current drive, plasma 

stability, and boundary layers physics using a "magnetic divertor" to control the magnetic field 

configuration at the edge of the plasma. 

Alcator C-Mod: CI 

A1cator C-Mod at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is operated as a DOE national user 

facility. A1cator C-Mod is a unique, compact tokamak facility that uses intense magnetic fields to 

confine high-temperature, higb-density plasmas in a small volume. One of its unique features are 

12 
15 

the metal (molybdenum) walls to accommodate high power densities. Alcator C-Mod has made 

significant contributions to the world fusion program in the areas of plasma heating, stability, and 

confinement of high field tokamaks, which are important integrating issues related to ignition of 

burning of fusion plasma. 

National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX): & 

NSTX is an innovative magnetic fusion device that was constructed by the !'J:ineeton Plasma 

Physics LaboratoryO' in collaboration with the Oak Ridge National LaboratoryO', Columbia 

University, and the University of Washington at Seattle. It is one oflhe world's two largest 

embodiments of the spherical torus confinement concept. NSTX has a unique, nearly spherical 

plasma shape that provides a test of the theory of toroidal magnetic confinement as the spherical 

limit is approached. Plasmas in spherical torii have been predicted to be stable even when high 

ratios orplasma-to-magnetic pressure and self-driven current fraction exist simultaneously in the 

prcsence of a nearby conducting wall bounding the plasma. If these predictions are verified, it 

would indicate that spherical torii me applied magnetic fields more efficiently than most other 

magnetic confinement systems and could, therefore, be expected to lead to more cost-effective 

fusion power systems in the long term. 

HEP User Facilities 

The lJigl;!J;::l1.<'XGYl'l1ys(cS program supports the operation of the following national scientific user 

facilities: 

Proton Accelerator Complex 

The Proton Accelerator Complex at Fermi National Accelcrator Laboratory is composed ofthc 

accelerator complex and several experiments-both actual and proposed--that utilizc its protons. The 

complex currently opcrates two prolon beams that are used to generate neutrinos for short and long 

baseline neutrino experiments. 

Booster Neutrino Beam: The Booster accelerator is a ring 1500 feet in circumference that receives 400 

MeV protons from the linac and accelerates them to 8 GeV. These protons then strike a 71-cm long 

beryllium target used to generate an intense muon neutrino bcam used for two short baseline neutrino 

oscillation experiments, one currently operating, the other planned. 

Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI): The Main Injector takes the 8 GeV protons from the Booster and 

accelerates them to approximately 150 GcV. As in the Booster, these highly energetic protons strike a 

targct--in this case a carbon target-to generate muons that subsequently decay to mUOll neutrinos. The 

result is the most intense neutrino beam in the world. The muon neutrino beam is used for studies of both 

the disappearance of muon neutrinos and the appearance of non-muon neutrinos such as electron and tau 

neutrinos. 

Facilitv for Advanced Accelerator Experimental Tests (FACET)fi1 

FACET is a 23 GeV electron-beam driven plasma wakefield accelerator test facility located at SLAC 

National Accelerator Laboratory. It has been optimized for tests of plasma wakefield acceleration with 

high energy beams of electrons or positrons with short duration pulses. It is open to all users that need 

such beams with access based on peer review of annually solicited proposals. 

13 
16 

NP User Facilities 

The Nucl,-ar Physics program supports thc operation of the following national scientific user facilities: 

Relativistic lIeavy Ion Colt(der (Rille): 

RHIC at Brookhaven National Labora.tory is a world-class scientific research facility that began 

operation in 2000, following 10 years of development and construction. Hundreds of physicists 

from around the world use RHIC (0 study what the universe may have looked like in the Ilrst few 

moments after its creation. RHIC drives two intersecting beams of gold ions head-on, in a 

subatomic collision. What physicists learn from these collisions may help us understand more 

about why the physical world works the way it does, from the smallest subatomic particles, to the 

largest stars. 

Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF): 

The CEBAF at the Thomas Jefferson National Ae.<:elerator Facility, is a world-leading facility in 

the experimental study of hadronic matter. Based on superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) 

accelerating technology, CEBAF is the world's most advanced particle accelerator for 

investigating the quark stmeture of the atom's nucleus. To probe nuclei, scientists usc continuous 

beams of high-energy electrons from CEBAF. 

Argonne Tandem Linear AcccleratorMstell} (ATLAS): 

ATLAS is a national user facility at Arg(mne National Laboratory in Argonne, Illinois. The 

A TLAS facility is a leading facility for nuclear structure research in the United States. It provides 

a wide range of beams for nuclear reaction and stmcture research to a large community of users 

from the US and abroad. About 20% of the beam-time is used to generate secondary radioactive 

beams. These beams are used mostly to study nuclear reactions of astrophysical interest and for 

nuclear structure investigations. Beam lines are also available for experiments where Users bring 

their own equipment. 

14 
17 

Chairman HARRIS. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will come to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Department 

of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science to Drive Innovation through Fundamental Research.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witness panel. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing. The purpose of 

the hearing is to examine the role DOE scientific user facilities 

play in enabling the fundamental research that advances basic understanding of the physical world while also driving innovation and 

economic growth. Approximately half of the Office of Science’s $5 billion budget is 

dedicated to the design, construction and operation of these major 

scientific user facilities. They can perhaps best be described as the 

most powerful machines of modern science: X-ray light sources, 

supercomputers, neutron sources, particle accelerators and similar 

tools that allow study of the most complex properties of matter and 

energy. For example, the Linac Coherent Light Source, LCLS, 

which we will hear about today, can capture images of atoms and 

molecules in motion with an incredible shutter speed of less than 

100 femtoseconds, approximately the time it takes for light to travel the width of a human hair. 

The science undertaken at LCLS and similar facilities has a direct and significant impact on innovation, driving discoveries with 

potential to advance and transform applications from medicine to 

materials to computing and semiconductors. Today’s hearing will 

focus particularly on these innovation-enabling facilities and their 

relevance and importance to U.S. industry and the economy. 

As with nearly every energy R&D issue this Subcommittee oversees, budget prioritization is key and only of growing importance 

as we continue to confront record debts and deficits. 

The President has been clear that his priority within the DOE 

is development and commercialization of green energy technologies. 

For example, his budget calls for over $1.5 billion in new spending 

by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, an 84 

percent year-over-year increase. By comparison, the Administration 

is only requesting a 2.4 percent, or $118 million, increase for the 

Office of Science. I believe the President’s priorities are misplaced. 

His record of massive spending increases on green energy programs has come under widespread criticism, with government 

intervention in the clean energy marketplace tending to pick winners and losers while distorting the allocation of capital and resulting in numerous examples of troubling political cronyism. 

By contrast, DOE construction and operation of major scientific 

user facilities is generally well regarded and represents a key component of the scientific enterprise that is central to American innovation and economic competitiveness. It cannot be met by individual companies or entities. 

While funding increases for any program will be hard to come by 

as we work to address the fiscal crisis facing the country, the basic 

research supported by the Office of Science and DOE user facilities 

should remain a high priority. 
18 

I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to a productive discussion regarding potential opportunities to improve 

planning, management and operation of DOE user facilities to better leverage these important scientific resources. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ANDY HARRIS

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing on ‘‘Department of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science to Drive Innovation Through Fundamental Research.’’ 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the role DOE scientific user facilities 

plays in enabling the fundamental research that advances basic understanding of 

the physical world while also driving innovation and economic growth. Approximately half of the Office of Science’s $5 billion budget is dedicated to the 

design, construction and operation of these major scientific user facilities. They can 

perhaps best be described as the most powerful machines of modern science—X-ray 

light sources, supercomputers, neutron sources, particle accelerators and similar 

tools that allow study of the most complex properties of matter and energy. For example, the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), which we will hear about today, 

can capture images of atoms and molecules in motion with an incredible ‘‘shutter 

speed’’ of less than 100 femtoseconds—approximately the time it takes for light to 

travel the width of a human hair. 

The science undertaken at LCLS and similar facilities has a direct and significant 

impact on innovation, driving discoveries with potential to advance and transform 

applications from medicine to materials to computing and semiconductors. Today’s 

hearing will focus particularly on these innovation-enabling facilities and their relevance and importance to U.S. industry and the economy. 

As with nearly every energy R&D issue this Subcommittee oversees, budget 

prioritization is key, and only of growing importance as we continue to confront 

record debt and deficits. 

The President has been very clear that his priority within the Department of Energy is development and commercialization of green energy technologies. For example, his budget calls for over $1.5 billion in new spending by the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy—an 84 percent year-over-year increase. By comparison, the Administration is requesting a 2.4 percent ($118 million) increase for 

the Office of Science. 

I believe the President’s priorities are misplaced. His record of massive spending 

increases on green energy programs has come under widespread criticism, with government intervention in the clean energy marketplace tending to ‘‘pick winners and 

losers’’ while distorting the allocation of capital and resulting in numerous examples 

of troubling political cronyism. 

By contrast, DOE construction and operation of major scientific user facilities is 

generally well regarded and represents a key component of the scientific enterprise 

that is central to American innovation and economic competitiveness yet cannot be 

met by individual companies or entities. 

While funding increases for any program will be hard to come by as we work to 

address the fiscal crisis facing the country, the basic research supported by the Office of Science and DOE user facilities should be a high priority. 

I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to a productive discussion 

regarding potential opportunities to improve planning, management, and operations 

of DOE user facilities to better leverage these important scientific resources. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Miller for his opening statement. 

Chairman HARRIS. I now recognize Ranking Member Miller for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Department of Energy user facilities are and should be a 

core focus of this Committee’s jurisdiction. This hearing gives Committee members and the public an opportunity to better understand the indispensable role that the Department of Energy user 

facilities plays in our Nation’s innovation enterprise. The taxpayer 

has billions of dollars invested in these facilities, and we should examine just what we get for that investment. 
19 

In short, we get scientific capabilities that do not exist elsewhere 

either in the private sector or in academia. Academic and industry 

researchers are able to break new scientific ground, as well as accelerate the process for translating scientific discovery into marketable products. At user facilities, federal funds support more efficient cars and trucks; more effective drugs; lighter and stronger 

materials; cheaper and more durable batteries; cleaner power 

plants; reduced reliance on foreign energy; a clearer picture of our 

changing climate; and even a better understanding of the origins 

of the universe and the nature of space and time. 

Perhaps most important, we get the talent and technologies that 

provide for stronger and more competitive high-tech and manufacturing sectors in the United States. We get jobs. 

I don’t see much distance between Republicans and Democrats in 

terms of supporting the Office of Science and sustaining these facilities at a level where they can truly contribute to our Nation’s 

competitiveness. I hope my Republican colleagues do not use this 

hearing to justify an arbitrary and unrealistic line around the appropriate role of government in the energy technology space. We 

have seen a dangerous and misguided effort to label DOE activities 

beyond basic research, as if that is clearly defined concept, as picking winners and losers and crowding out private investment for the 

purpose of cutting research in clean energy technologies and slashing budgets of EERE and ARPA–E, in other words, picking losers. 

This perspective assumes that technology always develops in a 

linear way, that there are no market failures or valleys of death, 

and that the private sector and the market have the capacity and 

incentive to support real innovation fully on its own—on their own. 

On the contrary, the testimony from this panel of experts shows 

the complexity and difficulty that technology developers face in 

moving from idea to marketable product. It is dogma, and not market reality, that dictates that we draw a line around what resources we provide to our Nation’s innovators to be competitive. 

The Office of Science user facilities are an essential tool for helping many academics and industry researchers get beyond otherwise 

daunting scientific or technological problems, and I expect that 

they will always be a shared priority of both Democrats and Republicans. 

But we would be well served to remember that these user facilities are by no means the only tools that we have at our disposal. 

What we have come to regard as the applied programs at DOE, 

such as EERE and ARPA–E, can play an equally important role in 

moving concepts and technologies through research barriers that a 

light source or a computer alone couldn’t solve. Far from picking 

winners, these programs identify the other gaps, the white spaces, 

where some extra resources and guidance might help the developer 

get beyond some technological risk and accelerate the development. 

If you want to see what picking a winner looks like, check out what 

our competitors in Europe and Asia are doing to support innovation 

and domestic companies there. 

And if you truly want to make government work for people, facilitate our domestic industrial sector’s race for global technological 

leadership, and bring real jobs to the United States, we will drop 

the stale, dogmatic and often illogical constraints that keep us from 
20 

taking advantage of our government resources. Our economy was 

built on science, much of it government-supported science. From 

achievements in the human genome to sending a man to the Moon, 

the Federal Government has effectively supported a strong innovation backbone for a century of economic success. Why stop now? 

Why limit ourselves when the stakes are so high? 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER BRAD MILLER

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Energy user facilities are a core 

focus of this Committee’s jurisdiction. This hearing gives Committee Members and 

the public an opportunity to better understand the indispensible role that the Department of Energy user facilities plays in our Nation’s innovation enterprise. The 

taxpayer has billions of dollars invested in these facilities, and we should examine 

just what we get for that investment. 

In short, we get scientific capabilities that do not exist anywhere else in the private sector or academia. Academic and industry researchers are able to break new 

scientific ground, as well as accelerate the process for translating scientific discovery 

into marketable products. At user facilities, federal funds support more efficient cars 

and trucks; more effective drugs; lighter and stronger metals; cheaper and more durable batteries; cleaner power plants; reduced reliance on foreign energy; a clearer 

picture of our changing climate; and even a better understanding of the origins of 

the universe and the nature of space and time. 

Perhaps most important, we get the talent and technologies that provide for 

stronger and more competittive high-tech and manufacturing sectors in the U.S. We 

get jobs. 

I don’t see much distance between Republicans and Democrats in terms of supporting the Office of Science and sustaining these facilities at a level where they 

can truly contribute to our Nation’s competitiveness. 

I hope my Republican colleagues will not use this hearing to justify drawing an 

arbitrary and unrealistic line around the appropriate role of government in the energy technology space. We have seen a dangerous and misguided effort to label DOE 

activities beyond basic research as ‘‘picking winners and losers’’ and ‘‘crowding out 

private investment’’ for the purpose of cutting research in clean energy technologies 

and slashing budgets of EERE and ARPA–E. 

This perspective assumes that technology always develops in a linear fashion, 

that there are no market failures or ‘‘valleys of death,’’ and that the private sector 

and the market have the capcity and incentive to support real innovation fully on 

their own. 

On the contrary, the testimony from this panel of experts shows the complexity 

and difficulty that technology developers face in moving from idea to marketable 

products. It is dogma, and not market reality, that dictates where we draw a line 

in providing government resources to help our Nation’s innovators to be competitive. 

The Office of Science user facilities is an essential tool for helping many academics and industry researchers get beyond otherwise daunting scientific or technological problems, and I expect that they will always be a shared priority of both 

Democrats and Republicans. 

But we would be well served to remember that these user facilities are by no 

means the only tools we have at our disposal. What have come to be regarded as 

the ‘‘applied’’ programs at DOE, such as EERE and ARPA–E, can play an equally 

important role in moving concepts and technologies through research barriers that 

a light source or supercomputer can’t solve. 

Far from picking winners, these programs identify the other gaps, or ‘‘white 

spaces,’’ where some extra resources and guidance might help the developer get beyond some technological risk and accelerate the development process. If you want 

to see what picking a winner looks like, just check out what our counterparts in 

Europe and Asia are willing to do to support innovation and domestic companies. 

If we truly want to make government work for the people, facilitate our domestic 

industrial sector’s race for global technological leadership, and bring real jobs back 

to the U.S., then we will drop the stale, dogmatic, and often illogical constraints 

that keep us from fully taking advantage of our government’s resources. Our economy was built on science. From achievements in the human genome to sending a 

man to the Moon, the Federal Government has effectively supported a strong inno-
21 

vation backbone for a century of economic success. Why stop now when the stakes 

are so high? Why limit ourselves? 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. 

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. The first 

witness is Dr. Tony Lanzirotti, Chairman of the National User Facility Organization. He is a Senior Research Associate at the University of Chicago’s Center for Advanced Radiation Sources. He has 

been a research scientist with the University of Chicago since 1999 

and helped develop and operate X-ray beam lines for the user community at multiple DOE facilities. 

Our next witness is Dr. Persis Drell, the Director of the SLAC 

National Accelerator Laboratory. Dr. Drell is an expert in particle 

astrophysics research. Prior to being named the director, Dr. Drell 

served as a Professor and Director of Research at the laboratory. 

Previously, Dr. Drell held positions at Cornell University’s Laboratory of Nuclear Studies and Physics Department. 

I now yield to Mrs. Biggert to introduce our third witness, Dr. 

Wasserman. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our third witness today is Dr. Stephen Wasserman, Senior Research Fellow in the Translational Science and Technologies Department at Eli Whitney—I mean Ely Lilly and Company. He is 

the Director of the Lilly Research Laboratory’s Collaborative Access 

Team at the Advanced Photon Source located at Argonne National 

Laboratory in my district. Prior to joining Ely Lilly, Dr. 

Wasserman was a Senior Director of SGX Pharmaceuticals and he 

has also served as a Senior Director for DC. Genetics. Thank you, 

and welcome, Dr. Wasserman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. 

Our fourth witness today will be Ms. Suzy Tichenor, Director of 

Industrial Partnerships Program for Computing and Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Ms. Tichenor 

has more than 20 years of experience in creating partnerships and 

programs at all levels of the government, private sector and notfor-profit organizations. Prior to joining Oak Ridge, she was Vice 

President of the Council on Competitiveness and directed the council’s High-Performance Computing Initiative where she served as 

the Principal Investigator for high-performance computing-related 

grants. 

I now yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, to introduce our fifth witness. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I am very pleased to introduce Dr. Ernest Hall, the Chief Scientist for Materials Characterization in the chemicals and chemical 

engineering domain at General Electric’s Global Research Center 

in Niskayuna, New York. Dr. Hall, for whom I have great respect, 

has been with GE since 1979 and was promoted to Chief Scientist 

in 2008. He serves on a number of scientific advisory boards to the 

Department of Energy and is an author of over 175 technical papers. He recently was elected President of the Microscopy Society 

of America. Dr. Hall has a great deal of experience working at our 
22 

DOE facilities. We are very fortunate to have him with us to testify 

this morning. Welcome and thank you for being here and to offer 

us your expert testimony on the importance of these DOE user facilities. So welcome, Dr. Hall. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each, after which the Members of the Committee will 

have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Lanzirotti, to present his 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ANTONIO LANZIROTTI, 

CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL USER FACILITY ORGANIZATION 

Mr. LANZIROTTI. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and 

distinguished Members of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Antonio Lanzirotti. I am a Senior 

Research Associate with the University of Chicago’s Center for Advanced Radiation Sources, and it has also been an honor for me to 

serve this past year as the elected Chair of the National User Facility Organization. It is in that capacity that I am here testifying 

before you today. 

Our organization was established to facilitate communication 

among researchers that utilize our Nation’s scientific user facilities 

and facility administrators and stakeholders. We are a volunteer, 

nonprofit group, and it is our hope that through these efforts we 

can educate our scientific peers and the American public of the 

availability, benefits and significance of research conducted at 

these facilities and provide a conduit for the user community to disseminate recommendations of what we perceive are their operational needs. 

Today, our organization represents the almost 45,000 scientists 

who conduct research at the 46 largest federally funded facilities 

in the United States. Of these, 36 facilities are managed by DOE, 

representing almost 37,000 scientists each year. These users reside 

in all 50 states, in the District of Columbia, in our U.S. territories, 

and many are international scientists that travel here to conduct 

their research using these tools. These scientists come from close 

to 600 universities in the United States. Roughly 7,000 of them are 

students and postdoctoral researchers who depend on access to facilities to complete their education and train to be future scientists 

and engineers. 

Our community includes scientists from 400 unique companies, 

including 45 Fortune 500 companies, who often use multiple facilities in their research. These facilities allow us to study our world 

and our universe with efficiencies orders of magnitude higher than 

what is possible with smaller-scale instruments at our home institutions. It would simply be too costly and complex today for facilities such as these to be constructed and operated by universities 

or industry on their own. 

These thousands of researchers also leverage their access to DOE 

user facilities to maximize their productivity, research funded not 

only by DOE but NSF, NIH, NASA, DOD and private industry, to 

name only a few. 
23 

The tremendously broad scope of science these facilities have allowed us to address is often underappreciated, impacting virtually 

every scientific field of study both in fundamental and applied 

sciences. For example, synchrotron X-ray facilities have revolutionized the way that diffraction data is being collected. 

Macromolecular protein crystallography using these sources has allowed researchers to study biological molecules such as proteins, viruses and nucleic acids to a resolution higher than five angstroms. 

This high resolution has allowed life scientists to elucidate the detailed mechanisms by which these molecules carry out their functions in living cells, and the societal benefits of this research are 

tangible. As an example, scientists from Plexxikon, a Berkeleybased drug discovery company, used this technique to cocrystallize 

a mutated protein involved in the development of malignant melanoma along with molecular lead compounds for candidate drugs. 

Identifying the most promising lead allowed them to identify potential drug candidates that could stop the disease’s spread. This led 

to the development of a new drug that has been demonstrated to 

successfully treat patients with late-stage or inoperable forms of 

the disease, receiving FDA approval in August of 2011. 

Material scientists are using these facilities to improve integrated circuit designs for chip verification. Engine designers are 

using facilities to design catalysts for improving engine efficiency 

and reducing emissions. Companies such as GE are using DOE 

computing facilities to model complex flow in developing quieter, 

more fuel-efficient wind turbines and jet engines, and scientists 

have used these facilities for fundamental research, for example, 

investigating the sources of dark matter and dark energy in our 

universe. 

In the last 10 years, we have entirely new classes of facilities 

that are transforming our research such as the Nano Science Centers and the LCLS. New facilities under construction, such as 

NSLS–II at Brookhaven and vital upgrades such as the planned 

LCLS–II upgrade in SLAC and the APS upgrade at Argonne, are 

necessary for improving efficiency and capacity and for delivering 

new capabilities to keep U.S. facilities world leading. 

Yet in building capacity and improving efficiency, facilities have 

experienced funding shortfalls that often prevent them from operating at optimum levels, keeping instruments upgraded and providing adequate number of staff to support user research to maintain our Nation’s leadership position. Providing operating budgets 

that allow these facilities to achieve their designed-for capacity and 

to hire and retain top scientific and technical talent should be a 

high priority. 

National user facilities provide a broad research infrastructure 

that enables researchers to access specialized instrumentation and 

capabilities as well as technical expertise from experienced scientists and engineers. Access to these facilities enables scientists to 

pursue frontier research leads to fundamental scientific discoveries 

and enables downstream technological developments for real-world 

industrial applications. The United States is unique in having such 

a large array of user facilities. Many countries have some subset, 

but no other country provides access to such a diverse group of fa-
24 

cilities covering so many areas, giving the United States academic 

and industrial researchers unequaled opportunities. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanzirotti follows:] 
25 

The FUTURE of America is tile 

RESEARCH of TODAY , NATiONAl 

USER 

FAC!LlTY 

ORGANIZilTiot, 

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

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Hearing on Department of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science to 

Drive Innovation through Fundamental Research 

June 21, 2012 

Written Testimony Regarding the National User Facility Organization and the role 

of DOE's user facilities in the U.S. scientific enterprise. 

Dr. Antonio Lanzirotti 

Chairman, National User Facility Organization 

Senior Research Associate, The University of Chicago 
26 

Written Testimony 

Introduction 

Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and distinguished members of the Committee, 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Antonio Lanzirotti, I am a Senior 

Research Associate at the University of Chicago's Center for Advanced Radiation 

Sources. It has also been an honor for me to serve this past year as the elected Chair of 

the National User Facility Organization and it is in that capacity that I am here today. 

Founded in 1990, our organization was established in the hopes of facilitating 

communication among researchers that utilize our nation's scientific user facilities and 

facility administrators and stakeholders. We are a volunteer, non-profit entity and it is 

our hope that through these efforts we can educate our scientific peers and the 

American public of the availability, benefits and significance of research conducted at 

these facilities and provide a conduit for the scientific user community to disseminate 

recommendations of what we perceive are their operational needs. 

Diverse Scientific User Community 

Today the National User Facility Organization (NUFO) represents the almost 45,000 

scientists who conduct research at the 46 largest federally funded user facilities in the 

United States. Of these, 36 facilities are managed by the Department of Energy, hosting 

almost 37,000 scientists each year. 1 These users reside in all 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, in our U.S. territories, and many are international scientists that travel here 

specifically to conduct their research using these tools.2 They come from close to 600 

universities in the U.S. and from more than 400 universities abroad. Roughly 7,000 of 

these users are students and postdoctoral researchers who depend on access to 

facilities to complete their education and train to be future scientists and engineers. 3 

Our community includes scientists from 400 unique companies including 45 Fortune 

500 companies and 22 Fortune 100 companies. Companies such as General Electric, 

General Motors, Eli Lilly, IBM, Procter & Gamble, Boeing, Pfizer, Intel, Honeywell 

, Complete listing of facilities at which users are NUFO members is available at 

http://www.nufo.orglfacilities.aspx. We have also assembled posters highlighting each facility which is 

available at http://www.nufo.orglposters.aspx . 

2 Please see appended "Institutions that Conduct Research at US. National User Facilities". List was 

compiled by the National User Facility Organization (NUFO) through queries of Facility Administrators. 

3 These metrics have been compiled by NUFO through queries of Facility Administrators. There are 

certainly differences in how each individual facility gathers these types of metrics and what and how often 

they require users to provide them. Additionally many scientists may utilize multiple facilities, so these 

values reported to us represent individual researchers at each individual facility. 

Page 2 of9 
27 

International, DuPont, Abbott Laboratories, Northrop Grumman, and Hewlett-Packard 

have used multiple facilities in their industrial research 4 

U!II OOE/SC-·!lEP 

_OOffSC.aER. 

81 OOEiS<.>M? URi NASA 

HUrD F""UI!ios by FaciPIy TY/Il! 

--

These facilities allow us to study our world and our universe in unprecedented detail 

with efficiencies orders of magnitude higher than what could be accomplished with 

smaller-scale instruments at our home institutions. It would simply be too costly and 

complex today for facilities such as these to be constructed and operated by universities 

or industry on their own. 

These thousands of researchers also leverage their access to Office of Science User 

Facilities to maximize their productivity, research funded not only by the Office of 

Science but also NSF, NIH, NASA, DOD, DARPA, NNSA, EPA, NIST, DOA and private 

industry to name only a few. 

Broad Scientific and Industrial Impact 

The tremendously broad scope of science these facilities have allowed us to address is 

often underappreciated, impacting virtually every scientific field of study both in 

fundamental and applied sciences. 

In the life sciences, for example, the high-brightness synchrotron X-ray facilities 

operated by the Office of Science have revolutionized the way that diffraction data from 

macromolecular crystals are being collected, as I am sure my colleague Dr. Wasserman 

will attest to. Macromolecular or Protein Crystallography using synchrotron X-ray 

4 Data was compiled by NUFO again querying Facility Administrators. Compiled list is attached at end of 

this testimony and also available online at http://www.nufo.org/files/Fortune 500.pdf . 

Page 3 of 9 
28 

sources have allowed researchers to study biological molecules such as proteins, 

viruses and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) to a resolution higher than -5 A. This high 

resolution has allowed life scientists to elucidate the detailed mechanism by which these 

macromolecules carry out their functions in living cells and organisms and the benefit of 

this research to the American people is tangible. As an example, scientists from 

Plexxikon, a Berkeley-based drug-discovery company5, used this technique to cocrystallize a BRAF mutated protein involved in the development of malignant melanoma 

along with small molecule lead candidates. Identifying the most promising lead then 

allowed them to identify potential drug candidates that could stop the disease's spread. 

This led to the development of a new drug, Zelboraf (Vemurafenib), that has been 

demonstrated to successfully treat patients with late-stage or inoperable forms of the 

disease, receiving FDA approval in August, 2011. 6 

Our material science community in particular is actively utilizing these tools to help 

develop methods that can ultimately be ported from one-of-a-kind technologies at a 

national user facility to broader adoption in private industry. For example, current 

lithography technology in production by semiconductor manufacturers can allow them to 

print circuits as small as 32 nanometers in width, Industry researchers today are using 

DOE scientific user facilities to develop new Extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography 

technologies 7 that, when commercialized, will allow manufacturers to print circuit 

patterns onto computer chips with feature sizes smaller than 12 nanometers, providing 

factors of 10 improvements in speed and memory capacity compared to today's most 

powerful chips.8 

5 A. Pollack, Studies Find Two New Drugs Effective Against Advanced Melanoma, The New York Times. 

(2011 ).; Tsai J, Lee JT, Wang W. Zhang J, Cho H, Mamo S, Bremer R. Gillette S, Kong J, Haass NK, 

Sproesser K, Li L, Smalley KS, Fong D, Zhu YL, Marimuthu A, Nguyen H, Lam S, Liu J, Cheung I, Rice J, 

Suzuki Y, Luu C, Settachatgul C, Shellooe R, Cantwell J, Kim SH, Schlessinger J, Zhang KY, West BL, 

Powell B, Habets G, Zhang C, Ibrahim PN, Hirth P, Artis DR, Herlyn M, Bollag G (2008) Discovery of a 

selective inhibitor of oncogenic B-Raf kinase with potent antimelanoma activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 

105:3041-3046 

6FDA approval August 17, 2011. Work conducted at the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National 

Laboratory, the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and 

the Advanced Ught Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

7 P. Naulleau, C. Anderson, L.-M. Baclea-an, D. Chan, P. Denham, S. George, K. Goldberg, B. Hoef, G. 

Jones, C. Koh, B, La Fontaine, B. McClinton, R. Miyakawa, W. Montgomery, S. Rekawa, and T. Wallow, 

"The SEMATECH Berkeley MET pushing EUV development beyond 22-nm half pitch," Proc. SPIE 7636, 

76361J (2010); P. Naulleau, C. Anderson, L. Baclea-an, P. Denham, S. George, K. Goldberg, G. Jones, 

B. McClinton, R. Miyakawa, I. Mochi, W. Montgomery, S. Rekawa, and T. Wallow, "Using synchrotron 

light to accelerate EUV resist and mask materials learning," Proc. SPIE 7985, 798509 (2011). 

8 Work conducted at the Advanced Ught Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Page 4 of 9 
29 

These smaller feature sizes also raise interesting issues with respect to technologies 

that can be used in chip verification, again an area where DOE scientific user facilities 

are playing an important and unique role. Consider that the vast majority of integrated 

circuits (ICs) are manufactured in commercial foreign foundries. Critical infrastructure 

and defense systems cannot afford the risk of untrusted electronic components 

embedded in them. For the U.S. DoD and Intelligence Communities to continue to have 

access to the highest performance possible in ICs, it is essential to continue use of 

overseas ICs, and not just those manufactured in U.S. trusted foundries H DARPA's 

Integrated Circuits Integrity and Reliability of Integrated Circuits (IRIS) program and its 

recently concluded Trusted Integrated Circuits (TRUST) program are examples of 

government efforts to develop technology to determine unambiguously if an IC is free of 

malicious circuits inserted during the design or manufacturing process. A key approach 

for circuit evaluation is non-destructive imaging of its physical structure. However, as 

integrated-circuit process technologies become more complex (e.g., finer pitch 

dimensions, many layers of metallization, flip-chip packaging, mUlti-die stacks, etc.), 

nondestructive analysis becomes corresponding more challenging. Metallic interconnect 

and via structures range from micron to sub-micron dimensions and the technology 

node of critical dimensions for transistor components is projected to be 22 nanometers 

by 2015. The four DOE synchrotron facilities support modalities such as X-ray 

absorption and fluorescence Computed Micro- and Nano-Tomography that are proving 

critical for the development of new imaging methods for non-destructive chip estimation. 

9 Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply. February. 2005 Available 

at http://www.acq.osd.milidsblreports/ADA435563.pdf . 

Page 5 of 9 
30 

Such techniques are being developed today at these facilities (funded through DARPA) 

by companies such Xradia Inc. in collaboration with Southern California Information 

Sciences Institute 10. These techniques may someday provide a component of a new 

reliability paradigm to protect U.S. systems against malware attacks. 

Unique instruments available for catalysis research have also helped companies such 

as Cummins Inc., which designs, manufactures, distributes and services engines and 

related technologies, develop catalyst solutions for removing NOx emissions from leanbum engines. The emissions after-treatment system the company and user facilities 

helped develop based on this research increased the 2007 Heavy-Duty Dodge Ram's 

fuel efficiency by 25%.'1 

Companies such as General Electric, represented by Dr. Ernie Hall here today, are 

utilizing Office of Science advanced supercomputing facilities to study the complex flow 

of air in wind turbine airfoils and jet exhaust nozzles and using simulations to 

understand and predict flow. Such information is critical in developing quieter, more 

fuel-efficient wind turbines and jet engines and improving engine life cycles in an 

extremely competitive global market. 12 For our U.S. industrial user community access to 

and partnerships with such user facilities are vital in helping U.S. industries maintain 

manufacturing excellence and technological leadership in a globally competitive 

environment. 13 

For many of these industrial researchers, prompt access to such facilities is critical in 

addressing problems of National importance. As an example, Intevac Photonics is a 

leading developer of night vision sensors and was contracted by the Army Night Vision 

Laboratory to develop a next-generation device called the Short Wavelength Infrared 

imager, or SWIR, for long-range identification of targets. It would use less energetic 

wavelengths of infrared light for illumination, which is safer for human eyes and provides 

greater sensitivity in unfavorable conditions. Such imagers are also quite small, so they 

can be used, for example, in unmanned aerial vehicles; and they work at distances of 

10 Work conducted at Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource at SLAC National Accelerator 

Laboratory; M. Bajura, G. Boverman, J. Tan, G. Wagenbreth, C. M. Rogers, M. Feser, J. Rudati, A 

Tkachuk, S. Aylward, P. Reynolds "Imaging Integrated Circuits with X-ray Microscopy" Proceedings of the 

36th GOMACTech Conference, March 2011, Orlando, FL 

11 htlp:llscience.energy.govlstories-of-discovery-and-innovation11270011; Work conducted at the 

Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

12 http://www.genewscenter.com/Press-Releases/GE-Global-Research-To-Partner-With-LivermoreNationaI-Lab-and-Universities-On-Supercomputing-Project-3788.aspx ; 

htlp://www.alcf.anl.govlarticles/argonne-Ieadership-computing-facility-inspiring-innovation-industrvthrough-science; Testimony of Raymond L Orbach, Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of 

Energy, before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, July 16, 2003.; Work done at 

the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, Argonne National Laboratory and the Oak Ridge Leadership 

Computing facility, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

13 As an example, please see attached letter to Dr. Chu from Cosma International. Work done at the High 

Temperature Materials Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Page 6 of 9 
31 

up to 20 kilometers. Based on a different semiconductor than previous devices - indium 

phosphide (InP), rather than gallium arsenide (GaAs) - when the completed device 

went through performance testing and a serious problem emerged. It quickly lost 

efficiency when kept at high temperatures for an extended period, as if sitting on a shelf 

during a desert deployment. With prompt access to photoemission spectroscopy 

instruments at one of our DOE user facilities, they discovered that the standard cleaning 

process used to prepare the surfaces of GaAs semiconductors was inadequate for the 

InP material. The researchers developed new surface cleaning procedures, and when 

Intevac incorporated them into the manufacturing process, the shelf-life problem went 

away. What's more, the sensor's sensitivity increased significantly. 14 

Our scientists have also used these facilities to make fundamental discoveries of the 

nature of our universe, discovering all elements of the sub-structure of visible matter in 

the universe from anti-protons to heavy quarks, from heavy leptons to neutrinos. Today 

these instruments are on the verge of helping us discover the sources of dark matter, 

dark energy and the generators of mass in the universe. For example, heavy ion 

collision experiments at these facilities have recently produced a liquid of strongly 

interacting quarks and gluons with a temperature 250,000 times holter than the center 

of the Sun. Such discoveries have given us a surprising idea of what the universe was 

like just after the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago - a nearly perfect liquid with 

practically no viscosity, or resistance to flow. 15 

Community and Facility Needs 

Whether we wish to study the history of our universe, isolate the subatomic building 

blocks of matter, visualize and manipulate matter at the atomic scale for industrial 

applications, develop new technologies to support U.S. security or understand the 

causes of disease and develop next generation drugs to combat them, there are DOE 

facilities that we increasingly rely on to help us conduct this research. 

As users, we continuously ask for new state-of-the-art capabilities. New facilities 

invariably lead to higher efficiency in the long term, but they also lead us to tackle 

harder, more complex and time intensive research and development projects. In the last 

ten years we have entirely new classes of facilities available to us, such as the 

nanoscience centers and the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), that are transforming 

our research. New facilities such as NSLS-II at Brookhaven, a synchrotron facility which 

will provide world leading X-ray brightness, and vital upgrades such as the planned 

LCLS-II upgrade at SLAC and the APS upgrade at Argonne are necessary steps in 

14 Research conducted at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Ughtsource at SLAC National Accelerator 

Laboratory and the Advanced Ught Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

15 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16quark.html? r=1 ,"In Brookhaven Collider, Scientists 

Briefly Break a Law of Nature", NY Times, February 15, 2010. Work conducted at Relativistic Heavy Ion 

Collider, Brookhaven National Laboratory. 

Page 7 of 9 
32 

ensuring we can improve efficiency and capacity and also deliver new capabilities to 

keep U.S. facilities world-leading. DOE's Office of Science in particular has become 

impressively adept at delivering new capabilities and facilities on time, on budget, and 

with performance that typically exceeds the original design specifications. Yet in building 

capacity and improving efficiency, historically it seems facilities have experienced 

funding shortfalls that often prevent them from operating at optimum levels, providing 

adequate number of staff to support user research and deploying upgrades as quickly 

as possible to maintain our Nation's leadership position. Providing operating budgets 

that allow these facilities to operate at their designed-for capacity and to hire and retain 

top scientific and technical talent should be a high priority. 

Technological upgrades such as improved detectors, robotics, improved 

instrumentation, enabling remote computation and access to facilities all require 

sustained funding yet prove cost effective in the long term to improve efficiency and 

capacity. As new facilities come on-line and older facilities are retired, these types of 

efforts will be critical in meeting demand from the scientific community and keeping 

them competitive with the suite of new facilities being built abroad. Partnerships with 

academic institutions, industry and other federal research entities that enable new 

capabilities should be fostered. These types of partnership can provide tremendous 

leverage in funding that benefits all facility users, but aren't attractive for partner 

institutions if there is not a clear return on investment. 

And as these facilities increasingly attract new user communities and reach out to 

industry to make them aware of how these facilities can be further utilized, more 

standardized requirements for access across the DOE complex are still needed that will 

make it easier for academia and industry to use these world-class research tools. 

However, it is important to recognize that a "one size fits all" approach to user access 

may not be optimal in some cases. For individual university PI's and smaller businesses 

in particular, which may not have large numbers of dedicated research staff, assistance 

and engagement from the facility can be a significant factor in ensuring their research 

experience is successful. 16 

Conclusions 

In conclusion, national user facilities provide a broad research infrastructure that 

enables researchers to access specialized machines, instrumentation and capabilities 

as well as technical expertise from experienced facility scientists, engineers, and 

physicists that would otherwise be unavailable from their home institutions. Access to 

these facilities enables scientists to explore the frontier research questions of our time, 

16 "Science for Energy Technology: Strengthening the Link between Basic Research and Industry A 

Report from the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee", John C. Hemminger (chair), August, 2010. 

http://science.energy.gov/-/medialbes/pdflreports/files/seIf rpt.pdf. 

Page 8 of9 
33 

leads to fundamental scientific discoveries and enables downstream technological 

developments for real-world industrial applications. The U.S. is unique in having such a 

large array of user facilities. Many countries have some subset, but no other country 

provides access to scientists to such a diverse group of facilities covering so many 

areas, giving U.S. academic and industrial scientists unequaled opportunities for 

research. 

Page 9 of9 
34 

Institutions that Conduct 

Research at u.s. National 

User Facilities 
35 

The FUTURE of America IS the 

RESEARCH of TODAY 

Scientists from 53 US States & Territories and .... 1,200 Institutions Conduct Research atthe National User Facilities 

A!MKA 

NatIOnal Weather Service 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

AZ Technology 

New Century P!J;.mnaceutlCals, Inc. 

Rolta 

Southern Research Institute 

Umvcrsity of Arizona 

ARKANSAS 

UALR 

Arl<ansas State University 

CALIFORNIA 

3DGeo 

ACT 

\rea Detector Systems Corporation 

ASML 

Asylum Research 

Azusa PacifIc University 

California Depdftm€nt ofWat€f Resource 

CeJgenc 

Center for Molecular StruClure 

Chapman Umverslty 

Chevron 

Children's Hospital Oakland Research 

Institute 

EZO C(Jmmunic<ltions. !nc-. 

Fairchild Imagmg 

Fairview Associates 

Far-Tecb. Inc. 

Graduate Theological Union 

!Iewlett·Pack3rd 

Hitachi Global Storage 

Honeywell, Inc. 

IBM 

ICON Consulting, Inc. 

lllumina,lnc. 

lotor-matlOn Sciences Institute 

Intel Inc. 

Diseases 

La loEa Institute for AHergy' and Imnl1lnoJogy 

Livermore Software Technology Company 

Lockhred Martin Space Systems 

Lorna Ltnda Umverslty 

Malcolm Pirnie 

Mathematical Sciences Research Institute 

Moe Vacuum Products 

:>.lellanox!nc. 

Ni\SA - Ames Res€<Jrch Center 

Inc. 

Novanis Vaccines and Diagnostics Inc. 

P<1cific School ofRehglon 

PerkinElmer 

Pfizer Global Rcse<Jfch and Development 

POlntLoma Naz<:lrcnc Unl'l'('rslty 

Pomona (ollege 

Poriferd Inc. 

Radiabe<tln Technologies 

SAl San Dlego 

Salk Instill!W for BJOJogica! Studies 

SAVEinc 

SaxetSurface SClence 

Sellsor1l.!etrix 
36 

Tile FUTURE oj America is tile 

RESEARCH oj TODAY 

Scientists from 53 US States & Territories and -1,200 Institutions Conduct Research at the National User Facilities 

SGX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

Shaheen Tonse 

Shasta College Earth Science Department 

StTucture Based Des!gn, Inc. 

Sun Pacific Farming 

The Swiss Physical Society 

Thios PharmaceutJcals 

Tulariklnc. 

University of San Francisco 

COLORADO 

AMEC· Earth and Environmental 

Colorado School of Mines 

Colorado State UniverSIty 

Fibcrforge 

Sohnirus Corporation 

SPEC Inc. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

CONNECTICUT 

Advanced Fuel Research 

Advanced Solid State Analysis. Inc. 

Pratt & \Vhitney 

Rlb-X Pharmaceuticals. Inc. 

Wesleyan University 

Western Connecticut State University 

Ya!eUniverslly 

DELAWARE 

Delaware State University 

DuPont Pharmilceuticals Company 

E.1. DuPont de Nemours & Company 

GF. Solar 

rul.Jill!A 

ACES QC 

Beam Engineering for Advanced 

MeJsurements Co. 

Broward College 

ENSCO,lnc. 

,'",'""iv""i''' 

Flonda Southern College 

Honeyv,rcll Sp3ce Systems 

lililllliilA 

Agnes Scott College 

RE'rryCoilege 

BPGloba! 

Center for Dlsease Control & Pre\'cntion 

Clark Atlanta Umversity 

Dalton State College 

IDAHO 

Idaho Natlon,ll Engilwering & Environmental 

Argonne NatIonal Laboratory 

Arryxlnc. 

Augustana College 

AVJCx LLC 

Benedictine University 

BP Global 

Buchler Ltd. 

Caterpillar Inc. 

Chicago Bot,mic Gardell 

College ofDuPage 
37 

The FUTURE of America the 

RESEARCH otTO DAY 

Scientists from 53 US States & Territories and .... 1,200 Institutions Conduct Research at the National User Facilities 

DePaul University 

Dommican University 

Dover Industrial Chrome, IncFermi National Accelerator Laboratory 

Fjeld Museum of Natural Hlstory 

FLASH 

Ie Gomes Consulting 

liT Research Institute 

/Hinois Aviation Museum 

Illinois State University 

Hlinois Tool Works 

!NEOS USA LLC 

Kenwood Academy High Schoo! 

L'Orea\ USA 

Letco 

Muons 

~alco 

NanoSomx Inc. 

\faslTx, Inc. 

National Center for Food Safety & Technology 

NCSA 

Northern !!linois Umvcrsity 

\lorthrop Grumman 

Poly Crystallography [nt 

Powermation 

Technisource 

The Art Instltute of Chicago 

Tuse 

U.s. Environmental Protection Agency 

INDIANA 

Anderson University 

Bloomington Hlgh School North 

Butler University 

WabasbCo!lege 

IOWA 

Ames Laboratory 

Kre!llnstitute 

Pioneer Hi~Bred International, Inc. 

StAmbrose Umv"rstty 

~ 

Fort Hayes State University 

Kansas State Umversity 

KPS Technology & Engmeering 

KENTUCKY 

Eastern Kentucky Umversity 

1.Q!!.!S.!ANA 

Exxoni'vlohd 

University of Lottlstana, Lafayette 

and Kidney DiscJ.ses (NIDDK) 
38 

The FUTURE of America is the 

RESEARCH ofTODAY 

Scientists from 53 US States & Territories and ..... 1,200 Institutions Conduct Research at the National User Facilities 

National lnstltute of Standards & Technology 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Abbott Bioresearch Center, lnc. 

AbbOlt Laboratories 

ARIAO Pharmaceuticals Inc. 

ArQulelnc. 

Boston Biomedical Research Institute 

Boston College 

Hanscom AF Base 

Joslin Diabetes Center and Joslln Chnic 

Mount llolyoke Conege 

MWRA 

Inc. 

NuOrtho Surgical Inc 

MICHIGAN 

BeaumonL Hospital at Royal Oak 

University of Michigan 

Van Andel Research Institute 

MINNESOTA 

3M 

Kre!l Instilllte 

MISSISSIPPI 

Center 

MISSOURI 

13rcwcrSClencc, Inc. 

Donald Danforth Plant Science Center 

Missouri llnlversity of Science and 

Washington University 
39 

The FUTU R E 01 Arn'"ica is the 

RESEARCH ofTODAY 

Scientists from 53 US States & Territories and -1,200 Institutions Conduct Research at the National User Facilities 

Nll.Y.AM 

Desert Research lnstitute 

National Weather Service 

Nevada Cancer InstJtute 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

AmberWave Systems Corporation 

Dartmouth College 

Nesbb Instruments, Inc 

Photonis 

BioDelivery SCIencE's International 

Bnstol-Mycrs Squibb 

Continuum Dynamics Inc. 

ExxonMobil 

University of Mcdinne and Dentistry of~e,v 

1ersey 

X-Ray Instrumentation Associates 

Motorola 

Nallo~lf{ Inc. 

SandliJ Nal1011dl Laboratoncs 

Semor SClentiilc 

NEW YORK Adapco Group 

Advanced Design Consulting, lne. 

Akzo ~obel ChemIcals, Inc. 

Alfred UniverSity 

American Museum of Natural History 

AWS Trucwllld, LLC 

ClraTherapeutic5, Inc. 

Gene Network Sciences 

General Electric Company 

Glohal Foundries 

Lucent Technologies 

Marymount Manhattan College 

Memorial Sloan-Kettenng Cancer Center 

MESO Inc. 

MiTeGen 

NASA Goddard Instltutc for Space Studies 

New York University 

Reservoir Labs 

Rochester fnstltule ofTechno!ogy 

Roswell Park Cancer [nstltute 

Yeshiva University 

NORTH CAROLlNA 

American Barmag Corpor;-ltion 

Army Research Office 

Atriax Components, Jnc, 
40 

The FUTURE of America the 

RESEARCH ofTODAY 

Scientists from 53 US States & Territories and -1.200 Institutions Conduct Research at the National User Facilities 

Wake Forest University 

NORTH DAKOTA North Dakota State University 

University of;\lorth Dakota 

illi!.Q 

lbr Force Research Laboratory 

NASA Glenn Research Center 

Norco!d Inc 

U.5. Air Force 

UES, Inc. 

Universal Technology Corporation 

OKLAHOMA 

3D Icon 

Research Service 

Warning Decision Traming Branch 

OREGON 

Concordia University 

University of Oregon 

PENNSYLVANIA 

3-Dimensional Pharmaceutic.11s 

Air PlOducts and CilellHcais, Inc. 

Mead!s G&M, Inc 

Duquesne University 

Eastern University 

Johnson & Johnson 

RHODE ISLAND 

Brown UniverSIty 

University of Rhode Island 

SOUTH CAROl INA 

SOUTH DAKOTA Black Hills Institute 

South Dakota Schoo! of Mines and 

UniverSIty ofSoulh Dakota 

East Tennessee State Umversity 

Eastman Chemical Company 

EDP Biotech Corporation 

Middle T€nnessee State University 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities 
41 

The FUTURE of America tile 

RESEARCH of TODAY 

Scientists from 53 US States & Territories and -1,200 Institutions Conduct Research at the National User Facilities 

The Orion FoundallOn 

University of Memphis 

Y-12 National Secunty Complex 

TEXAS 

Abilene Christian University 

Amanllo College 

Austin CoUege 

Baker Hughes Incorporated 

EI Paso Community College 

ExxonMobil 

FOllrState Research 

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. 

fNTECSEA 

Nalco 

NASA 

Sam HOllston State University 

SEMATECH 

Southwest Found;ltion for BIOmedical 

Research 

Southwest Research Institute 

Texas A&M University 

Texas Christian UniverSIty 

Texas Instruments Inc. 

Texas Soutr.ern University 

Trinity University 

Univcrslty of Texas, Pan Amcric,m 

UTAH 

EDAX-TSL 

ATK Launch Systems 

Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren 

DiVISIOn 

SAl McLean 

SAle 

VERMONT 

Middlebury College 

University of Vt>rmont 

WASHINGTON 

Center 

(ray, Inc 

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 

Seattle BlOmedical Research Institute 

Seatlle Ollldren's Research Institute 

SeattJe P3cific University 

Sienna Technologies, Inc. 

WEST VIRGINIA Marsball Univcrs)ty 

WISCONSIN 

ARLine 

Bruker AXS, Inc, 

Genenl Electric :'I1edkal Systems 

Corporation 

UnlverSlty ofWL~("onsin, L~ Cros~'e 

MQMlN.!i 

University of\Vyoming 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Embassy of Australia 

(arnegie InstitutlOn ofW<1sbingto!J 

Catholic University of America 

Children's National Medical Center 

Howard tJmversity 

NASA - Hcadquaners 

N,ltiona! Museum of Natur;lj History 

Nat)()nal Oceanic and Atmosphenc 

AdmimstratlOn 
42 

The FUTURE of I\merica is the 

RESEARCH of TODAY 

Scientists from 53 US States & Territories and -1,200 Institutions Conduct Research at the National User Facilities 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

u.s. Department of Energy 

PUERTO RICO 

AreClbo Observatory 

[n(otech Aerospace Services 

!nteramerican University de Puerto Rico 

National Astronomy and Ionosphere Ccnlel' 

VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Universlty oftbe Virgin Islands 
'I NATIONAL USER' 

FACILITY 

ORGANIZATION 

The Fortune 500 and National User Facilities 

47 of the Fortune 500 companies, with research and development facilities in 27 states, use 17 National User Facilities operated by the U

States Department of Energy Office of Science and 1 by the National Science Foundation. The research undertaken by these corporation

ranging, encompassing biology, chemistry, physics, material science and computing. The experiments performed at the facilities support 

creation of diverse products, including new pharmaceuticals, advanced materials for semiconductors and vehicular batteries, telecommu

satellites, and consumer goods. 

The User Facilities provide an effective way for industrial organizations to leverage the cutting-edge capabilities offered by modern scien

results enable advances in technological development and permit the United States to remain competitive in a global economy. 

Facilities Used 

ACRF - ARM Climate Research Facility ALS - Advanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

APS - Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory 

ALCF - Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, Argonne National Laboratory 

CFN - Center for Functional Nanomaterials, Brookhaven National Laboratory 

CNM - Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory 

EMSL - Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

HFIR High Flux Isotope Reactor, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
HTML - High Temperature Materials Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

LANSCE - Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Molecular Foundry, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

NERSC - National Energy Research SCientific Computing Center, Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory 

NHMFl- National High Magnetic Field laboratory, Florida State University 

NSLS - National Synchrotron Light Source, Brookhaven National laboratory 

OlCF - Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, Oak Ridge National laboratory 

SNS - Spallation Neutron Source, Oak Ridge National laboratory 

SSRl- Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory, SLAC National Accelerator laboratory 

TANDEM - Tandem Van de Graaff Accelerator Facility, Brookhaven National Laboratory 

Summary of Research 

Company Fortune 500 locations User 

Rank Facilities 

Exxon Mobil 2 Baton Rouge, lA APS 

Annandale, NJ NSlS 

Baytown, TX 

Research 

Characterization of 

feedstocks for the petr

refining industry (NSlS) 

Polymer composites (N

Microporous materials 

Transformation of sulfu

fuel materials (APS, NS

Operates four X-ray an

beamlines (NSlS) 
Company Fortune 500 locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

Chevron 3 Mountain Pass, CA ALS Structural transformatio

minerals (APS) 

Richmond, CA APS Proprietary research (AL

APS) 

Houston, TX 

General Electric 4 Niskayuna, NY AlCF Nanoscale gas sensors (A

W. Milwaukee, WI ALS Computational modeling 

engines (NERSC) 

APS Computational modeling 

wind turbines and jet en

(ALCF, OLCF) 

LANSCE Computational modeling 

gasification (OLCF) 

NERSC Catalyst characterization 

(APS) 

NSLS Isotope production (LAN

OLCF Characterization of adva

materials - transportatio

batteries, ceramic coatin

gas turbines, industrial g

, 

, sensors, solar panels (NS
Company Fortune 500 Locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

Ford Motor 8 Dearborn, MI ALS Fuel combustion (ALS) 

APS Characterization of fue

sprays in engines (APS) 

EMSL Catalysts for control of 

automotive exhaust (EM

Hewlett-Packard 10 Palo Alto, CA CNM New materials for elect

paper (SSRL) 

Corvallis, OR EMSL Properties of memory 

resistive devices (CNM) 

LANSCE Test of weather model

software (EMSl) 

SSRl Failure mechanisms of 

semiconductors (lANSC

General Motors 15 Flint, MI APS Analysis of fuel cells (A

Warren, MI EMSL Hydrogen storage for f

cells (HFIR, SNS) 

HFIR Conversion of heat to 

electricity in vehicles (H

HTMl) 

HTML Efficiency and emission

gasoline engines (NER5

NERSC Mitigation of particulat

from engine exhaust (E

SNS 
Company Fortune 500 locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

International Business 20 San Jose, CA ALCF Strain in electronic mate

Machines (APS, CNM, SSRL) 

Yorktown Heights, NY ALS Microelectronic connec

and photovoltaics (SSRL

Austin, TX APS Properties of nanopartic

. and nanoparticlejpolym

composites (Molecular 

Foundry) 

CFN Lithographic materials f

semiconductors (ALS) 

CNM Semiconductors (APS) 

EMSL Characterization of mat

for the manufacture of 

computer chips (NSLS) 

LANSCE Magnetic materials (EM

Molecular Control of environmenta

contamination (EMSL) 

Foundry Computer disk drives 

(LANSCE) 

NSLS Supercomputer design (

SSRL Operates X-ray analytica

facility (NSLS) 
Company Fortune 500 locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

Procter & Gamble 22 Needham, MA ALCF Computation modeling 

consumer goods, foods

control materials (ALCF

Cincinnati,OH APS Fuel cell and battery 

materials (NSLS) 

Fairfield, OH EMSL Pharmaceutical develo

(APS) 

Mason.OH HFIR Biocompatible nanopa

(EMSL) 

NSLS Medical materials, incl

drug delivery and hum

tissue replacement (HF

SNS) 

SNS 

Boeing 28 Albuquerque, NM ALCF Computational modelin

turbulence in aircraft, wturbines, heat exchang

buildings (ALCF) 

Kirkland, WA APS Aerodynamic modeling 

airplanes (OLCF) 

Renton, WA EMSL Analysis of semiconduc

failures (LANSCE) 

Seattle, WA LANSCE Evaluation of contamin

removal devices (EMSL

OLCF Materials research (AP
Company Fortune 500 locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

Johnson & Johnson 33 Exton, PA APS Pharmaceutical develo

Spring House, PA (APS) 

United Technologies 37 East Hartford, CT NERSC Design of new catalysts 

(OLCF) 

South Windsor, CT NSLS Modeling of fire-fightin

foams (OLCF) 

OLCF Catalysts for fuel cells 

Simulation of fuel flow 

engines (NERSC) 

Pfizer 40 Groton, CT ALS Pharmaceutical develo

(ALS, APS, NSLS, SSRL) 

San Diego, CA APS Protein separation (NH

South San Francisco, NHMFl 

CA 

NSLS 

SSRL 

Lockheed Martin 44 Sunnyvale, CA TANDEM Effect of cosmic rays o

Newtown, PA spacecraft performanc

(TANDEM) 

Dow Chemical 46 Albany, NY ALS Materials for semicond

lithography (ALS) 

APS Polymers for building 

materials (APS) 

NSLS Characterization of po
Company Fortune 500 Locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

Northrup Grumman 61 Redondo Beach, CA APS Efficiency of DNA delive

cells (APS) 

Rolling Meadows, IL TANDEM Climate models and 

projections (OLCF) 

Chantilly, VA OLCF Characterization of 

nanoparticies (SSRL) 

SSRL 

Intel 62 Chandler, AZ APS Creation and character

of new polymers (Mole

Foundry, SSRL) 

Lacey, CA LANSCE Heat removal in integra

circuit packages (Molec

Foundry, SSRL) 

Santa Clara, CA Molecular Development of new 

semiconductor structur

(APS) 

Windsor, CO Foundry Failure rates in 

semiconductors (LANSC

Hudson, MA SSRL 

Northborough, MA 

Albuquerque, NM 

Aloha, OR 

Hillsboro, OR 

Portland OR 
Company fortune 500 Locations User Research 

Rank facilities 

Caterpillar 66 East Peoria, Il APS Characterization of stre

materials (APS) 

Mossville, Il EMSL Mechanism of corrosio

bearings (HTML) 

HTMl Catalysts for treatment 

diesel exhausts (EMSL) 

Honeywell 74 Glendale, AZ APS Materials for semicond

International manufacturing (APS) 

Peoria, AZ CFN Effect of cosmic rays on 

microelectronic compo

(TANDEM) 

Phoenix, AZ HTMl Failure rates in 

semiconductors and 

electronics (LANSCE) 

Tucson, AZ LANSCE Characterization of cata

and adsorbents (APS, C

HTML, NSLS, SSRL) 

Sunnyvale, CA NSLS Proprietary research (A

Clearwater, Fl SSRl 

Des Plaines, IL TANDEM 

Coon Rapids, MN 

Eden, MN Fridley, MN 

Minneapolis, MN 

Kansas City, MO 
Company Fortune 500 Locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

Hopewell Junction, NY Pleasant Valley, NY 

Essex Junction, VT 

Redmond, WA 

Sammamish, WA 

Brampton, Ontario Mississauga, Ontario 

Abbott Laboratories 75 North Chicago, IL ALS Pharmaceutical develo

(ALS, APS, NSLS) 

Worcester, MA APS Antibody recognition in 

human immune system 

(NHMFL) 

NHMFl 

NSLS 

Merck 85 Rahway, NJ ALS Pharmaceutical develo

West Point, PA APS (ALS, APS) 

DuPont 86 Wilmington, DE APS Properties of polymer 

nanocomposites (APS, 

SNS, Molecular Foundr

EMSL Computational modeli

intermolecular forces (

HFIR Molecular 

Foundry 
Company Fortune 500 locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

I SNS I Oracle 105 Santa Clara, CA lANSCE Failure rates in 

Redwood Shore, CA semiconductors and 

electronics (LANSCE) 

3M 106 Minneapolis, MN APS Fuel Cells (APS) 

Deere 107 Moline,IL APS Studies of strain in mat

(APS) 

Motorola 110 Tempe, AZ EMSL Failure testing of 

semiconductors (LANS

Austin, TX LANSCE Materials for improved 

semiconductors (EMSL

Tel-Aviv, Israel 

Eli Lilly 112 Indianapolis, IN ALS Pharmaceutical develo

San Diego, CA APS (ALS, APS, SSRL) 

SSRL 

Bristol-Myers Squibb 114 Lawrenceville, NJ APS Pharmaceutical develo

Princeton, NJ EMSL (APS, EMSL, NSLS) 

NSLS 

Halliburton 158 Duncan, OK APS Properties of cement (

Amgen 159 South San Francisco, ALS Pharmaceutical develo

CA (ALS, APS) 

Thousand Oaks, CA APS 

Medtronic 160 Brooklyn Center, MN APS Batteries for medical 

applications (APS) 
Company Fortune 500 locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

Monsanto 197 Chesterfield, MO APS Proteins characterizatio

agricultural biotechnolo

(APS) 

Sun Microsystems 204 Mountain View, CA LANSCE Failure rates in 

Redwood City, CA semiconductors and 

San Jose, CA electronics (LANSCE) 

Sunnyvale, CA 

lIT 214 Fort Wayne, IN ACRF Studies on anesthetics 

Herndon, VA APS Development of scient

visualization software 

(NERSC) 

NERSC 

SAIC 215 Frederick, MD APS Characterization of pro

from coral (APS) 

Maclean, MD NERSC Analysis of wind energ

technology (NERSC) 

Cummins 218 Columbus, IN EMSL Control of diesel exhau

(EMSL) 

HTML Composition and mech

properties of steels an

for engines (HTML) 

Texas Instruments 223 Dallas, TX APS Films for microelectron

fabrication (EMSL) 

Plano, TX EMSL New microstructures f

transistors (APS) 
Company Fortune 500 locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

Sherman, TX LANSCE Failure rates of 

semiconductors (LANSC

Stafford, TX 

Thermo Fisher 234 Bremen, Germany EMSL Technology for improve

Scientific characterization of larg

molecules and mixtures 

(EMSL) 

Boston Scientific 279 Natick, MA EMSL Failure rates in 

semiconductors (LANSC

St. Paul, MN LANSCE Computational modelin

human lungs (EMSL) 

Eastman Kodak 297 Rochester, NY EMSL Mechanism of image 

generation in medical 

radiography (NSLS) 

NSLS Conducting polymers (E

Western Digital 304 San Jose, CA SSRL Thin films for compute

drives (SSRL) 

Ball 307 Boulder, CO TANDEM Resistance to radiation 

semiconductors for spacecraft and military 

(TANDEM) 

Advanced Micro 390 Santa Clara, CA LANSCE Failure rates of 

Devices Sunnyvale, CA semiconductors (LANSC

Fort Collins, CO 

, , Boxborough, MA 
Company Fortune 500 Locations User Research 

Rank Facilities 

Austin, TX 

Corning 391 Corning, NY EMSL Ceramics of diesel exha

filters (HTML) 

HTML Rheological dynamics o

particle suspensions (E

Applied Materials 421 Boise, 10 EMSL Magnetic devices for m

military and data storag

(EMSL) 

Micron Technology 432 Boise, 10 LANSCE Failure rates in 

Star, 10 semiconductors and 

electronics (LANSCE) 

Agilent Technologies 461 Santa Clara, CA NHMFL Ultra-high resolution o

imaging (NHMFL) 

Rockwell Collins 462 Tustin, CA LANSCE Failure rates in 

Melbourne, FL semiconductors and 

Cedar Rapids, IA electronics (LANSCE) 

Ely,IA 
57 

MAGNA 

COSMA _Y SYSTEMS 

EAILE IENI Mf;.IN~. 

Dr. Steven Chu 

Secretary of Energy 

S/Forrestal Building 

1000 Independence Ave, SW 

Washington DC 20585-0121 

March 6th, 2012 

RE: Oak Ridge National Laboratory's High Temperature Materials Laboratory User 

Program 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

The Body & Chassis Systems Division of Cosma International, a subsidiary of Magna 

International (Magna), manufactures hot-stamped components for vehicular 

structures at its Eagle Bend facility in Clinton, Tennessee, which employs 750 people. 

These components are subsequently supplied to OEMs for incorporation into bodies 

in white. Some of these components are made with advanced high-strength steels, 

which enable the use of thinner components to achieve significant weight 

reductions and improved fuel efficiency without sacrificing safety. 

We are writing to you today to express our deepest appreciation for the technical 

support provided to Cosma and Magna by Dr. Edgar Lara-Curzio and his research 

team at the High Temperature Materials Laboratory (HTML) at the Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. We contacted Dr. Lara-Curzio in late November last year 

requesting urgent assistance to identity the mechanisms responsible for the failure 

of components manufactured at Eagle Bend during assembly of bodies in white at an 

OEM's plant. We turned to ORNL's High Temperature Materials Laboratory for: 

its wide array of powerful tools for materials characterization; 

Q the expertise of the staff in operating these instruments; 

.. most importantly the staffs understanding of the relationships between 

manufacturing processes and the microstructure and physical and 

mechanical properties of materials; 

.. the opportunity to work side-by-side with the HTML research team. 

Even more significant were the virtually instantaneous HTML response to our calt 

for help, and the staffs "can do" attitude in working late and during the 

Thanksgiving holidays. Such rapid turn-around is critical to solving industrial 

manufacturing problems and allowed both Eagle Bend and the OEM to determine a 

solution and continue production. 
58 

&iMAGNA 

COlMA lOllY SYSnMS 

EAClE lEND In.IIIC. 

f94?& §§§ @ YEti§} g!\ 

Eagle Bend's experience working with ORNL's High Temperature Materials 

Laboratory demonstrates the wisdom and value of Federal investments in user 

facilities at the National Laboratories. These facilities make available capabilities 

and expertise that industry cannot afford to acquire and/or maintain, and their 

collaborative environment facilitates innovation and helps accelerate the 

commercialization of technologies. Furthermore, in situations like the one we just 

experienced, they have the expertise to assist industry in solving problems that 

affect productivity and competitiveness. 

Magna International and its subsidiaries will continue to look to the High Temperature 

Materials Laboratory for our future characterization needs and recommend it as a partner 

to help U.S. industries maintain manufacturing excellence and technological 

leadership in a globally competitive environment. 

Sincerely, 

Allan Navarro (Quality Manager) 

~' 

cc: Dr. Henry C. Kelly, Acting EERE Assistant Secretary 

Patrick B. Davis, Vehicle Technologies Program Manager 

Dr. Carol L. Schutte, Lead, Vehicle Technologies Program, Materials Technology 

Team Lead 

Dr. Thorn Mason, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Dr. Leo Christodoulou, Advanced Manufacturing Office, Manager 
59 

The FUTURE of America is the 

RESEARCH of TODAY 

Testimony Summary 

The National User Facility Organization (NUFO) represents the almost 45,000 

scientists who conduct research at the 46 largest federally funded user facilities in the 

United States. Of these, 36 facilities are managed by the Department of Energy, hosting 

almost 37,000 scientists each year. They come from a variety of institutions and the 

research these scientists conduct at these facilities is extremely diverse. These 

scientists come from 53 US States & Territories and -1,200 institutions, many are 

international scientists. Researchers from 400 unique companies including 45 Fortune 

500 companies and 22 Fortune 100 companies use these facilities. Roughly 7,000 of 

these users are stUdents and postdoctoral researchers. The research impacts virtually 

every scientific discipline, both in applied and fundamental sciences. Life scientists 

utilize these facilities to understand disease and develop new diagnostic technologies 

and drug treatments and materials scientists utilize these instruments to develop next 

generation technologies (semiconductors, catalysts, dynamic simulations for 

transportation technologies, new materials in supporting National security interests). 

New facilities coming on-line and state-of-the-art upgrades to existing facilities will play 

important roles in ensuring we remain competitive with research being conducted 

abroad and to meet rapidly increasing demand for research time. Operating funds to 

ensure that existing facilities operate at optimum levels is critical to ensure they help 

maintain our Nation's leadership position in scientific research. 
60 

The FUTURE of America is the 

RESEARCH of TODAY 

Short Narrative Biography 

NATIONAL 

USER 

Antonio Lanzirotti is a Senior Research Associate at The University of Chicago's Center 

for Advanced Radiation Sources (see attached curriculum vitae). He has been a 

University of Chicago research scientist since 1999 and helped develop and operate Xray beamlines for the user community at both the National Synchrotron Light Source at 

Brookhaven National Laboratory (Upton, New York) and the Advanced Photon Source 

at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, Illinois) where he is currently stationed. He 

received both his Bachelor of Science (1985) and Master of Science (1988) degrees 

from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (Socorro, New Mexico) in 

Geology. He received his Ph.D. degree in Earth Sciences from Stony Brook University 

(Stony Brook, New York) in 1995. Prior to joining the University of Chicago he was a 

National Science Foundation post-doctoral fellow (University of Massachusetts at 

Amherst) and worked for Professional Service Industries, Inc. (Oakbrook Terrace, 

Illinois). Lanzirotti is the 2011-2012 elected Chair for the National User facility 

Organization, which helps represent the interests of scientists who conduct research at 

U.S. national scientific user facilities. 
61 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Dr. Drell for five minutes to present her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PERSIS DRELL, DIRECTOR, 

SLAC NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY 

Ms. DRELL. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and Members of the Subcommittee, I am very pleased to be here today to 

talk about SLAC National Accelerator Lab and the Linac Coherent 

Light Source. 

As you are going to be hearing from other witnesses, DOE user 

facilities producing intense beams of X-rays have been doing research with tremendous societal impact for several decades. X-rays 

are particularly sensitive scientific tools, powerful scientific tools 

because they see through matter and they tell us where atoms are. 

At SLAC, we have just turned on the newest X-ray facility, the 

Linac Coherent Light Source, or LCLS, whose ultra-bright, ultrashort pulses of X-rays are revolutionizing our ability to look at matter by letting us for the first time see motion on the atomic time 

scale. 

So I want to illustrate the power of LCLS with an analogy. In 

the late 1800s, there was a lot of interest in the mechanics of how 

a horse galloped. There was a famous bet involving Senator Leland 

Stanford, and the bet was about whether all four hooves of the 

horse left the ground. Eadweard Muybridge devised a camera with 

a very fast shutter speed to resolve the bet by taking a series of 

crisp stop-action pictures, putting them together into a movie, 

which you see shown here. As you can see, this movie resolved the 

question, and we know as a result that a galloping horse does, in 

fact, take all of its four feet off the ground when it gallops. 

Now, just imagine if we could do this at the atomic scale. Imagine if we could take a series of crisp stop-action pictures of chemistry in motion and watch a reaction atom by atom and step by 

step, and this is the new scientific frontier that has been opened 

by the Linac Coherent Light Source. 

Right now, as I speak, experimenters at SLAC, users at our facility, are trying to understand photosynthesis, that very basic life 

process, by taking a series of stop-action pictures in much the way 

that Muybridge took a series of stop-action pictures of the galloping 

horse. 

We have long known that in photosynthesis, we take CO2 and 

water, put it together with sunlight and we make oxygen and sugars, but with a multi-step process we don’t know the details. With 

an understanding of how it works, we can start to re-engineer it 

and exploit it in new ways. I think it will be a decade or more, just 

to manage expectation, before society directly benefits or an industrial application emerges, but I am also confident that with time, 

this will be game-changing. 

More speculative applications of the LCLS but maybe even more 

revolutionary have to do with LCLS’s ability to image viruses and 

perhaps some day even selected cells. This is in the early technology development stage but the potential is enormous as it might 

offer revolutionary new insights into the workings of the living cell. 
62 

So the LCLS is unique in the world in its ability to deliver these 

ultra-fast, ultra-bright X-rays, but there is significant worldwide 

competition coming as Japan, Germany, China and Switzerland are 

all moving to catch up, particularly now that we have demonstrated that this works. 

To stay competitive, we are already working to expand the capability and capacity of this discovery-class machine with the LCLS– 

II. The LCLS–II is supported in the President’s budget request and 

is included in the House energy and water bill as part of the BES 

budget, for which we are very appreciative. 

User facilities like the LCLS are expensive to build and operate. 

No one industry or research enterprise can afford to build one for 

itself. The Federal Government through the Office of Science and 

DOE, funds the building and operations of the facilities at the national labs, and scientists from around the world compete for beam 

time with peer-review proposals. We are currently preeminent in 

many areas of science with our user facilities. We will need continued stable funding for the DOE Office of Science to keep our worldleading position. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, let me end with 

a somewhat philosophical statement. Over 400 years ago, Flemish 

spectacle makers invented a spyglass, and the reason they invented 

the spyglass was to be able to see ships far from harbor to tell if 

they were friend or foe. Galileo took that spyglass, made it better 

by a factor of 10, turned it on the heavens, and revolutionized our 

view of the cosmos. The LCLS was built because we knew that 

tudying materials on the atomic time and distance scales would 

open new frontiers in drug discovery, materials and chemistry research. But all of us believe that with this new X-ray source, a billion times brighter than anyone has had before, the biggest scientific surprises are yet to come. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my perspective as 

SLAC’s Director, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Drell follows:] 
63 

Testimony of 

Persis Drell, Ph.D. 

Lab Director 

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 

Before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Department of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science 

to Drive Innovation Through Fundamental Research 

June 21, 2012 
64 

Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here 

today to provide my perspective on the role of SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAG) in the U.S. 

scientific enterprise, with a particular emphasis on how the Linac Coherent Ught Source is transforming 

key research disciplines and has the potential to drive new industrial applications. 

2 

Let me begin with a few words on national laboratories in general and the role they play in advancing 

scientific innovation in the United States. The Office of Science in the Department of Energy (DOE) 

operates 10 national laboratories that focus on fundamental research. Over the last 50 years, this 

research has contributed to making the U. S. a global leader in scientific research, and has yielded 

discoveries that have greatly benefited society and the human condition, from better sources of energy to 

new drugs and therapies for diseases such as cancer. 

I am the Director of SLAC, a multi-program national laboratory managed and operated by Stanford 

University for the DOE. SLAC has an annual operating budget of about $300M/year, most of which 

comes from the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) budget of the DOE. That budget supports 1,700 scientists, 

engineers and staff. SLAC was established in 1962 as a high energy physics center, and has eVOlved 

over the years into a multi-program laboratory. As part of our mission, we operate two major facilities 

used by thousands of scientific researchers each year from around the world. We, and other national 

laboratories, refer to these as "user facilities." 

SLAC's two major facilities are the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Ughtsource (SSRL), which has been 

in operation for many years and serves approximately 1,500 users annually, and the Linac Coherent Light 

Source (LCLS), which was completed in 2010 and currently serves about 500 users annually. An 

expansion of LCLS, which I will discuss shortly, is currently underway, in part to accommodate the high 

demand from scientists for access to this unique facility. Like other large-scale DOE user facilities, the 

LCLS and SSRL are open on a competitive basis to scientists from industry, academia, private 

foundations and government laboratories. They provide world-class research tools on a scale that no 

single company or university could hope to afford. They represent a prime example of public-private 

partnership, where government invests in infrastructure that allows for baSic research, which is then 

translated into applicable technologies by the private sector. Access to these tools is especially critical for 

start-up companies because it allows them to advance the development of their products at a reasonable 

cost 

Light source user facilities at SLAC, Argonne, Brookhaven and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs that 

produce intense X-rays have been doing scientific research with tremendous societal impact for several 

decades. These facilities serve a broad suite of scientific disciplines and provide tools that industry can 

use for drug discovery and other applications. 

X-rays are powerful tools because they penetrate through objects (a property familiar to anyone who has 

been in a doctor's office). X-rays also let us see where atoms are in materials. I would like to share with 

you just one example of the difference these facilities have made using these X-ray tools. 

X-ray data derived using light source capabilities at SLAC, Argonne and Berkeley Labs has been used to 

determine the molecular structure of a mutated protein involved in stage-four malignant melanoma. With 

this structure, a Berkeley-based drug discovery company, Plexxikon, was able to develop a drug, 

vemurafenib, that could stop the spread of this deadly disease. Clinical trials of vemurafenib showed 

remarkable results for patients with advanced melanoma who had the mutation and for whom 

conventional treatments had been ineffective. Many were seriously ill or near death. But when they 

started taking vemurafenib, most patients suddenly experienced complete or partial regression of their 
65 

tumors. Despite the dramatic clinical trial results - patients receiving the 

drug lived six months longer than those in the study who did not -

vemurafenib is not yet a cure for melanoma, as the tumors returned after 

six months. However, the X-ray technique used in the drug's discovery is 

one that enables pharmaceutical companies to generate new drug 

candidates quickly, demonstrating how valuable these facilities can be 

for the private seclor as well as for applications that advance human 

health. 

At SLAC, exploiting our decades of experience in building forefront 

accelerators, we have just turned on the newest X-ray user facility 

among national laboratories and are using it to open a completely new 

frontier. The Linac Coherent Light Source, or LCLS, is an X-ray laser 

whose pulses are brighter (with 1,000 times more X-rays per pulse) and 

faster (10,000 times shorter in time) than any achieved before. Those 

ultra-bright, ultra-short pulses are revolutionizing our ability to look at 

matter on the atomic scale. 

Let me illustrate the power of the LCLS with an analogy. In the 1800s 

there was a lot of interest in the mechanics of how a horse galloped. (If 

you go to the National Gallery and look at pictures painted before the late 

1870s, you will see many imaginative renderings of galloping horses.) 

There was a famous bet involving Senator Leland Stanford, the founder 

of Stanford University, on how a horse galloped, and whether all four 

hooves left the ground. Eadweard Muybridge, a well-known British 

photographer, devised a camera with a very fast shutter speed to resolve 

the bet by taking a series of stop-action pictures of a galloping horse. 

With this series of pictures, the question was finally resolved, and we 

know as a result that a galloping horse does, in fact, take all four hooves 

off the ground at once. After taking Plexxikon's 

vemurafenib for just two 

weeks, nearly al/ of the 

advanced malignant melanoma 

patients in a clinical trial 

showed dramatic improvement. 

Before (top) and after (below) 

PET scans showed a significant drop in metabolic 

activity associated with tumors 

in this patient, for example. 

Image courtesy of Plexxikon, 

Inc. 

Now imagine if we could take X-ray pictures with the equivalent of a fast shutter speed and string them 

together to make stop-action movies of atomic processes. These movies would show atoms and 

electrons moving on their natural timescale and allow us to watch a chemical reaction atom by atom and 

step by step. This is the new scientific frontier opened by the LCLS. 
66 

4 

The LCLS was only completed in 2010, so we are in the early stages of exploiting this revolutionary new 

tool. But let me give you a few examples to illustrate the science we are achieving today and the promise 

for the future in terms of industrial involvement and benefits to society: 

1. LCLS will allow us to better examine high-resolution structures of membrane proteins that are 

drug targets already, but cannot be extensively studied today due to technical limitations with 

existing X-ray facilities. Membrane proteins control traffic in and out of the cell and serve as 

docking points for infectious agents and disease-fighting drugs; in fact, they are the targets of 

more than 60 percent of the drugs on the market. Yet scientists know the structures of only a 

handful of the estimated 30,000 membrane proteins in the human body. There is considerable 

hope that LCLS will allow us to better "see" membrane proteins and extend our ability to do 

structure-based drug development in areas much like the melanoma drug we discussed earlier, 

leading to commercial applicability and near -term societal benefits. 

2. We hope to use LCLS to understand 

photosynthesis in much the same way that 

Muybridge understood the galloping horse. 

Experimenters are attempting to take a series 

of stop-action pictures to make the equivalent 

of a movie of this most basic of life processes, 

focusing on the critical step of splitting water to 

make oxygen. We have long known the 

basics: photosynthesis takes CO, and water in 

and we get sugars and 0, out. It is a multistep process and we know some but not all of 

how it works. With an understanding of how 

this engine works, we can start to reengineer it 

and exploit it in new ways to develop better, 

more efficient sources of energy. I believe it 

will be a decade or more before society 

directly benefits or an industrial application 

emerges, but I am also confident that with time 

this will be game-changing on a global scale. 

3. More speculative, but even more 

revolutionary, is the LCLS's ability to image 

viruses and possibly some day, selected cells. 

This is definitely in early technology 

development but the potential is enormous, as 

it might offer revolutionary new inSights into 

the workings of the living cell. 

Mimivirus particle imaged by LCLS 

Courtesy of Tomas Ekeberg 

4. Virtually everything in our daily life involves catalysts, from turning crude oil into the gas in our 

cars, to processing cotton to make our clothes, to the hydrogenation of fats to make margarine. 

Often catalysts have been discovered by trial and error and we don't understand in detail how or 

why they work. The LCLS is starting to develop the technology to make stop-action movies of 

catalysts in action. When this works we will have the ability to design catalysts in a much more 

controlled fashion, allowing chemists to gain an in-depth understanding of the catalytic cycles on 

molecular levels while guiding new catalyst design. Because 90 percent of all commercially 
67 

produced chemical products involve catalysts at some stage in the process of their manufacture, 

and catalytic processes generated approximately $900 billion in products worldwide in 2005, the 

potential for economic impact is enormous. (Reference: Wikipedia) 

The LCLS is unique in the world in its ability to deliver 

ultrafast, ultra-bright X-rays with the promise of 

revolutionizing our understanding in areas of biology, 

materials and chemistry. It is a facility that is expensive to 

build and to operate, and no one industry or research 

enterprise can afford to build an LCLS for itself. The 

federal government, through the Office of Science in the 

DOE, funds the building and operations of the facilities, 

and scientists from around the world compete for beam 

time with peer-reviewed proposals. In a case like LCLS, 

where we have to reject three proposals for everyone that 

we accept, we must ensure that the best science gets the 

beam time. 

The idea of an X-ray free electron laser started in the U.S., 

and the LCLS is the first one in the world to be built and 

operating. However, soon there will be significant 

worldwide competition as other countries are working hard 

to catch up, particularly now that they see how well the 

LCLS is performing. Japan has recently turned on a 

smaller version of the LCLS. A large X-ray free electron 

laser will turn on in Germany in the second half of this 

decade, and China and Switzerland are committed to 

building machines, as well. 

The LCLS is at an early stage of development, but we are 

already working to expand the capability and capacity of 

this discovery-class machine with LCLS-II. LCLS-II is 

supported in the President's Budget Request and is 

included in the House Energy and Water bill as part of the 

BES budget. LCLS-II is a critical step to keep us 

competitive in this important area of research well into the 

next decade. As I hope I have made the case, these 

facilities have the potential to do breakthrough science that 

with time will lead to industrial applications and benefits to 

society. We currently are world leaders in many areas of 

science with our user facilities. We will need continued 

stable funding for the DOE Office of Science and a 

commitment to stay at the leading edge by ensuring 

strategic exploitation of existing facilities along with plans 

for future facilities in order to keep our world-leading 

position. I believe this is essential to ensure continued 

benefits to society and enhanced industrial 

Significant Demand for lClS, 1st Hard X-ray 

FEL Facility In the World 

i1I OversubscriptionExperiments 

Unscheduled due to 

limited Resources & 

Availability 

letS Experiments Proposed from Worldwide 

Science Community 
68 

competitiveness that comes from the science done at 

these user facilities in the decades to come. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: let me 

end with a somewhat philosophical statement. More than 

400 years ago, Flemish spectacle makers invented a 

spyglass to be able to see and identify ships when they 

were still far from harbor to see if they were friend or foe. 

Galileo made the spyglass 10 times more powerful and 

turned it on the planets, seeing them with a detail never 

before possible, and he ~evolutionized our understanding 

of the cosmos and our place within it. 

LCLS was built because we knew that studying materials 

on the atomic time and distance scales would open new 

horizons, as we are already seeing in drug discovery 

and materials research. But we all believe that with this 

new X-ray source, a billion times brighter than anyone 

has ever had before, the biggest surprises are yet to 

come. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my perspective 

as SLAC's Director. I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

6 

Scientists Use LC1.:5, 1st X-ray FEt in the World, 

to Push frontlers in Many 

Areas of Science 
69 

One-Page Summary Outline of Testimony of 

Persis Drell, Ph.D. 

Lab Director 

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 

Before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Department of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science 

to Drive Innovation Through Fundamental Research 

June 21, 2012 
70 

1. Introduction 

2. X-ray user facilities have been doing basic research with societal impact for decades 

a. Examples: Melanoma; H1Nl; Aids; Night vision goggles 

3. New frontier x-ray user facility: LCLS ---ultra bright (xlOOO more x-rays per pulse) ultra short 

(xlO,OOO shorter in time) x-ray pulses than ever before available 

a. Short pulsesO+allows stop action pictures of atomic processes. Example of galloping 

horse - movies of atomic processes 

b. Unlock secrets of photosynthesis and catalysis 

c. Structure and time-resolved function of single molecules 

d. 3D imaging and dynamical studies of bio-world 

4. Unique, world leading facilities such as lClS are national facilities too expensive for anyone 

university or anyone industry to afford 

a. Built by the government and every one competes for time on an equal footing 

b. Peer reviewed proposals, the best science gets beam time 

c. lCLS at early stage of development. We are already working to expand the capability 

and capacity of this discovery class machine with lCLS-11. 

5. The biggest surprises are yet to come 

a. Galileo built his first telescope 10 times better than any other telescope to be able to 

see ships farther from harbor and tell if they were friend or foe. He then turned his 

telescope on the heavens and revolutionized our understanding of the cosmos 

b. lClS was built because we knew that studying materials on the atomic time and 

distance scales would open new horizons as we are already seeing in drug discovery and 

materials understanding. But we all believe that with this new x-ray source a billion 

times brighter than anyone has ever had before, the biggest surprises are yet to come. 
71 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Dr. Wasserman to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN WASSERMAN, 

SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, TRANSLATIONAL 

SCIENTIST AND TECHNOLOGIES, 

ELY LILLY AND COMPANY 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Stephen Wasserman. I 

am a Senior Research Fellow in the Translational Science and 

Technologies Department of Lilly Research Laboratories, the research arm of Ely Lilly and Company. It is a pleasure to be here 

this morning to describe our company’s work at the Advanced Photon Source of Argonne National Laboratory, one of the four X-ray 

synchrotron user facilities operated by the United States Department of Energy. The partnership between our company and the 

APS is an important part of our effort to deliver innovative new 

medicines to the patients who need them. 

Lilly has been a continual user of the Advanced Photon Source 

since the first days of the facility. Today we operate our own X-ray 

beam line for protein crystallography, the Lilly Research Laboratory’s Collaborative Access Team, LRLCAT, of which I am the Director. Each year, we analyze more than 10,000 crystalline samples. Most of these crystals contain both proteins that are targets 

for the treatment of disease and small chemical compounds of interest in the development of potential new medicines. 

The experiments at the APS permit us to examine the interaction between the protein and small molecule atom by atom and 

to develop innovative new ways to optimize that interaction. 

Through this detailed microscopic view, we seek to maximize the 

efficacy of new pharmaceuticals and minimize side effects. 

Today our company has more than 10 experimental compounds 

in phase I and phase II clinical trials that were developed with the 

aid of the Advanced Photon Source. In addition, experiments at the 

APS support research on more than one-third of the protein targets 

in Lilly’s early-stage drug discovery portfolio. The therapeutic research areas that benefit from the APS are diverse including cancer, diabetes, autoimmune, psychiatric disorders and neurological 

conditions such as neurodegeneration and pain. 

Our work on the protein known as beta secretase, a potential target for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, is illustrative of the 

interface between experiments at the APS and Lilly’s drug discovery research. The crystallographic effort that included the APS 

has to date resulted in the determination of the three-dimensional 

structures of more than 400 different compounds bound to the protein. The total effort in developing a molecule that can be tested 

in clinical trials extends far beyond our experiments in crystallography. Considerable work was required to design candidate molecules and evaluate their properties involving our colleagues in biology, chemistry, data analysis and medicine. This endeavor has resulted in an investigational new drug whose phase II clinical testing will soon commence. 
72 

We urge Congress to continue to support our country’s national 

user facilities and the national laboratories in which many are located. The Advanced Photon Source and other U.S. synchrotron 

sources need a reliable funding stream. The quality of the data obtained at the APS cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the United 

States. If the light sources were not available or their operating 

schedule substantially reduced, we at Lilly would be forced to consider moving our experiments to other countries. We have performed recently, or are scheduled to perform in the near future, experiments in Canada, the United Kingdom, France and China. Reliance on facilities outside the United States, however, would slow 

the pace of our research and impact how soon new treatments become available to patients. 

The relationship between the national user facilities and their 

users is strong. This relationship can be enhanced by further development of the technical and organizational environment the facilities provide. Potential enhancements include modifications to the 

agreements between user and facility, especially for industrial and 

proprietary users and operators of individual beam lines from outside the Department of Energy. 

The addition of automation to speed the execution of experiments 

and reduce future costs would maximize scientific value for the facilities. Implementation of upgrades for the core machines and, 

where present, ancillary experimental stations is necessary. We at 

Lilly have seen how with time operations can be held hostage to 

deprecated and aging equipment. Indeed, that was one of the motivations for our own recent upgrade at LRLCAT. The APS and its 

sister facilities have similar issues though on a much larger scale. 

As Drs. Drell and Lanzirotti have already noted, the national 

user facilities are too large for any one organization, corporate or 

academic, to consider building on its own. The United States Government had foresight to recognize that it alone could construct 

this scientific infrastructure. By creating and running such facilities, it provides an essential service for the country’s technological 

development. The result is a collection of scientific resources of 

which the Nation should be justly proud. 

In conclusion, I would like to return to a statement we made at 

the exhibitions on national user facilities that the NUFO organization presented for Congress at the end of March. Recently in meetings on Capitol Hill, a colleague echoing the opening of Charles 

Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities described the current environment 

for science as the best of times and the worst of times. Dickens’ 

worst, best and worst, are, however, absolute; science is rarely so. 

It continually builds on what is already known. That is why science 

must always move forward rather than being executed intermittently. A better descriptor of the promise of national user facilities 

for our future can be found in a slight modification of the end of 

Dickens’ novel. Provided the federal budget for national user facilities remains intact, the research and innovation at these facilities 

will be a far, far better thing that we do than we have ever done. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasserman follows:] 
73 

Stephen R. Wasserman 

Senior Research Fellow 

Eli Lilly and Company 

June 21, 2012 

Summary 

Eli Lilly and Company is a long-standing user of the Advanced Photon Source, one of 

four X-ray synchrotron light sources operated by the US Department of Energy. We 

currently operate our own X-ray beamline for protein structure at the APS, the Lilly 

Research Laboratories Collaborative Access Team, LRL-CAT. The partnership 

between our company and the APS is an important part of our effort to deliver 

innovative, new medicines to the patients who need them. 

Lilly has more than 10 experimental compounds in Phase I and Phase II clinical 

trials that were developed with the aid of the Advanced Photon Source. 

Experiments at the APS support research on one-third of the protein targets in 

Lilly's early stage drug discovery portfolio. The therapeutic research areas that 

utilize the APS include cancer (oncology), diabetes, autoimmune, psychiatric 

disorders, and neurological conditions such as neurodegeneration (Alzheimer's) 

and pain. 

National User Facilities such as the Advanced Photon Source are essential for the 

nation's technological development. They are, however, too large for anyone 

organization, corporate or academic, to consider building on its own. In creating the 

User Facilities the government has provided a great service to the nation. Continued 

high-level funding to keep them operating and at the state of the art is important for 

the economic and technological advancement ofthe United States. 

The relationship between the National User Facilities and their users is strong. This 

relationship can be enhanced by further development of the technical and 

organizational environment the facilities provide. Potential enhancements include 

modifications to the agreements between user and facility, especially for 

proprietary users and operators of individual beamlines from outside the DOE. The 

addition of automation to speed the execution of experiments and reduce future 

costs would maximize scientific value from the facilities. Implementation of 

upgrades for the core machines and, where present, ancillary experimental stations 

will ensure that users continue to have the opportunity to employ the unique and 

powerful capabilities of the User Facilities in their scientific investigations. 
74 

Statement of 

Dr. Stephen R. Wasserman 

Director, Lilly Research Laboratories Collaborative Access Team 

Senior Research Fellow, Translational Science and Technologies 

Eli Lilly and Company 

Before 

The United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

June 21, 2012 

Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and Members of the Subcommittee, 

It is a pleasure to be here this morning to describe Eli Lilly's work at the Advanced 

Photon Source CAPS) of Argonne National Laboratory, one of the four X-ray 

synchrotron user facilities operated by the United States Department of Energy. 

The partnership between our company and the APS is an important part of our 

effort to deliver innovative, new medicines to the patients who need them. 

We urge Congress to continue to support our country's National User Facilities and 

the National Laboratories in which many are located. We strongly agree with the 

sentiment recently expressed by the Director of Argonne National Laboratory, Eric 

Isaacs: "The work we do in the national laboratories promises to dramatically 

accelerate the discovery and development of new materials, technologies, and 

processes-and ultimately, those efforts will power the expansion of the American 

economy." As we will illustrate today, these new materials include pharmaceuticals. 

National User Facilities such as the Advanced Photon Source are too large for any 

one organization, corporate or academic, to consider building on its own. The 

United States government had the foresight to recognize that it alone could 

construct this scientific infrastructure. By creating such facilities, it provides an 

essential service for the nation's technological development. Continued high-level 

funding to keep these facilities operating and at the state of the art is important for 

the economic and technological advancement of the United States. 

Lilly and the Advanced Photon Source 

Lilly has been a continual user of the Advanced Photon Source since the first days of 

the facility. Today, we operate our own x-ray beamline for protein crystallography, 

the Lilly Research Laboratories Collaborative Access Team (LRL-CAT). Each year 

we analyze more than 10,000 crystalline samples. Most of these crystals contain 

both proteins that are targets for the treatment of disease and small chemical 

compounds of interest in the development of potential new medicines. The 

3 
75 

experiments at the APS permit us to examine the interaction between the protein 

and small molecule atom-by-atom and to develop innovative new ways to optimize 

that interaction. Through this detailed, microscopic view, we seek to maximize the 

efficacy of new pharmaceuticals and minimize side effects. 

Today our company has more than 10 experimental compounds in Phase I and 

Phase II clinical trials that were developed with the aid of the Advanced Photon 

Source. In addition, experiments at the APS support research on one-third of the 

protein targets in Lilly's early stage drug discovery portfolio. The therapeutic 

research areas that utilize structure-based drug design are diverse, including cancer 

(oncology), diabetes, autoimmune, psychiatric disorders, and neurological 

conditions such as neurodegeneration (Alzheimer's) and pain. 

Our work on the protein known as [)-secretase, a potential target for the treatment 

of Alzheimer's Disease, is illustrative of the interface between experiments at the 

APS and Lilly's drug discovery research. The crystallographic effort that included 

the APS has, to date, resulted in the determination of the three-dimensional 

structures of more than 400 different compounds bound to the protein. But the 

total effort in developing a molecule that can be tested in clinical trials extends far 

beyond our experiments in crystallography. Considerable effort was required to 

design the properties of the candidate molecules, in order that the final compound 

could be administered orally but still enter the brain. Our biological colleagues 

tested the compound and its precursors for efficacy, while computational chemists 

developed models for the physical properties of early stage molecules and their 

interactions with the protein. We also tested molecules against other proteins that 

are fairly similar to [)-secretase, in order to predict and diminish side effects. Not 

surprisingly, this diverse research extended over many years. It has resulted in an 

investigational new drug, whose phase II clinical testing will soon commence 

(www.clinical trials.gov). 

The number of scientists needed to execute these experiments and analyses across 

the entire Lilly portfolio is large. The subset that interacts with the APS and the data 

from the synchrotron is more than 150. These researchers are involved directly in 

preparing the samples that are sent to LRL-CAT, analyzing the data that we return to 

them, and using the conclusions from these experiments in their pursuit of 

innovative pharmaceuticals. 

The experimental medicines undergoing clinical trials represent only the tip of the 

iceberg in the use of structural biology within Lilly's drug discovery efforts. Even 

negative results that do not detect an interaction between compound and protein 

often influence future scientific directions. In other cases, the association that is 

found is different from the hypothesis that directed the original experiment. In a 

recent example, such a result led to a reassessment of the approach to be pursued 

with a protein target. 

We are able to rapidly disseminate the results of our work at the APS throughout the 

company. On average, evaluated experimental results are available to our Lilly 

4 
76 

colleagues in San Diego, Indianapolis, the United Kingdom, Spain and China within 

14 minutes of completion of the analysis at the APS. During normal operations, the 

median time between when a sample is created and when the experiment at LRLCAT is finished is less than 1.6 days, including the time required to ship the sample 

overnight to the synchrotron. This speed allows us to execute crystallographic 

analyses as quickly as other assays used in discovery pharmaceutical research. 

Virtually all of the data acquisition process is automated, permitting us to execute 

up to several hundred experiments each day, day in and day out. In 2011, using this 

system, Lilly solved more than 940 structures of proteins and protein-ligand 

complexes, including 29 novel discovery targets. 

At the APS, we obtain data of a quality that cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the 

United States, including our own laboratories. We recognize the great value of this 

quality for the pharmaceutical discovery process. We are not alone in this 

recognition. Virtually every large pharmaceutical and biotechnology company 

operating in the United States uses the APS or one of the other DOE-funded 

synchrotrons. Indeed x-ray light sources are the de facto standard for protein 

crystallography. Of the approximately 8300 x-ray structures of biological 

macromolecules publicly disclosed worldwide in 2011, more than 85% utilized data 

acquired at synchrotron sources (source: bJm:iLQ.Losync.~bkb.QIg). 35% of these 

structures came from the four DOE x-ray synchrotrons, making the United States the 

world-leader in this scientific area. 

The power and capabilities offered by the Advanced Photon Source are even more 

critical for the class known as membrane proteins, which includes the G-protein 

coupled receptors that are the targets for a significant fraction of the 

pharmaceuticals available today. These proteins present significant difficulties in 

crystallization and the crystals obtained are extremely small. Because of their small 

dimensions, crystallographic analysis of these materials is only possible using highintensity light sources such as the APS. 

Lilly has committed its own resources for its research at the APS. SGX 

Pharmaceuticals, a company Lilly acquired in 2008, built the original beamline. We 

have a dedicated staff based at Argonne National Laboratory that maintain and 

operate LRL-CAT. In 2011, we completed an upgrade of the facility. This 

investment increased our sample capacity to 540 crystals at a time and doubled the 

speed at which we can execute X-ray measurements. 

Lilly pays the DOE mandated fees for all its proprietary experiments at the 

Advanced Photon Source. These fees fully reimburse the Department of Energy for 

the cost of generating the X-rays we use. In addition, following DOE regulations, we 

provide, at no cost, up to 25% of the available time at the beamline to nonproprietary users from universities and other organizations. In this way, we 

effectively pay back the Department of Energy for its original investment in building 

the synchrotron. 

5 
77 

Challenges and Opportunities 

The most significant challenge we face in the use of the Advanced Photon Source is 

the uncertainty in federal funding for the APS. While this uncertainty is 

understandable given the current federal budgetary climate, the user facilities need 

a reliable funding stream so that they can continue to operate at the current level. If 

the APS and the other US synchrotron sources were not available or their operating 

schedules substantially reduced because of funding cuts, we would be forced to 

consider moving our X-ray measurements to light sources in other countries. We 

have performed recently, or are scheduled to perform in the near future, 

experiments in Canada, the United Kingdom, France and China. Reliance on facilities 

outside the United States, however, would slow the pace of our research and impact 

how soon new treatments become available to patients. It would also affect 

competitiveness and possibly employment here in the United States. 

An opportunity for improvement can be found in the user agreements for the 

National User Facilities, particularly the intellectual property provisions contained 

therein. The DOE has recently modified these agreements. The current terms do 

offer some enhancement in interactions between facility staff and users. However, 

the new agreements are not appropriate for beamlines operated by organizations 

outside the DOE. We have been working with Argonne to rectify this inadvertent 

oversight. The provisions on intellectual property and ownership of inventions 

continue to have significant ambiguities for proprietary users, even though they 

have paid the proprietary fee. Our agreements with light sources in Canada, 

England, and France exhibit much greater clarity in this area: "if you pay, you own", 

even when facility staff directly participate in the experiment. 

Another possibility for enhancement is in the efficiency of experimental execution. 

In developing LRL-CAT, we have emphasized automation and efficiency of beamline 

operations and data collection. As discussed above, this capability permits us to 

rapidly return data to our scientific colleagues. We recognize that facilities such as 

the Advanced Photon Source require significant fiscal resources for each hour of 

operation. By minimizing the time for each experiment, however, we can reduce 

the cost for the measurement, even within a fixed hourly cost. A benefit of such an 

approach is that the scientists' can focus their efforts on the most value-added 

activities. 

Finally, the APS is currently engaged in the early stages of an upgrade to the facility. 

We ourselves have seen how, with time, operations can be held hostage to 

deprecated and aging equipment. Components purchased more than 10 years ago 

for LRL-CAT are no longer manufactured or are approaching their end of life. 

Indeed, that was one of the motivations for our recent upgrade at the beamline. The 

APS and other user facilities have similar issues, though on a much larger scale. 

Investments in upgrades, and ongoing continuous improvement afterward, will 

ensure the operations of the National User Facilities into the future. 

6 
78 

Conclusion 

The National User Facilities, including the Advanced Photon Source, are a scientific 

resource of which the nation should be justly proud. No other country has an 

equivalent variety of capabilities for investigation and analysis. 

Science usually has long time horizons. 10 to 15 years can pass before an initial 

result yields a useful application. It can be difficult to discern the effectiveness of an 

investment made today. For this reason, scientific research undertaken now may 

not appear important. It is, something we at Lilly know well as we pursue new 

pharmaceuticals. 

When we ask the government to prOVide capabilities that facilitate innovation, we in 

turn take on a responsibility to use these capabilities prudently, both scientifically 

and fiscally. In this way we can continue an environment of public {rust that will 

guarantee our future technological health. 

June 21, 2012 

Argonne,IL 

7 
79 

Appendix to the 

Statement of 

Dr. Stephen R. Wasserman 

Director, Lilly Research Laboratories Collaborative Access Team 

Senior Research Fellow, Translational Science and Technologies 

Eli Lilly and Company 

Before 

The United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

June 21, 2012 

"Rapid-access, high-throughput synchrotron crystallography for drug discovery", 

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, May, 2012, Vol. 33, No.5, pp. 261-267. 

8 
80 

~ 

CeU 

Rapid-access, high-throughput 

synchrotron crystallography for drug 

discovery 

Stephen R. Wasserman" John W. Koss" Sonal T. Sojitra" Laura L Morisco 1 and 

Stephen K. Burley2 

llRL-CAT, Advanced Photon Source. Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Building 438, 

Argonne. IL 60439, USA 

2Ully Biotechnology Center, 10300 Campus Point Drive, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92121, USA 

Synchrotron X~ray sources provide the highest quality 

crystallographic data for structure-guided drug design. 

In general. industrial utilization of such sources has been 

intermittent and occasionally limited. The Lilly Research 

laboratories Collaborative Access Team IlRl-CAT) 

beamline provides a unique alternative to traditional 

synchrotron use by pharmaceutical and biotechnology 

companies. Crystallographic experiments at lRL-CAT 

and the results therefrom are integrated directly into 

the drug discovery process, permitting structural data, 

including screening of fragment libraries, to be routinely 

and rapidly used on a daily basis as part of pharmaceu~ 

tical lead discovery and optimization. Here we describe 

how LRL-CAT acquires and disseminates the results 

from protein crystallography to maximize their impact 

on the development of new potentia' medicines. 

The challenge 

Pharmaceutical and biolechnology companies are currcntly facing enormous pressure to -improve research and 

development productivity. This pressure reflects rapidly 

declining revenues due to loss of patent exclusivity and 

other pricing constraints, and historic lows in the number 

of annual approvals of new chemical and biological entities 

[1J. Recent estimates suggest that ",30% of the attrition in 

drug discovery and development can be attributed to toxiclty detected during preclinical animal testing or safety 

concerns that arise in subsequent human trials [21_ Most 

failures are thought to result from binding of drug candi~ 

dates to one or more undesirable off~targets_ A further 

",30% of the attrition of new clinical candidates results 

from efficacy failures, when engagement of the target 

protein is inadequate or fails to produce the desired clinical 

outcome [2J. 

Efforts have been under way for more than a decade to 

make structural biology central to the drug discovery 

process [3-6]. The goal has been to use structures of 

proteins (drug targets and olf-targets) and protein-ligand 

complexes to directly and rapidly influence the discovery 

and optimization of lead compounds and the selection of 

drug candidates. As the premier method for visualizing the 

Correspondlflg author: W.aHemlan, S.R. (sw\l.s:,ermul\@!llly,com). 

intcraction between compound and protein, crystal1ogra~ 

phy can help to minimize off-target effects by guiding 

medicinal chemistry efforts towards spedfic and selective 

interaction with the t.arget. Such an approach to innovation seeks to combine what is now technically feasible in 

.structural biology with what we must accomplish if the 

industry is to continue to prosper. The challenge, however, 

is twofold. Traditional crystallography pipelines in pharmaceutical and large biotechnology companies rarely do 

justice to the speed at which structures of protein-ligand 

complexes can now be determined. Because of current 

economic realitieg within the industry, this situation is 

unlikely to change. In addition, routine daily access to 

synchrotron X-ray sources, the most efficient route to high 

qualit.y data, is uncommon. 

The infrastructure 

The past decade has seen dramatic advances in the infrastructure available for structural guidance of drug discovery, Rapid crystal10graphic data col1ection from sman 

samples ( ...... ·10-100 f.1m for the longest dimension) is now 

routinely available at an ever-grovving number of thirdgeneration synchrotron sources (BioSync: A structural biol~ 

06rist's b~ide to high energy data colledion facilities; http:// 

hiosync.sbkb.orgl). These sources exploit insertion devices to 

provide very sman, intense and highly directional X~ray 

beams [7,8). Unlike in-house laboratory sources, which 

are limited to X-ray wavelengths correspomllng to the ~ 

emission lines of various metals, synchrotron facilities offer 

access to a continuous range of X-ray energies. \Vith this 

flexibility and the relative ease with which we can now 

prepare samples that substitute Se-methiorune for methionine, determination ora new protein structure via measurement of X-ray phases can often be accomplished with just 

one crystal [9.101. In 2011, publicly disclosed experimental 

structures of biological macromolecules exceeded 9200 

worldwide (Protein Data Bank, http://www.pdb.org). Approximately 93% oft.he structures came from X-ray experiments, the overwhelming majority of which ( ....... 90%) were 

performed at synchrotron sources (http://biosync.sbkb,org/), 

Although deposition of structures to the PDB by industry 

represents a small fraction of all public disclosures «10%), 

most industrial structures are not published. Extrapolating 

0165"6147/$ - see fronl matler © 2012 Elsev;er ltd. AI! rights resorvod, do;,1Q,1016ij.tips.2012.03 009 Trends in Pharmacological SCiences, May 2012, Vo!' 33, No.5 261 
81 

from internal efforts, we estimate that industry detennines 

in excess of 10 000 macromolecular structures annually. 

X~ray data co1lection for co-crystal structure determination of protein~Hgand complexes has become incredibly 

efficient. For most complexes, minimal upstream sample 

preparation time is required to produce modest-sized crystals (. .. ,,50 f.1m for the longest dimension). At third-generation synchrotron sources, the time for acquisition of 

diffraction data is typically no more than 15 min from start 

to finish. With state-of-the-art detectors, the process is 

complet.e within 5 min. The quality and speed advantages 

of synchrotron sources for this mainstay experiment have 

long been recognized f11l. 

Towards fully-integrated structure-guided drug 

discovery 

At Lilly Research Laboratories (LRLl, we are focused on 

using structure to improve the prospects of discovering 

molecules that engage the target with minimal binding t.o 

other, off-target proteins. Making this happen has entailed 

improving the odds of success for challenging de novo 

structure determinations and increasing the speed with 

which we can characterize target-ligand interactions in 

three dimensions. Using our proprietary LRL-Collaborative Access Team X-ray beamline (LRL-CATl, located at 

the Advanced Photon Source of Argonne National Laboratory, we have integrated structure detennination into the 

Lilly lead discovery and optimization pipeline by providing 

co-crystal structure data on the same time scale as routine 

biochemical assays or biophysical measurements (such as 

surface plasmon resonance [12]) of compound binding. Our 

approach seeks to maximize the impact of structural information on the discovery of new drug candidates. Following 

this model, LRL determined more than 900 structures 

of proteins and protein-ligand complexes during 2011, 

including 29 novel discovery targets, two of which were 

integral membrane proteins. 

The what 

Accomplishing this end involved: 

L Minimizing upstream efforts in sample preparation by 

enabling data collection from the smallest possible 

crystals that. exhibit acceptable diffracting power; 

2. Providing near-immediate access to the synchrotron; 

3. Sharing information regarding sample provenance 

between the laboratory creating the sampJe and the 

beamline; 

4. Streamlining crystal handling and mounting at the 

beamline; 

5. Minimizing the need for redundant data collection from 

replicate samples; 

6. Maximizing the accuracy and diffraction resolution 

limits of data collected from a given sample; and 

7. Automating data reduction and interpretation to 

deliver protein-ligand co-crystal structure information 

with minimal, if any, human intervention immediately 

following data collection. 

The how 

Traditional modes of synchrotron utilization are not 

compatible with a requirement that structural data be 

262 

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences May 2012, Vo1. 33, NO.5 

target 

available within days of compound synthesis or biochemi~ 

cal assay. Even so-called rapid access mechanisms at 

synchrotron sources take far too long for the lead discovery 

and optimization process, which ideally has a cycle time 

(compound design, chemical synthesis, characterization 

and molecular redesign) of no more than a few weeks. 

Figure 1 shows the structural biology process for drug 

discovery and the location of the compound design cycle 

within the overall paradigm. 

Lilly has addressed this medicinal chemistry imperative 

by creating a just-in-time system for synchrotron protein 

crystallography. The LRL-CAT beamline operates without 

a pre-determined user schedule. Crystals are examined as 

they come through the door by an experienced fun-time 

staff who operate and maintain the beamline and perform 

all crystallographic experiments. 

In 2011, LRL-CAT evaluated 12 270 crystalline samples 

for diffraction quality and collected 4282 X-ray datasets. 

On average, a crystal completes its beamline odyssey in 

less than 2 days following its creation at a Lilly research 

site in San Diego or Indianapolis. \Vith the aid of robust 

information and crystal tracking systems, LRL-CAT routinely manages several hundred samples at any given 

time. The Lilly Structural Biology Laboratory Infonnation 

Management System (LIMS) stores all infonnation pcr~ 

taining to each protein cry-stal, from the original DNA 

construct design through protein expression) purification 

and crystallization to the completed structure. The LIMS 

system uses Orac1e® for the database component) ensuring 

scalability to meet future needs. Each sample sent to the 

beamHne is identified through a barcode system that 

includes failsafe redundancy. The barcode provides the 

link between the physical sample and the LIMS database 

information. 

In addition to the LfMS data management system, the 

deslgn ofthe hardware for the facility minlmizes the need for 
82 

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences May 2012, Vol. 33, NO.5 

Figure 2. The crystallography end station at LRL-CAT. showing the crystal position. CATS rohot for crystal mounting <Jnd CeD detectoL 

human intervention. LRL~CAT was constructed with com~ 

mercial and custom robotic hardware and software optiM 

rnized to fully automate X-ray crystallo!;'Taphy (Figure 2). 

Sample queuing, mounting, centering, crystal quality evaluation, data collection, data reduction and transmission to 

remote Lilly research facilities arc all managed by a single 

control system. With a high~capacity crystal-handling robot, 

the system can operate unattended for days at a time. 

Sample queuing utilizes LIMS data to prioritize sam~ 

pIes for evaluation of crystal quality and data collection. 

LiHy structural biologists assign a priority to each crystal 

based on the current status or the drug discovery portfolio 

and whether the sample is a cOMcrystal or an attempt at a 

new protein structure. This priority and the age of the 

sample are combined with a requirement to minimize 

the time expended on robotic manipulations to create 

the experimental queue for crystallographic analysis. 

The latter requirement recognizes that sequential analysis 

I,)f crystals that are located near each other in the robot is 

more efficient. Manual overrides are available for handling 

special cases when necessary. 

Sample mounting is performed by the Cryogenic Auto~ 

mated Transfer System (CATS) robot [lSI, a commercial 

system ",,'lth a customized capacity of 540 crystal samples. 

The robot contains two storage dewars, each of which can 

store 27 EMBIlESRl'-type baskets [14]. Unlike the original CATS robot, which used a static configuration, the 

plate holding the baskets rotates into position for access 

by the multi-axis robot that transfers the sample onto the 

goniostat. The robot has a very low faUure rate «0.1%). 

Most failures are due not to the robot, but to defects in the 

materials used to mount the crystals, particularly the base 

on which the crystal is mounted and the plastic cryovial in 

which it is stored. In virtually all cases, problematic sam~ 

pIes can be rescued through operator intervention. Operational errors Vvith the robot are minimized by requiring the 

use of just one type of base and cryovial, both from a single 

manufacturer. The robot includes an autofill system for 

liquid nitrogen. Software prevents the robot from running 

in the event of a faHure of the liquid nitrogen supply. The 

storage dewars maintain the samples at cryogenic tem~ 

peratures for more than 12 h after Joss of liquid nitrogen. 

Automatic text messages to the staff ensure that the 

cryogenics will be restored before loss of samples can occur. 

Once a crystal has been placed on the sample stage, a 

vision recognition system identifies the center ofthe nylon 

Joop containing the crystal (Figure 3) and places the center 

of this minute sample stage within the incident X~ray 

beam. In its current incarnation, the centering process 

requires 24 s using a single camera. Despite variations 

in loop size and orientation, the system is highly robust. It 

correctly places more than 97% of the samples in the X-ray 

beam without manual intervention. The success of the 

vision system software relies in part on a strong commitment from the upstream crystallization laboratories to use 

loops of a size commensurate with that of the crystal. 

For each diffraction experiment, whether for crystal 

quality evaluation or data collection, 14 parameters are 

needed. These parameters include a crystal identification 

nwnber, location orthe sample within the CATS robot (four 

parameters), X-ray energy, setting of the undulator inser~ 

tion device for beam attenuation, specimen~to-detector 

distance, initial phi angle for the crystal goniostat, number 

of oscillation images, oscillation range for each frame, 

263 
83 

spacing in phi for successive images (45 minus the osci1la~ 

tion range for screens, 0 for data sets), next frame to be 

collected and exposure time. The total number of param~ 

etcrs required to control automatic collection throughout 

the course of a typical day at LRL-CAT is in the thousands. 

Manual entry of such a volume of data by beamline operators is simply not feasible. Within the LRL-CAT paradigm, 

the required information is either stored in the LII"fS 

database or can be calculated from entries resident there~ 

in. Thus, the mechanics of data collection for several 

hundred samples at a time can be defined in a matter of 

seconds by the LRL-CAT stalT. 

The imperative of rapid delivery of protein-ligand structures to our chemistry desiW': teams (consisting of crystallographers, medicinal and synthetic organic chemists and 

computational experts) dictates that diffraction experiments focus only on samples likely to yield useful informa~ 

tion. After an initial series of diffraction images has been 

acquired from a crystal, another software system, based on 

interpretation of output from standard software (d*trek [151 

and mosflm [16]). provides a quaJity score and estimated 

diffraction resolution limit for each crystalline sample. From 

October 2005, when the scoring system was first deployed, to 

the end of 2011, more than 65 000 crystals have been 

evaluated at LRL-CAT. Scoring results from each of these 

crystals arc permanently resident in the beamline database. 

Within the LIMS database, replicate samples are linked 

as a group. Such linkage permits selection of the crystal 

witbin the group tbat has the highest quality score for 

subsequent data collection. Only crystals that meet the 

required minimum quality, reach the requested diffraction 

reso1ution and represent the best crystals within a group of 

duplicate samples, progress to data collection. During 

measurements, care is taken to optimize data quality 

264 

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences May 2012, Vol. 33, No.5 

through consideration of a crystal's diffraction limit when 

selecting the specimen-to-detector distance. The X~ray 

dose is matched to the diffracting power of the crystal to 

controJ the number of overloaded reflections. In addition, 

previous experience on susceptibility to radiation damage 

is used to adjust the incoming X-ray beam, particularly for 

anomalous experiments. Empirical data, derived from ex~ 

amination of thousands of crystals, have been used to create 

algorithms that automatically calculate the exposure time 

used for each image and the intensity of the X-ray beam, 

This approach, which contrasts with ab initio calculations 

on acceptable X-ray doses f17], has proven effective. 

Once a diffraction measurement is complete, an automatic data reduction system transforms the recorded oscillation 

images int.o experimental structure factor amplitudes. Experience has demonstrated that none of the four commonly 

used programs (xds [18J, mosfbn 116], d*trek 115J and 

IIKL2000 f19J) successfully indexes and integrates every 

dataset. LRL-CAT uses the first three of these programs in 

combination. Follo\"ving integration, the data reduction 

pipeline sorts, scales and truncates the data. For wel1~ 

defined discovery projects, known crystal symmetr:v and 

unit cen dimensions are furnished automatically from LIMS 

to the data reduction system. The scaling results are evalu~ 

ated by internally developed quality control software, which 

examines R factors, data multiplicity, completeness and 

intensity. The resolution of the scaled data is compared to 

that possible given the X~ray wavelength and 8amplc~to~ 

detector distance to ensure that all relevant data have been 

collected. Overall, more than 80% of the data sets collected 

at LRL-CAT reach the desired resolution limit and meet 

other standards of quality. Samples that do not pass quality 

control after automatic processing are flagged for individual 

evaluation by LRL-CAT staff. 
84 

The final pbase of the crystallographic process at the 

beamline involves transmission of the experimental struc~ 

ture factors to Lilly scientists in Indianapolis and San 

Diego. The median time for transmission is <14 min fol~ 

lowing completion of data collection. For most samples, 

further automatic processing at these remote locations is 

then used to convert the structure factors into an experimental electron density map, followed by a refined three~ 

dimensional structure. In the case of protein-ligand eocrystals, the database stores the location of the appropriate 

model for molecular replacement to be used for each protein target during so1ution ofthe structure, For most LRLCAT co-crystal structures, human intervention first occurs 

on visual inspection of how the ligand engages the target. 

The Lilly system for synchrotron-based crystallography 

requires the abil:ity to routinely and rapidly execute diffraction experiment.s, combined with robust information 

management. Tracking of the pipeline at LRL-CAT 

involves sifting through large amounts of data, including 

55 individual pieces of information per sample. For a full 

complement of 540 samples in the CATS robot, the total 

number of database cells queried is ",30000. Despite thA 

volume of data, LRL-CAT personnel a.re able to determine 

the current status of experiments using a single web pugc. 

Furthermore, LRL-CAT is ahle to rapidly disseminate 

results to scientists at the originating laboratories. The 

Lilly structural biologists in San Diego and Indianapolis 

are able to see the images from the initial crystal evaluation within 1 min of completion of the experiment at the 

Advanced Photon Source, 

LRL-CAT supports prodigious throughput. In comparison, Astex determined 54 structures in 80 h using in-house 

laboratory X·ray sources, robotic hardware and an automatic data reduction system [20].The same set of experiments can ('urrently be done in 9 h at LRL-CAT and on a 

similar time scale at other synchrotron facilities. The 

synchrotron offers the added advantage of superior data 

quality, particularly for small crystals whose diffraction 

may not even be observed with a home source. Astex also 

examined approximately 160 crystals and acquired 50 

datasets in 20 h at the European Synchrotron Radiation 

Facility f211. The advantage at LRL·CAT is access to 

equivalent productivity throughout the year rather than 

on an occasional basis (Box 1). 

On average, one-third of the crystals examined at LRLCAT proceed to full data collection. The diffraction data for 

automatic quality evaluation are acquired in <2,2 min, 

including sample placement. Full datasets require 

'" 10 min. For both types of experiment, data reduction is 

performed in the background while the next sample is being 

analyzed. Today, given the 3:1 ratio between total crystals 

and datasets collected, LRL-CAT can process (evaluate and, 

when appropriate, collect) more than 200 crystals in 24 h. 

Such bandwidth allows Lilly to use crystallography to 

screen small chemical fragments for binding to target proteins 122]. The core Lilly fragment library, consisting of 

",2000 compounds, can be crystallographlcally screened 

against a target protein in a matter of days. 

The functionality ofLRL-CAT has been made available to 

scientists external to Lilly (http://lrlcat.lilly.com) 123-26J. 

Samples from academic general users of the Advanced 

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences May 2012, VoL 33, NO.5 

Box 1. BACE 

The automated sample handling, collection and data reduction 

process at lRl-CAT is optimized for protein-ligand co"crystals. The 

following example is drawn from our experience with the human 

(1-secretase enzyme (BACE), a potential target for treatment of 

Alzheimer's disease [401. In total, we have determined more than 

400 co-crystal structures of lilly compounds bound to BACE. Thus 

far, two drug candidales have been advanced 10 clinical trials 

(www.cHnicaltrials.gov). The speed with which we can determine 

co-crysta:! structures using lRl-CAT is exemplified by the following 

typical timelinc. 

R03 a.m: Crystal placement on goniostat begins (lRl-CAT). 

8:05 a.m.: Data set collection begins. 

8:14 a.m.: Data reduction begins. 

8:39 a.m.: Transmission of reduced data to lilly San ~iego. 

B:47 a.m.: Molecular replacement begins (San Diego). 

9:03 a.m.: Initial molecular replacement complete. 

After the initial structure solution has been found. a 

liminary electron density map of the active site 

protein IS generated {Figure 4a). 

9:50 8.m: Automatic ligand refinement complete. 

Further work may be required for structure deposition to the Protein 

Data Bank {Figure 4b). 

Photon Source and industrial partners are tracked and 

analyzed using the same systems employed for internal 

crystals, Data reduction to experimental structure factors 

is performed after collection for both acceleration of subsequent structure determination and quality control. Direct 

delivery of the data, including diffraction images, to the 

external laboratory is accomplished through secure file 

transfer (sftp). The traditional requirement that samples 

be available for a prescheduled rWl at the synchrotron 

facility is eliminated, thereby providing our e}.'ternal users 

with data on a just-in-time basis. 

What's next? 

Minibeams for integral membrane proteins 

Structure~based drug discovery for integral membrane 

protejns, including G protein~coupled receptors, is fast 

becoming a reality [271, Crystals of these (~hallenging 

targets tend to be quite smaH «10 p..m for the longest 

dimension), generally smaller than those produced with 

soluble proteins. Data quality for these systems can be 

improved by matching the size of the incident X~ray beam 

to that of the sample. Decreased beam sizes reduce the 

background coming from X-rays scattered by parts of the 

sample mount that do not contain the crystal, thereby 

improving the sjgnal~to+noisc ratio, Smaller beams may 

also .reduce the effect of radiation damage on the data 

acquired (281. Several X-ray beamlines have pioneered 

use of mini beams defined by pinhole collimators (diameter 

~1-20 f'-m) [29,30J. The state of the art is being further 

refined with the advent of true microfocused beams [31]. 

These next~generation microbeams concentrate all the 

available X~rays coming from the synchrotron into a 

"" I-tLm beam, providing advantages similar to mini-beams 

for even smaner crystals [32], 

Integral membrane proteins are often prepared in lipidic cubic phase (LCP) [331, which is optically opaque. Because the crystals cannot be visualized directly, alignment 

265 
85 

of the crystals with small X-ray beams (:;10 I'm) currently 

involves rastering across the sample mount to identify the 

precise location of the crystal [341. Alternative detection 

methods such as second-harmonic generation from optically active crystals have been tested at synchrotron facilities, 

but are not yet routinely available [35], LRL-CAT recently 

added a minibeam collimation system to its experimental 

arsenal. We are currently modifYing the vision recognition 

software to provide guidance for the rastering system. The 

goal is fully automated positioning of crystals and mounts 

of all shapes and sizes. 

Pixel array detectors (PADs) 

PADs have recently been developed for protein crystallography [36,37]. These insb'uments offer two distinct advantages over the previous generation of detectors based on 

charge-coupled devices (CeD). First, the time required for 

detector readout is less than 5 msec compared with -v 1 s 

readout and a total dead time of'" 1.8 s for CCDs. Because 

typical X-ray exposures are of the order of 1 s, PADs can 

support continuous data coHection without the need to 

open and close the X-ray beam shutter as the crystal begins 

and completes its rotation on the sample stage I38}. Data 

collection with a PAD can therefore be completed \\r;thin 1-~ 

3 min instead of the 6-9 min required for CCDs. Second, 

PADs directly detect incident X~rays as opposed to mea~ 

suring visible light generated from the X-rays by a phosphorescent film on the face of the CeD. PADs are more 

sensitive and when the rapid readout is used to fine-slice 

the measured diffraction, provide data with a superior 

signal-to-noise ratio. At LRL-CAT, installation of a PAD 

system would permit complete analysis of more than 345 

crystals in 24 h, 

266 

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences May 2012, Vol. 33, No.5 

PADs and other high~speed detectors will change how 

crystallography beamlines operate. Instead of initial 

evaluation of sample quality followed by prioritized data 

collection, PADs will be used to 'shoot first and ask 

questions later' (Oral history: Michael Rossman; http:// 

virologyhistory.wustl.edulrossmann,htm) f39]. Evaluation of crystal quality increasingly will be performed 

after data collection, The information management burden wm increase commensurately, furthering reliance on 

sophisticated LIMS system.s. 

Future X-ray beamfine access limitations 

During the early to mid 1990s, synchrotron access for protein crystallography was the exception, not the rule as it is 

today. Worldwide, there are currently more than 130 synchrotron endstatjons for macromolecular crystallography 

(http://biosync.sbkb.ol'g). These facilities offer more than 

sufiicient capacity to meet the needs of both academia 

and industry. However, most such beamlincs are funded 

and often owned and operated hy governmental agencies 

that are now facing or soon ¥rill face significant financial 

pressures. Within the next 5 years, there is a very real 

possibility that time for macromolecular crystallography 

at sy-nchrotron beamlines will again become a limited resource, How should our community respond? We can and 

should become better advocates for our science to governments and taxpayers, emphasizing the potential impact on 

human health and disease. 'We should also strive to improve 

the efficjency with which we use synchrotron X~rays. In 

principle, worldwide coordination among synchrotron faci1~ 

ities could result in on-demand access to beamlines. This 

goal remains elusive, even within a single country or geographical area. In the meantime, the LRIrCNr operational 
86 

model represents the most efficient way to access the advan~ 

tages offered by synchrotron crystallography, 

Concluding remarks 

The benefits that accrue from intensive use ofhigh-resolution structures of protein-ligand complexes in the drug 

discovery proces.s are clear. At Lilly, structural biology is 

now used for approximately half of the discovery portfolio. 

We expect that the impact of synchrotron crystallography 

will become even more significant as discovery targets 

become more challenging and the innovation imperative 

becomes more pressing. 

References 

1 

11 

12 

14 

15 

16 

Trends in Pharmacological Sciences May 2012, Vol. 33, No.5 

20 

21 

22 

23 

25 

'27 

28 

29 

30 

35 

36 l1menn,mann, 

37 

38 

A 604, 123-126 

39 Ro;;sman, M.G. and Erickson, J.W. (1983) 

267 
87 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Ms. Tichenor for five minutes to present her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MS. SUZY TICHENOR, 

DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM, 

COMPUTING AND COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCES, 

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Ms. TICHENOR. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Suzy Tichenor and I am Director of the High-Performance Computing Partnership Program at 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. It is an 

honor to provide this testimony on the role of the Oak Ridge leadership computing user facility and our HPC partnership program 

in strengthening the U.S. scientific enterprise. 

As a DOE lab, Oak Ridge actually manages nine national scientific user facilities including the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, which I will refer to as OLCF from here on. These 

distinctive experimental and computational facilities enable research essential to accomplishing DOE missions. In addition, the 

DOE user facilities are open to all interested and potential users 

and are allocated on the basis of rigorous merit review of the proposed work. The OLCF is home to one of DOE’s most powerful 

supercomputers for open science research, a Cray XK6 called Jaguar. It is also home to a rare team of some of the most experienced 

computational scientists in the world. As we like to say, it is the 

people, and we are very blessed to have some of the very best. This 

combination of leadership computing systems and world-class expertise gives researchers and opportunity to tackle challenges that 

are well beyond the capabilities of their internal resources. 

In 2009, we established an industrial HPC partnership program 

to make the OLCF more accessible to industry, and we consider the 

program to be a triple win. Oak Ridge and DOE benefit from the 

opportunity to engage with some of the best thinking in corporate 

America as companies pursue scientific challenges in their quest to 

develop innovative products and services, and often these science 

challenges are very complementary to research that is underway at 

the lab. U.S. industry benefits through the reduction in time to insight and time to solution that it gains from access to the OLCF 

resources, and as industry, Oak Ridge and DOE advance in their 

science understanding, they are strengthening the Nation’s innovation infrastructure and creating competitive advantage for the 

country through new discoveries enabled by these partnerships. 

After only three years, we are seeing very encouraging evidence 

that our industry program is helping to expand and accelerate U.S. 

industrial use of large-scale modeling and simulation for competitive gain with real results. 

GE Global Research and United Technologies Research are each 

using Jaguar to tackle different problems relating to more energyefficient jet engines. A one percent reduction in the specific fuel 

consumption can save billions of dollars over the life of a fleet of 

airplanes, so UTRC, for example, is using Jaguar to better under-
88 

stand the air-fuel interaction in combustors, a critical component of 

aircraft engines, and access to Jaguar enabled UTRC to run simulations that were 64 times larger than what they could do inhouse. GE used Jaguar to study for the very first time the unsteady air flows in the blade rows of turbo machines such as the 

very large-diameter fans that are used in modern jet engines. Unsteady simulations are orders of magnitude more complex than 

simulations of steady flows, and GE simply was not able to do 

these on their in-house systems. 

But GE realized another benefit from access to our user facility. 

The insights that they gained from their project at OLCF provided 

the substantial return on investment justification they needed for 

significant upgrade to their own HPC capabilities in-house, and 

they made those upgrades after the project was completed. 

Small companies, the backbone of the economy, also benefit from 

the user facility. Ramgen Power Systems, a small, Seattle-based 

energy R&D firm, is using our HPC tools and expertise to accelerate the development of a novel compression system for carbon sequestration, and in the process, they have really become the poster 

child for dramatic advances that a company can make in its own 

modeling and simulation abilities. When they began their project, 

they were only able to really use successfully several hundred processors and now they are successfully running ensembles of simulations using over 120,000 processors. This has reduced what used to 

be months of work and research to a mere eight hours. These are 

the game-changing advances that companies can achieve and the 

return on investment that the country receives from this particular 

user facility. 

The industrial HPC partnership program is also providing a 

gateway for companies to tap into other resources and facilities at 

the lab that they may not have been aware of if they had not been 

working with us. For example, one firm that used Jaguar is now 

expanding its work to include more detailed modeling and simulation of materials with researchers at our center for Nanophase Materials Science user facility and are coupling that with experimental analysis that tapes into the neutron-scattering research capabilities at our Spallation Neutron Source user facility. So this is 

really very exciting to see a firm integrate the capabilities of multiple user facilities at the lab to tackle much more complex scientific problems. 

In summary, by enabling companies to realize the benefits of 

high-performance computing through access to the OLCF, Oak 

Ridge is helping companies make progress on important scientific 

challenges with strategic business implications and, in so doing, is 

strengthening the Nation’s innovation infrastructure for national 

security and economic strength. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tichenor follows:] 
89 

Statement of Suzy Tichenor 

Director, Industrial HPC Partnerships Program 

Computing and Computational Sciences Directorate 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

June 21, 2012 

Hearing on Department of Energy User Facilities: 

Utilizing the Tools of Science to Drive Innovation 

through Fundamental Research 

Mr. Chainnan, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the Committee: Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Suzy Tichenor, and I am Director of the 

Industrial Partnerships Program in the Computing and Computational Sciences Directorate of 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. It is an honor to provide tbis 

testimony on the role of the Industrial Partnerships Program in the U.S. scientific enterprise. 

Introduction 

As a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratory, OR.1\!L manages nine national scientific user 

facilities, including the world's most powerful accelerator-based source of neutrons for research, 

the Spallation Neutron Source; one of the world's most powerful research reactors, the High 

Flux Isotope Reactor; one of five DOE nanoscale science research facilities, the Center for 

Nanophase Materials Sciences; and one of DOE's two leadership supercomputing centers, the 

Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF). These distinctive experimental and 

computational facilities enable research essential to accomplishing DOE missions. In addition, as 

DOE user facilities, they are made available for external use to advance scientific and technical 

knowledge under certain conditions. Specifically, these federally sponsored facilities are open to 

all interested potential users, but facility resources are allocated on the basis of rigorous merit 

review of the proposed work. There is no fee for nonproprietary work, but if the results are 

strictly proprietary, full cost recovery is required. Finally, the facility capability does not 

compete with an available private sector capability. 

By making its facilities available to external users, including U. S. industry, DOE increases the 

return on the nation's investment in these unique and expensive scientific tools and the experts 

who know how to apply them to address cutting-edge scientific problems. Because few 

companies or universities have the resources needed to develop and manage facilities on this 

scale or to maintain the large, scientifically diverse research staff needed to support them, the 

design, construction, and operation of user facilities has become a signature of ORNL and other 

DOE national laboratories. 
90 

In fiscal year (FY) 2011 alone, the national user facilities of DOE's Office of Science served 

more than 26,500 users from government, academia, and industry, representing all 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. A benchmarking study conducted by the National User Facility 

Organization found that 47 Fortune 500 companies took advantage of DOE user facilities in 

2011 to conduct research supporting the creation of new products including pharmaceuticals, 

advanced materials for semiconductors and vehicular batteries, telecommunications satellites, 

and consumer goods. 

Role of the Industrial Partnerships Program in the U.s. Scientific Enterprise 

The OLCF is home to one of the Department of Energy's most powerful supercomputers for 

open scientific research, a Cray XK6 called Jaguar that can deliver 3.3 petaflops. That's 3.3 

thousand trillion calculations per second. Work is now in progress to upgrade this system to 

20 petaflops, and by the end of the year we hope to be the world's most powerful supercomputer. 

This upgrade has been carefully planned to allow the OLCF to continue meeting the needs of 

users for leadership science. Jaguar is currently supporting dozens of projects in astrophysics, 

biology, chemistry, engineering, geosciences, materials science, and nuclear fusion. 

The OLCF delivers high-end science not only by fielding HPC systems tailored to provide the 

best possible performance on scientific applications, but also by building and maintaining teams 

of applied mathematicians, computer scientists, and experts in the underlying physics to produce 

the codes that run effectively on these new machines and also drive development of future 

architectures and algorithms. The combination of leadership systems, forefront computational 

tools, and world-class expertise available through the OLCF gives researchers an opportunity to 

tackle challenges that are beyond the capabilities of their in-house systems or other systems 

elsewhere in the world. 

In 2009, ORNL established the Industrial HPC Partnerships Program to enable industry to access 

the high-performance computing (HPC) tools and expertise at the OLCF. The goal of the 

program is to enable innovation by helping companies of all sizes, from startups to members of 

the Fortune 500, to solve strategic, competitively important computational problems that cannot 

be addressed on their internal HPC systems. After only three years, we see encouraging evidence 

that the program is helping to expand and accelerate U.S. industrial use of lIPC for national 

competitive gain, with tangible benefits to ORNL and DOE, U.S. industry, and the nation. 

ORNL and DOE benefit from the opportunity to engage with some of the best thinking in 

corporate America as companies pursue complex scientific challenges in their quest to develop 

innovative products and services. Working directly with these companies also provides ORNL 

and DOE with valuable insights into industry needs, not only for specific innovations but also for 

HPC resources. U.S. industry benefits through the reduction in time-to-insight and time-tosolution that it gains through access to the leadership-class HPC systems, open software, and 

computational and scientific expertise available only through OLCF. And as industry, ORNL, 

and DOE advance in their scientific understanding, they are strengthening the nation's 

innovation infrastructure and creating competitive advantage for the country through new 

discoveries enabled by these partnerships. 

2 
91 

Driving New and Improved, Energy-Efficient Industrial Applications 

The cost and availability of energy, coupled with heightened environmental concems, are 

causing companies to reexamine the design of products from large jet engines and industrial 

turbines to automotive engines to everyday household products like shampoos and detergents 

that rely on petroleum-based ingredients and require large quantities of water to manufacture. 

Their customers and the country arc demanding products that have lower energy requirements 

and reduced environmental impact. Many of the scientific challenges that companies must 

address to meet these demands complement and intersect important research that Oak Ridge is 

pursuing to meet DOE mission requirements. 

The aerospace industry is striving to develop quieter, more energy efficient jet engines. The 

automotive industry is working to deliver vehicles with improved fuel economy and lower 

emissions by developing new engine designs, new catalysts, and lower-cost batteries for hybrid 

and all-electric vehicles. The nuclear power industry is facing demands to operate today's 

nuclear power plants beyond their original design lifetimes while developing and deploying new 

advanced nuclear energy systems, driving demand for computational tools to enhance safety and 

reduce the need for experimental testing of new materials and fuels. The complexity of these 

design and analysis problems, coupled with the need for nearer tenn results, often requires access 

to computing capabilities that are far more advanced than those available in corporate computing 

centers. The OLCF is helping to address this gap by providing access to leadership systems and 

experts not available within the private sector. 

For example: 

GE Global Research and United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) are each using Jaguar to 

tackle different problems related to jet engine efficiency. The impact of even a small change is 

enormous. A I % reduction in specific fuel consumption can save $20B over the life of a fleet of 

airplanes (20,000 engines x 20-year life). 

UTRC is using Jaguar to better understand the air-fuel interaction in combustors, a critical 

component of aircraft engines. Spray formation and evaporation ofliquid fuel playa key role in 

the performance, stability, and emissions of aeroengine combustors. Experimental limitations in 

characterizing this process make simulation an important analysis altemative. Access to Jaguar 

enabled UTRC researchers to run simulations that were 64 times largcr than those they could run 

on their in-house systems. Accurate computational prediction of spray distribution is critical for 

the design of next-generation fuel injectors and more efficient combustors to reduce the 

emissions, lower the noise, and enhance the fuel efficiency of aircraft engines. 

Access to OLCF and the Jaguar supercomputer allowed GE to study, for the first time, unsteady 

flows in the hlade rows of turbomachines, such as the large-diameter fans used in modern jet 

engines. Unsteady simulations are orders of magnitude more complex than simulations of steady 

flows, and GE was not able to attempt this on its in-house systems. GE engineers also ran their 

largest-ever computational fluid dynamics simulation on Jaguar. 

3 
92 

[n addition to making progress on an important scientific challenge with strategic business 

implications, GE also realized two other very important benefits from access to the OLCF. 

• First, the insights that GE gained from its project at OLCF provided substantial return-oninvestment justification for a significant upgrade in GE's in-house HPC capabilities. 

Second, access to Jaguar enabled GE to dramatically increase the scalability of important 

in-house software, something it could not do without access to a much larger HPC system 

than it had in house. That software now runs on GE's new, larger high-performance 

computer, enabling the company to tackle more difficult problems than it could 

previously. 

But large companies are not the only ones that benefit from access to large-scale computers, 

Small companies, the backbone of the economy, also have complex and competitively important 

problems that they can't resolve on their in-house systems. 

Ramgen Power Systems, a small, Seattle-based energy R&D firm, is using the HPC tools and 

expertise at OLCF to accelerate the development of a novel compression system for carbon 

sequestration. Ramgen has modified the conventional "build and test" development process by 

using large-scale modeling and simulation with Jaguar to optimize the technology performance. 

Anticipated testing of prototypes this summer is being guided by simulations at the OLCF. 

Ramgcn is a "poster child" for the dramatic advances a company can achieve in its modeling and 

simulation abilities when it has access to OLCF. When Ramgen began their project 2 years ago, 

they were only able to use several hundred compute processors. With the expertise and 

computing power of the OLCF, they now are successfully running ensembles of simulations 

using over 120,000 processors. This reduced what used to be months of work to a mere 8 hours. 

These are the game-changing advances that companies can achieve and the retum on investment 

that the country reeeives through this user facility. 

These are just a few examples of the cutting-edge scientific work that companies are pursuing at 

OLCF. Other firms that have used this user facility include Boeing, Ford, General Motors, 

semiconductor manufacturer Global Foundries, Procter & Gamble, and Smart Truck Systems, a 

small South Carolina firm that developed award-winning add-on parts for long-haul 18 wheeler 

trucks to greatly improve their fuel efficiency 

The participation of Westinghouse, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRl), and the 

Tennessee Valley Authority in DOE's first Energy Innovation Hub, the Consortium for 

Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL), also offers an interesting example of 

industry engagement in HPC. CASL is using HPC, including the resources of the OLCF, to 

address key nuclear industry goals, spanning the gamut from basic research through engineering 

development to commercialization. For example, Jaguar is enabling high-fidelity calculations of 

radiation transport in next-generation reactors. The embedding of industry partners assures 

relevance and focus for CASL's development of advanced modeling and simulation methods and 

investigation of new fuel designs. 

4 
93 

Prioritization of ORNL's Computing and Computational Sciences Activities 

The models developed for management of DOE's scientific user facilities have worked well in 

making these facilities available for external use to advance scientific and technical knowledge. 

These facilities typically receive far more proposals for access than can be accommodated, 

testifying to their broad utility for addressing scientific challenges. The peer-review processes 

used to select the proposals ensure that these unique tools are applied to the most compelling 

research problems. 

For the OLCF, peer-review processes focus not only on the potential scientific and technical 

impact of the proposed work, but also on the need for leadership-class computing resources. In 

addition, the multiple allocation models established for the OLCF are making it possible for 

companies to engage at different levels depending on their needs. 

ORNL's activities in computing and computational sciences will continue to be closely aligned 

with DOE priorities for sustaining a vibrant science and engineering enterprise, transforming the 

nation's energy systems, and enhancing national security. In addressing these priorities, ORNL 

will continue to work closely with industry to achieve its missions and to deliver practical 

solutions to problems of national importance. 

Strategic Direction of the Industrial Partnerships Program 

The Industrial HPC Partnerships Program is also providing a gateway for companies to tap into 

other resources at ORNL that they may not have been aware of had they not been working with 

OLCF. This otTers unique opportunities to integrate computational modeling and experimental 

validation in much larger scale problems for much greater accuracy and insight, and to do so in 

an integrated environment. For example, one firm that has made important progress using Jaguar 

at OLCF is expanding its work to include more detailed modeling and simulation analyses with 

researchers at the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, coupled with experimental analyses 

that tap into the neutron scattering research capabilities at the Spallation Neutron Source. 

By enabling companies to realize the benefits ofHPC, the Industrial HPC Partnerships Program 

at ORNL is helping to strengthen the nation's capacity to address "grand challenges" in clean 

energy and national, homeland, and global security. And as DOE develops new mechanisms to 

make it easier for industry to collaborate with the national laboratories, the program will take 

advantage of these mechanisms to sustain and scale its palinerships with industry. 

5 
94 

Tichenor 

Director, Industrial Partnerships Program 

Computing and Computational Sciences Directorate 

Oak National 

Suzy Tichenor is Director of the Industrial Partnerships Program o[the Computing and 

Computational Sciences Directorate at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the largest science and 

energy laboratory of the U.S. Depmiment of Energy (DOE). This program provides companies 

with access to the Laboratory's two leadership-class high-performance computing (HPC) user 

facilities-DOE's Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility and the National Science 

Foundation's National Institute for Computational Sciences-and to the resources and expertise 

of the Directorate. 

Ms. Tichenor has more than 20 years of experience in creating partnerships and programs at all 

levels ofthe government, private sector, and not-for-profit organizations. Prior to joining ORNL, 

she was Vice President of the Council on Competitiveness and directed the Council's High 

Perfonnancc Computing Initiative. There she served as the Principal Investigator for HPCrelated grants from DOE's Office of Science, the National Nuclear Security Administration, 

NSF, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Previously she held 

senior positions at Cray Research, a start-up health care finn, and a national non-profit 

organization. 
95 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you. 

I now recognize our final witness, Dr. Hall, for five minutes to 

present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ERNEST HALL, 

CHIEF SCIENTIST, CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL 

ENGINEERING/MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION, 

GE GLOBAL RESEARCH 

Mr. HALL. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller, Congressman Tonko and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to share 

with you General Electric’s perspective on how the Department of 

Energy programs and processes can be strengthened to better serve 

the needs of industrial partners and the demands of the energy 

marketplace. I commend the Committee for focusing on a topic that 

has far-reaching implications for ensuring the future competitiveness and growth of our Nation’s economy. 

As you have heard, I represent GE Global Research in upstate 

New York, where we have 2,000 research employees working every 

day to develop and deliver critical technologies to our businesses. 

We support a global company with interests that span several industries from energy, aviation and transportation to water, health 

care and finance. 

Today, America’s companies are facing increasing global competition and environments that require us to innovate differently. With 

materials in shorter supply, manufacturing becoming more complex, and pressure rising to get new products to market faster, it 

is clear that a strong commitment to innovation and the ability to 

rapidly commercialize new technology will be a key factor in who 

succeeds. 

Fortunately for the United States, our innovation remains the 

world’s best. We have a wealth of world-class universities, federally 

funded research and development centers, and industrial research 

labs producing great technology. To fulfill the promise of these investments in these institutions, we must update our innovation 

model by increasing collaborations across this network, working 

more in parallel between the domains of design innovation, manufacturing innovation and materials innovation, and making sure 

science and technology objectives are in concert with industrial 

needs. 

Our work with various DOE scientific user facilities serves as a 

good example of these collaborative models. The Basic Energy 

Sciences facility for synchrotron, neutron and electron studies of 

the structure and chemistry of materials provides a compelling illustration. 

Later this summer, GE will open its new $100 million high-tech 

battery business in Schenectady, New York, creating 350 manufacturing jobs at full capacity. 

One of the key technical challenges in developing our battery was 

improved fundamental understanding of the battery chemistry. At 

the National Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven National 

Lab, GE scientists were able to work with scientists from Rutgers 

and Brookhaven to measure the chemical processes on full operating commercial battery cells. This synchrotron provided access to 
96 

the most advanced characterization capabilities that no one institution, university or industry could afford to construct or fully utilize. 

It allowed us to gain a greater understanding of our battery’s materials and systems than we could using our own instrumentation inhouse and shows what can result when you match the world-class 

research capabilities of these facilities and our universities with an 

industry need. 

In my written testimony, I cite other examples including work at 

Argonne National Lab and other BES facilities where we are working on 3D microscopy techniques to improve the materials of aircraft engines and gas turbines and conducting fundamental studies 

on photovoltaic devices. 

As you have heard, another truly great asset America has is our 

network of high-performance computing resources at the national 

labs. As in many other industries, computational modeling and 

simulation plays a critical role in addressing many of the research 

problems we face at GE. The ability to carry out experiments in a 

faster, more robust way, high-performance computing provides an 

invaluable tool in accelerating innovation, leading to new product 

development, particularly in the energy sector. 

You have heard about the work that we have been doing with 

GE’s newest cutting-edge aircraft engine, the GEnx, powering 

Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner and incorporating capabilities that 

were enabled through high-performance computing. We believe, as 

Ms. Tichenor said, that another one to two percent in fuel reduction in fuel consumption can be achieved, which would translate 

into hundreds of millions of dollars in annual fuel savings to the 

aviation industry, increasing the competitive posture of U.S. manufactured aircraft engines and retaining more jobs in our U.S.-based 

aircraft engine factories, achieving those reductions through highperformance computing. 

We have also recently been selected by Lawrence Livermore National Lab to participate in an incubator program, hpc4energy, 

which will focus on next-generation fuel injectors, and we also have 

ongoing programs with Argonne and Oak Ridge national labs in advanced turbo machinery design. 

I hope these brief examples illustrate the great value of DOE’s 

scientific user facilities. 

I would like to conclude, very briefly, with a few recommendations on how DOE programs and facilities could be strengthened 

and made more effective. We encourage continued investment in 

major scientific user facilities and in particular funding to staff and 

optimally operate and utilize these very complex facilities. U.S. industry and scientists would be at a clear disadvantage with respect 

to their global counterparts without access to these cutting-edge capabilities. Most important, policies need to be enacted that expand 

industrial access to these facilities. 

Second, DOE lab and user facility investment need to be 

prioritized to focus on the key challenges associated with energy 

technologies from basic science through applied research leading to 

scale and commercialization. 

Finally, we need new collaborative models that allow different 

stakeholders—government, university and large and small companies—to come together and advance science and technology pro-
97 

grams in new ways. In our written testimony, we point to the 

SEMATECH model, which brought together many parties within 

the semiconductor industry to help reestablish American leadership 

in this area of technology. 

Chairman Harris, I want to thank you again for the opportunity 

for GE to testify. It is an important and timely conversation as we 

look to ways to enhance America’s future economic competitiveness 

and capacity for new growth and jobs. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 
98 

Introduction 

Statement of: 

Ernest L. Hall 

Chief Scientist 

GE Global Research 

House Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment 

Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and members of the Cammittee, I am pleased to share with 

you General Electric's perspective on how Department of Energy's (DOE) programs and processes 

can be strengthened to better serve the needs of industrial partners and demands of the energy 

marketplace. Further, I will address the effect that partnerships with DOE and the use of DOE user 

facilities drive innovation all the way through to the marketplace. I want to commend the Committee 

for focusing on a topic that has for reaching implications for ensuring the future competitiveness and 

growth of our notion's economy. 

I am Ernie Hall, a Chief Scientist in the Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and Materials 

Characterization Domain at GE Global Research, GE's centralized research and development 

organization. We hav'e the proud distinction of being America's first industrial research lab, with a 

legacy of innovation dating back to our founder, Thomas Edison, in the late 1800s. Since that time, 

GE scientists and engineers have been at the center of major innovations that have transformed the 

way people live: lights and appliances in every home; the down of radio and TV broadcasting;jet 

engines that enabled modern commercial and military aircraft; medical imaging systems that 

transformed health care; and power generators, transformers and transmission lines that built the 

modern electrical grid to power it all. 

Today, GE is a global company with business operations in more than 100 countries around the 

world. Our interests span several industries, ranging from energy, aviation and transportation to 

water, heolthcare and finance, and we have more than 300,000 employees working every day to 

develop and commercialize breakthrough produ;;';nd ;~~hn~i~;i~~'th-~tare'Relping to promote a 

cleaner, more sustainable future. 

Ernest L. Hall 

House Committee on Science and Technology 

June 21, 2012 

1 
99 

At our Research headquarters in Upstate New York, GE has 2,000 of the best and brightest 

technalagists representing every scientific and engineering discipline, Our mission today is the same 

as it was when our Lab was founded to drive innovations that create new or better GE products 

that meet the needs of our customers and society. 

Increasing global competition by updating innovation approach -Improving programs and 

processes 

Today, American companies face an increasingly competitive global environment that requires us to 

innovate differently. With materials in shorter supply, manufacturing becoming more complex and 

pressure rising to get new products to market faster, it's clear that a strong commitment to 

innovation and the ability to rapidly commercialize new technology will be a key factor in who 

succeeds. 

Fortunately for the U.s., our innovation network is strong and remains the world's best. 

We have a wealth of world-class universities, Federally Funded Research & Development Centers, 

and industrial research labs producing great technology. To fulfill the pramise af our investments in 

these institutions, we must update our innovation model by increasing the collaboration across this 

network and by working more in parallel between the domains of design innovation, manufacturing 

innovation, and materials innovation. Adopting these changes in the context of industrial needs and 

a concerted effort to increase the breadth and depth of our technical talent pipeline will create 

tangible commercial opportunities that create jobs and graw America's manufacturing base. 

DOE partnerships and user facilities - making a difference 

To a great extent, GE's experience in partnering with DOE and leveraging their userfacilities has 

provided a good roadmap for how federal agencies can help companies drive technological 

innovation and gain a competitive advantage in the global marketplace. I would like to discuss a few 

specific examples where collaborations with DOE have supported GE's manufacturing and job 

growth right here in America. First, DOE Basic Energy Sciences IBES) Scientific User Facilities ISUF) for 

synchrotron lx-ray), neutron, and electron studies of the structure and chemistry of materials. 

Later this summer, GE will open its new $100 million high-tech Battery business in Schenectady, NY. 

With more than 250 hires already on board, the new plant will create 350 manufacturing jobs at full 

Ernest L. Hall 

House Committee on Science and Technology 

June 21. 2012 

2 
100 

capacity. The new sodium battery INaMxl being produced was developed at GE's Global Research 

Center in Niskayuna,just miles from where the new plant is located. 

One of the key technical challenges in developing the battery was improved fundamental 

understanding of the battery chemistry. Sodium technology has been around for several decades. 

But to make the product GE envisioned, we recognized that improvements in the chemistry would be 

essential. This is where the DOE's BES Scientific User Facilities played an important role. 

At the National Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven National Lab, GE scientists were able to 

work with scientists from Rutgers and Brookhaven to ollow for observation of the chemical processes 

that occurred during the charge/dischorge process of full-size commercial cells of GE's new NaMx 

batteries. These experiments provided unprecedented insight into the basic battery chemistry, which 

supported further developments that helped us ready this technology for the marketplace. 

In this example, the use of BES Scientific User Facilities provided access to the most advanced 

capabilities that no one institution luniversity or industryl could afford to construct or utilize fully. 

They provided us with much greater capabilities - for example, higher energy, higher resolution, and 

higher throughput - for understanding materials and systems than instrumentation in our own 

research laboratories. More importantly, it shows what can result when you pair the world-class 

research capabilities of these facilities and our universities with an industry need. It not only has 

resulted in new manufacturing growth and hundreds of new jobs, GE's new sodium battery 

represents a new energy storage solution that will help address some of our most pressing energy 

challenges. 

The battery example also shows how university, DOE staff and industrial scientists can combine their 

research strengths achieving non-linear results that steer new technological innovations to market. 

In this case, university and DOE staff scientists developed the unique tools and techniques for 

advanced materials characterization that industrial scientists were able to use to support their 

product development efforts. 

In addition to GE's work with National Synchrotron Ught Source at Brookhaven National Lab, I can 

cite other examples as well. We are currently working with scientists from Carnegie-Mellon 

University and Argonne National Lab.to develop 3-D x-ray microscopy techniques that will allow us 

Ernest L. Hall 

House Committee on Science and Technology 

June 21, 2012 

3 
101 

to more completely understand how engineering materials behave and will have impact on 

increasing the efficiency and reliability of GE's aircraft engines and turbines. Also, we have started to 

work with the Bay Area Photovoltaic Consortium IBAPvel, funded within the DOE SunShot Initiative, to 

get access to tools for fundamental studies on CdTe photovoltaic devices, aimed at improving 

efficiency and performance of our PV product. The Solar industry right now is extremely competitive, 

and it is clear that the development of new technologies will be essential for any company looking to 

succeed in this space. 

Additionally, we are making strain distribution measurements on Ni-base superalloys and coating 

systems for engine and turbine components to better understand crack initiation and failure 

mechanisms, using the Advanced Photon Source and algorithms and software developed at 

universities and DOE labs. 

DOE High Performance Computing (HPC) resources key to driving Innovation 

Another truly great asset America has is our network of HPC resources at the National Labs. They 

provide an invaluable tool in accelerating new technology and product developments, particularly in 

the energy sector. I would like to discuss a few examples where the use of high performance 

computing has enabled GE to occelerate important product developments in the energy and aviation 

sectors: 

As in many other industries, computational modeling and simulation plays a critical role in 

addressing many of the research problems we face at GE. This is especially true when you are 

developing complex machinery such as a 300+ megawatt gas turbine at the care of an industrial 

power plant or aircraft engines with enough thrust to power the latest commercial and military 

aircraft. 

Historically, GE has used commercial off-the-shelf computing clusters to perform modeling and 

simulation for these types af applications. Typically, the codes we use run an tens or hundreds of 

processors, which can take from a few hours to as long as a few weeks to run. With this type of 

capability we are able to optimize the design of individual components, but do not have enough 

computational horsepower to optimize even subsystem designs of our products. 

Ernest l. Hall 

Hause Committee on Science and Technology 

June 21, 2012 

4 
102 

Access to high-performance computing provides a virtual infrastructure to carry out these 

experiments in a faster, more robust way, moving from optimizing single components to optimizing 

whole systems. This, in turn, can help to greatly accelerate our introduction of new, cleoner energy 

products. 

Recently we have been collaborating with the u.s. Department of Energy's Notional Lobs, leveraging 

their knowledge and resources to tackle some very important problems in the energy field. We have 

ongoing programs with Argonne and Oak Ridge National Labs related to advanced turbomachinery 

design. 

GE's newest. cutting-edge, aircraft engine, the GEnx, which is one of the engines powering Boeing's 

new 787 Dreamliner, incorporates advanced capabilities that were enabled through highperformance computing modeling and simulotion. With continued access to these resources we are 

confident we con do even more to improve its performance. 

The GEnx has a six-stage low-pressure turbine, the design of which demanded modeling and 

simulation exercises of extreme complexity. We believe that we can achieve another 1%-2% 

reduction in fuel consumption by doing an even more detailed analysis of all six stages of the turbine 

simultaneously. This level of analysis hasn't been possible until the advent of the today's latest 

generation of super computers. Al %-2% imp,rovement in engine fuel efficiency tronslates to 

hundreds of millions of dollars in annual fuel savings to the aviation industry, increases the 

competitive posture of us manufactured aircraft engines, and importantly, retains more jobs in our 

US-based aircraft engine factories. 

To supportthis advanced research on the GEnx, we are utilizing Oak Ridge Notional labs Jaguar 

supercomputer to help us better understand airflow dynamic that can in turn, improve the fuel 

efficiency of the design. 

Mare recently, we have been selected by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to 

participate in an incubator program, "hpc4energy," which will use high-performance computing 

(HPC) in an effort to accelerate development of next-generation fuel injectors for GE's engine fleet. 

Global Research will collaborate with Arizona State University (ASU) and Cornell University an this 

project. 

Ernest L. Hall 

House Committee on Science and Technology 

June 21, 2012 

5 
103 

As part of the project, GE will hove six months of dedicated access to a portion of the Sierra 

supercomputer - one of the most powerful in the world - to study the physics behind the working of 

the fuel injector to optimize its design. This could yield new insights that only the power of 

supercomputing can help capture and ultimately, accelerate our research timeline for delivering this 

new technology to the marketplace. Aircraft fuel injectors are being studied in this trial. but 

successful testing of this computer simulation methodology could yield new insights that benefit 

other GE products, including the fuel injectors used in locomotives and land-based gas turbines. The 

methodology could even potentially be applied to study nebulizers for aerosol delivery. 

Recommendations 

Earlier in my testimony, I discussed the need for a new innovation approach that will strengthen 

America's ability to compete in a global economic landscape. I would like to discuss in more detail of 

what we mean and in the process, provide some recommendations for the Committee to consider. 

Essentially, we believe the US innovation model has to evolve in three significant ways. 

1. Innovation needs to be prioritized to meet industry's needs - The example of GE's new hightech Battery plant is a great example of how an industry need shaped the program focus araund 

technology developments that supported product development. More importantly, it highlighted 

a successful way that university, DOE staff and industrial scientists can work effectively together 

to direct innovation into the marketplace. 

With respect to the DOE BES SUFs specifically, we should encourage continued growth in 

programs that allow for more university/ government lab/ industry partnerships structured in this 

way. And with regard to US competitiveness, it is certainly clear that we would be at a significant 

disadvantage with respect to material research if we did not have access to these "big science" 

facilities. Other parts of the developed world {Europe, Asia) have made major investments in 

similar scientific user facilities, and many have policies that make them more accessible to 

industry. I have seen great improvement in the attitude of DOE BES toward industry over the 

past 5 years, but we need to continue to push for 0 more use-base science focus. 

DOE BES has facilitated a number of effective workshops over the past few years to explore how 

the basic research of BES can best help the development of US technology in energy. One 

Ernest L. Hall 

House Committee on Science and Technology 

June 21. 2012 

6 
104 

specific example was the "Science for Energy Technology" workshop in 2010 that I attended 

along with several other GE researchers. The workshop developed a series of Priority Research 

Directions IPRD} for a number of renewable technologies which reflected the key scientific 

challenges that BES could help address. This was a great start. but there needs ta be more 

mechanisms for continuing industrial engagement and communication of technical progress on 

the PRDs. 

2. Commit ond focus resources - More resources need to be directed to use-based research to 

ensure that innovation is more directly tied to a business outcome. As mentioned, this worked 

well when GE partnered with National Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven National Lab 

because the research activities were tied to an industry effort to develop and commercialize new 

technology. This also has worked well when the National Labs provide industry access to their 

supercomputing resources to conduct important research that can accelerate their ability to 

develop and deploy new technology. The current program GE Global Research has with the 

Livermore National Lab is a great example. The time we have been allotted on their 

supercomputer through the "hpc4energy" program could greatly ac;c;elerate our efforts to 

develop and c;ommercialize new fuel injector technology for jet engines. 

Going forward, we would like to see more programs like the "hpc4 energy" program that 

encourage industry engagement with the Notional Labs and American universities. For example, 

promoting industry participation in DOE's INCITE and ALCC programs are two areas this could be 

achieved. 

A final observation on this recommendation relates again on the DOE BES SUFs, which I can 

make based on my role on the various DOE BES advisory committees. First, it is clear that the US 

needs to invest in the construction and upgrade of the Scientific User Facilities, and DOE has a 

good record here. The most recent example is the $1 billion construction of the new National 

Synchrotron Ught Source /I at Brookhaven. However, it is also important that DOE receives 

sufficient funding for the maintenance. operation, and optimum use of these facilities. In my 

experience, this is the area of greatest need at the present time. 

3. Create structured partnerships - To allow small and medium- sized businesses to rise and to 

accelerate new innovations that directly support economic growth and new jobs; we need to 

Ernest L. Hall 7 

House Committee an Science and Technology 

June 21. 2012 
105 

encouroge more structured portnerships that allow different stakeholders to come together and 

collaborate in a way where everyone can benefit. The establishment of SEMATECH by the U.S. 

semiconductor industry in response to increasing competition from Japan is a great model to 

pattern these ecosystems after. 

In the late 1980s, the u.s. semiconductor industry responded to industry's rise in Japan's by 

forming a government and industry consortia for basic and applied research. This association, 

SEMATECH, is an ecasystem of private and public players in the broader semiconductor 

community (device mokers, universities, governments, national laboratories, and the entire 

industry supply chain). 

Together, they worked to successfully to re-establish u.s. leadership in the semiconductor 

industry space. It wos a model that initially was government enabled thraugh both funding and 

policy changes. But in less thon a decade, it become a self-sustaining system driven principally 

by private resources. The SEMATECH Board of Directors voted to seek an end to matching federal 

funding after 1996, reasoning thot the industry had returned to health and should no longer 

receive government support. 

As they mark their 25th anniversary this year, the semiconductor industry is growing and thriving 

in the us today. We believe that much like the semiconductor brought together big and small 

players together to re-establish their leadership, American companies can benefit from this type 

of research model that encourages more industry-focused innovation. 

Conclusion 

Chairman Harris, I wont to thank you ogain for the opportunity for GE to comment on how DOE 

programs and processes can be strengthened to better serve the needs of private industry in the 

energy sector. Facing an increasing competitive global environment, this is an important 

conversation to have as we look to for ways to enhance America's future economic competitiveness 

and capacity for new growth and jobs. 

Ernest L. Hall 

House Committee on Science and Technology 

June 21, 2012 

### 

8 
106 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. I want to thank the 

witnesses for being available for questioning today, reminding 

Members the Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. I 

will open the round of questions, and I am first going to recognize 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me compliment the panel. You crammed so much information into 

so little time. You must have had some computers helping you out 

to develop that strategy because it was just amazing. 

Let me just touch on some points here. We are going through 

this period of time in Washington, D.C., where we have got this 

budget deficit hanging over our head. All right. It is hanging there, 

and there was a quote from some New York politician who said the 

sword of Damocles is hanging right over Pandora’s Box or something like that. We have got a major challenge before us. How can 

we actually—and you very well explained the value of what your 

facilities provide this country and provide the world in terms of scientific exploration and development of new ideas, making them 

real. What percentage of that work that is done is done on scientific research specifically for the DOE and how much is done 

with private-sector groups and is there a way—and who then owns 

the actual intellectual property that is being developed by this 

great investment? Is there a way that we can in some way tap into 

that as a means to help finance your operations? All the way down, 

whoever is the most expert on that. 

Dr. LANZIROTTI. One of the things that is often underappreciated 

for many of the Office of Science facilities is that access to the facilities is done through a peer-review process. In fact, it is varied 

by the different facilities but, you know, from what we have done 

in terms of looking at metrics for the industrial community utilization is seven percent, 10 percent. The vast majority is actually from 

the research university community done through peer review, you 

know, from different organizations. So the benefit is really in terms 

of the research that they do, the fundamental research. You know, 

the industry users take that information and make it more into an 

applied research component, and it is that access to the facilities 

that we can’t get in terms of what we do at our home institutions 

that lets us produce, you know, the fundamental science for the 

country. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, take the engines, the jet engines we 

were talking about. It was a good point. If we can make these jet 

engines with the equipment that we have one percent more efficient, we have saved hundreds of millions of dollars for somebody. 

Is that possible? Number one, do Boeing and these companies, how 

much do they pay, and should they then if they achieve something, 

should you—how much of that is owned by your research facilities 

and by your institutions, by the government? 

Dr. HALL. So I would just make the point that our use of the scientific user facilities is part of a very large technology development 

program that is taking place in-house in which, for example, GE 

is investing millions, in some cases billions, of dollars to bring a 

technology to marketplace, particularly a technology as complicated 

as a new aircraft engine platform, a new engine. And so that is our 

investment, our stake in this. As part of that development, we will 
107 

use the national user facilities in a non-proprietary way doing research that is open to the world to see and to benefit from, and we 

will use those results as part of our technology development. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is that paid for? Is there a fee involved to 

this facility to the Federal Government? 

Dr. HALL. The vast amount of what we do is actually done open 

through the proposal process and so it is non-proprietary, publishable research. There is a fee structure for any proprietary research, 

for any research we want to do where we do not want to reveal the 

results of those. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So you only pay for that you are going to 

fence off, but there is no fee just to go in and utilize the facility? 

Dr. HALL. With the caveat that we need to pass the usual scientific quality screens. This is done—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, yeah, sure. I understand that. 

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller, for five minutes. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Hall, we do hear a lot about government picking winners and 

losers in this Committee, crowding out private investment, particularly in energy, by sponsoring applied research and later stage, any 

kind of later stage activity. But is there really that little space to 

invest that what the government does is going to crowd out private 

investment? And what does it really take to pick a winner? Could 

you give us an example showing the steps that have to go, that 

really go into moving an idea from research to the marketplace and 

how much investment is involved? 

Dr. HALL. Well, I can speak to my experience, and that is that 

today’s technologies are incredibly complex and very difficult to 

move from the area of idea through discovery, feasibility, pre-product, product and finally into the marketplace. In my testimony, I 

talked a lot about the need for collaboration across university and 

government lab and industry in order to accelerate those innovations and enhance America’s competitiveness. The investments that 

the Department of Energy make in technologies are at the—in the 

area of discovery and initial feasibility, and these are extremely 

useful to explore very high risk but potentially very high reward 

concepts. 

Further, there is, as you know, great difficulty in that area of 

funding that moves beyond feasibility into, you know, building a 

plant, perhaps a many-hundred-dollar plant in order to produce a 

technology. And so broad partnerships such as the SEMATECH 

model, I think, are very important in order to accelerate this technology development and make America most competitive in this 

rapidly changing world. 

Mr. MILLER. And how do our efforts compare with what our competitors in Europe and Asia are doing to accelerate technologies? 

Dr. Hall again, yes. 

Dr. HALL. Well, if we look specifically at the scientific user facilities, we know that for other parts of the world such as the E.U. 

and Asia and even Canada, their scientific user facilities are much 

more aggressive in seeking industrial users with the encourage-
108 

ment of their governments. We see that in many cases targets such 

as 20 percent of the utilization of the scientific user facilities by industry are set where in the United States—and perhaps other 

members of the panel have more information on that. My understanding is the numbers are around five to seven percent. 

But it is important to understand that in addition to simply setting targets, one needs to put in the structures and policies that 

make the use of the scientific user facilities and the government 

labs more inviting to industry. One needs to have these facilities 

fully staffed. One needs to have the policies to provide particular 

help for small businesses, for example. One needs to continue to do 

the outreach and education about what our government labs can 

bring to private industry in order to enhance their technology development. It is our observation, I think, that other parts of the 

world, the governments realize clearly that they need to assist 

their industry in order to be globally competitive and we see this 

in many cases. 

Mr. MILLER. We do—there is a debate within this Committee and 

within Congress on the distinction between applied versus basic research, and curiously, it seems to justify lavish funding for nuclear 

and fossil fuel research, which appear to be mature industries that 

are already well funded, and to justify cutting research for vulnerable new technologies, emerging technologies. How would you define applied versus—Dr. Hall again—applied versus basic research 

and how useful is that distinction? 

Dr. HALL. In my world, that is not a distinction that we use very 

much. We think about, you know, going from idea to feasibility to 

sort of pre-product demonstration to product development to commercialization, and where you make that distinction between basic 

and applied is difficult to see. At my lab at Global Research, we 

are primarily working in the discovery part, which you might call 

basic research, but what we always have is an eye on how do we 

commercialize this, how do we pull in the ideas of manufacturing 

and design and materials availability into the process even at the 

discovery phase. So technology development these days is, I think, 

much more complicated than just a simple description of basic and 

applied. 

Mr. MILLER. My time has expired. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I would like to remind the Members, we would like to limit it to 

five minutes. We have a very long series of votes coming up on the 

Floor, and I would like to complete the hearing and adjourn before 

we leave for the votes. So again, just reminding the Members, try 

to keep the questions to five minutes. 

I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for calling this hearing. 

I want to kind of go back with the line of questioning that Mr. 

Rohrabacher was talking about, and I think all of us are trying to 

figure out with the limited resources that we are going to have if 

we are going to leave any kind of future for our children and 

grandchildren, we are going to have to look at prioritizing the way 

we spend the American taxpayers’ hard-earned money, and I think, 
109 

Dr. Lanzirotti, you said that only 12 percent of the research going 

on at the laboratories is really applied research, and I guess that 

would mean that 88 percent of it is then fundamental research. Is 

that correct? 

Dr. LANZIROTTI. More specifically, I think when we look across 

the user facilities that at least we represent that those would be 

classified as industrial researchers, people that come from industry 

tends to average around seven percent, 10 percent. It really depends on the type of facility. Computing facilities, for example, may 

attract more industrial users than light sources, for example. But 

it does mean that the vast majority of the researchers in many of 

the facilities that we see are from research universities, from other 

laboratories, but much of the research they do may be fundamental 

or what you call basic research but they are also doing applied research at the university level as well. 

At the Advanced Photon Source, for example, we talked a little 

bit today about some of the work that we are doing in drug discovery through macromolecular crystallography. Many of the consortia that we see at the Advanced Photon Source are university 

laboratories that are doing, you know, drug discovery and looking 

at macromolecular crystals for next-generation drugs. So you can 

classify that as applied science but it comes from the university environment. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So here is a follow-up question then. If GE, for 

example, Dr. Hall said, you know, when they go in and they are 

going to do non-proprietary research, they don’t pay any user fee 

because they are going to share whatever findings that they have. 

When they are doing proprietary, then they are paying for that. I 

think the question is, are the universities like when they are using 

the labs, are they paying—because they are getting grants to do 

certain research but then they come over to a national lab, do they 

bring that research money? Are they paying fees to the laboratory 

to support the overhead there? 

Dr. LANZIROTTI. No. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. They are not? 

Dr. LANZIROTTI. No. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So I guess the question, it is kind of twofold, 

is, if there is great value to these national laboratories, and I think 

the panel has expressed that, do we really kind of need to look at 

then the possibility of changing that funding model some where, 

you know, GE and other companies say, you know, there is value 

here even when we are doing proprietary or non-proprietary research there, we are going to make sure, we want to contribute to 

that? Because I was at a fairly major electronic company not too 

long ago, and we were talking about, you know, this very issue, 

and we were talking about, you know, one, of lowering the corporate tax rates and leaving more investable money in the economy 

to create jobs, and one of the questions I asked is, you know, would 

you then be willing and open then to, for example, in the funding 

of laboratories and some of the research, since we are going to let 

the corporation keep more of that money, would you be willing to 

contribute to that, and I think the answer was yes. 

What I like about that is that it is another part of the review 

process. I know you said you do peer review when you are looking 
110 

at who gets to use the laboratory. I mean, I just can’t walk in there 

and say I would like to work on an experiment. You probably 

wouldn’t let me, and when you look at my science grades, you for 

sure probably wouldn’t let me. But the other token of that is, I 

think that the private sector also, you know, is another review of 

that where they are willing to invest their dollars. Dr. Hall, what 

would be your response to something like that? 

Dr. HALL. So as I understand the question, you were talking 

about the tradeoff between, say, lowering corporate tax rates and 

then increasing costs for using government facilities. Is that correct? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yes. 

Dr. HALL. One aspect of that that one has to realize is again for 

a global company like GE, we will look globally at where we can 

do research at the lowest possible cost because we have to worry 

about our competitiveness as well. You know, we have facilities 

near our research facilities in Europe and in Asia and we would 

need to look at that overall cost. But, you know, I don’t think I can 

speak to the tradeoff between tax rates and cost of facilities at this 

time. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, for five 

minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quick because 

I know that we are going to have votes called. 

This has been wonderful to hear you, and Dr. Drell, it is great 

to see you. I see you all the time at home. 

You know, one of the things I didn’t hear today was any concern 

or objection to the Department of Energy management of the use 

of these facilities. That is being done really through the peer-review process, and it is such a contrast to what I am hearing for 

those national labs that are being managed by NNSA. I am wondering, Dr. Lanzirotti, as the chief of the users group, have you had 

an opportunity to take a look at the National Academy report on 

the NNSA management of the national security labs? 

Dr. LANZIROTTI. I actually haven’t had an opportunity. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I am going to do this. I am going to give you 

a copy of this, and I am going to ask a favor of you to take a look 

at it and whatever insights you have, I would very much appreciate 

receiving and I am sure other Members of the Committee would as 

well. 

Dr. LANZIROTTI. I would be very pleased to discuss that with the 

community and—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. The other thing I would like to mention, I just received a copy of a letter from April from Oxford University from 

the head of the user group for the national ignition facility talking 

about the micromanagement of the science from the user groups 

trying to use that facility. It is a two-page letter. It asks that we 

make it available to other Members of the Committee, but I would 

like you, if you wouldn’t mind, to take a look at this letter as well 

and to give whatever insights you might have on how to correct 

this concern. 

[The information may be found in Appendix 2.] 
111 

Ms. LOFGREN. The other question I have, and maybe I will ask 

Dr. Drell because I visit her lab all the time; you know, when I go 

to the lab, I see scientists from all over the world, really smart people who are coming here, inventing things, and it makes me remember that those postdocs, if they are from Britain, we make 

them go home and start their companies there. Do you think our 

immigration policies of forcing the smartest people in the world 

who want to become Americans with us is a positive thing for the 

advance of science here in the United States? 

Dr. DRELL. Let me say I am not an expert on immigration policy, 

but I will say that the healthy flow of international scientists to 

our facility, because our beam time is allocated on a peer-review 

basis and the best science gets the beam time, that is the lifeblood 

of the institution and so being able to have outstanding scientists 

from around the world, many of whom eventually do either stay or 

find a reason to come back, is essential for science in this country. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I am going to yield back so that other Members can have a 

chance to ask. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Maybe, Dr. Wasserman, you can talk a little bit about the user 

agreements that you have with Argonne National Lab and how Ely 

Lilly is working with the lab to update agreements but how, you 

know, what you do with the proprietary. 

Dr. WASSERMAN. So, for background, all the experiments that we 

do at Ely Lilly at the Advanced Photon Source come under proprietary user agreements so the DOE calculates what full cost recovery for providing the X-rays at the facilities takes and we reimburse at that rate to the government for every experiment that we 

do. So all of our work is done in a proprietary mode. 

That said, much of the intellectual property provisions within the 

user agreements under proprietary mode give much of the rights 

to the user to develop as we do with pharmaceuticals. There are 

a few ambiguities that are not—that remain, particularly in what 

rights does the government to inventions that may come from the 

facility, etc. This contrasts with other facilities that we use outside 

the United States where they basically have if you pay, you own. 

And so it is a little bit more complicated in the United States in 

order to maintain a proprietary footprint. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. And you say in your testimony that you pay the 

fees for all the proprietary but that sometimes you provide available time on that to non-proprietary users from the universities so 

that they have the ability to do that without fees? 

Dr. WASSERMAN. Right. So the Department of Energy, at least for 

the facilities at the synchrotrons, requires that 25 percent of each 

beam line—some give more—provide time for academic users on 

each facility. So even if you built it yourself, you are providing time 

for outside users. We actually do those experiments for people. 

They send us the samples and we do the experiments for them 

with our own staff, finding that is a particularly efficient way to 

operate. 
112 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Then obviously everybody has been talking about 

the upgrade that is needed at the Advanced Photon Source. How 

would that help you to accelerate the drug characterization? 

Dr. WASSERMAN. There are two aspects to that. One is the basic 

age of the machine. The APS will be 20 years old in three years, 

and anything of this complexity needs a checkup once in awhile, 

probably more often than 20 years, and that is one of the things 

that is planned within the Department of Energy Office of Science. 

The other is what the enhanced capabilities of the upgrade will 

give. For example, a class of targets known as membrane proteins 

gives very small crystals. They are very hard to grow larger and 

the enhanced capabilities that would come from the upgrade of the 

APS would allow us to get much better quality information that we 

are able to do even today with a state-of-the-art facility. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. There is a question that NIH has a budget of over 

$30 billion to work on health and enhance life. Because of the great 

contributions of the light sources to advancing NIH’s mission, do 

you think that some of their budget might go to the Department 

of Energy to work on this? 

Dr. WASSERMAN. Well, in the sense, it already has. NIH contributed to the upgrade of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory when that was done a number of years ago. They fund the majority of the beam lines for protein crystallography that are currently at the APS. So the DOE facilities do have input, both scientific and financial, from the National Institutes of Health even 

today. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. And I will yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, and if we keep going 

at about four minutes a question, we will do just fine. 

I am going to recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and let me thank our panelists. I think you have underscored the value added of our user facilities and should motivate and inspire us. 

You have all discussed how these user facilities have been invoked by industry and academia to advance an array of clean-energy technologies, but listening to the talk around Washington, one 

might conclude that such things are a pipe dream and destined to 

fail unless propped up by government programs. If run time at the 

user facilities is awarded based on competitive solicitations, how is 

it that there are so many clean-energy projects and why would you 

suggest are there so many industrial partners focused on clean-energy technologies if there isn’t real potential for profit? Any of you 

want to address that? 

Ms. TICHENOR. I am not from the business side, obviously, but 

the companies that make applications for time at our user facility 

are doing it because there is a business driver. They are pursuing 

this research because they believe that ultimately it makes good 

business sense. It is going to somehow drive new products, new 

services and drive their profitability in the end. It could be—maybe 

it is a regulatory demand, maybe it is a customer demand. Most 

of the time it is customer demands that are driving this,, and so 

I would say that is why they are coming in and pursuing those 
113 

kinds of projects and that kind of research. But I am going to defer 

to the private-sector people on the panel here. 

Dr. HALL. So I just wanted to stress that at General Electric, we 

are investing huge sums of money in renewable-energy areas. You 

heard me speak of a few examples. I did not speak about wind, but 

that has been a tremendous success story for our company and I 

hope for the world. You heard the story about battery. We are creating jobs. We are creating large factories. We are investing a large 

amount of money. We are also looking at solar technologies and 

trying to solve the critical technical problems associated with increasing the efficiency and making those products commercially 

viable, and when we use the user facilities, the reason we get time 

at those facilities is we are looking at the key science questions 

around these technologies, and it is critical that we solve, American 

industry and America solves these key questions, both for the future of renewable energy in the United States and also for the global competitiveness of our companies, and to solve these problems, 

as I have stressed before, we need to continue to have a collaborative model. We work with universities. We work with these government labs. We invest a huge amount of our own resources, and 

that is really what has pushed these technologies forward and enabled us to do things such as build a new high-tech battery plant 

in Schenectady, New York. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Dr. Wasserman, were you going to add to that or—— 

Dr. WASSERMAN. Since most of our work is not in the energy 

area, I think I will defer to Dr. Hall. 

Dr. LANZIROTTI. I would make one point. From our perspective 

in the user community, the American public and you as their representatives are going to dictate through the funding that you 

make available, you know, what the national needs are. Those of 

us in the scientific community, based on what funding is available, 

you know, where industry sees that there are economic initiatives, 

we will take those and we will use the national laboratories and 

the tools that we have to address them, and that’s one of the things 

that is really unique about these instruments is that regardless of 

what you task us to do in science, we are going to use these facilities to try to address them. 

Mr. TONKO. That is wonderful. 

With a minute remaining then, Mr. Chair, I will yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I am going to reserve my time and I will yield to the gentleman 

from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly enjoyed listening to your testimonies so far, but you 

are putting your best foot forward. I understand that. 

Dr. Drell, I have a little technical question here concerning the 

LCLS. Now, you said it called the Linac Coherent Light Source. Is 

it also monochromatic? So in other words, is it a laser? 

Dr. DRELL. Yes, it is an X-ray laser. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Wow. 

Dr. DRELL. It is a free-electron laser so it is not like your normal 

laser. I don’t know how technical you would like me to get here. 

I would be happy to get as technical as you would like. But we take 
114 

a beam out of our electron Linac, very small emittance beam, a billion electrons and a 30-micron sphere, put it in 100 meters of 

undulator magnets that have been aligned to better than a tenth 

of the width of a human hair and we get lasing radiation out. We 

have actually just recently been able to make that nearly transform 

limited pulses. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. 

Dr. DRELL. It is a spectacular instrument. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. It is. Wow. I didn’t know that was going to happen in my lifetime. 

Dr. DRELL. Please come visit us and let me show you for yourself. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I will do that. 

Dr. Lanzirotti, about the Joint Genome Institute, how has that 

JGI contributed to bringing genomic-based solutions and products 

to the marketplace? 

Dr. LANZIROTTI. Well, we don’t have anyone here from Lawrence 

Berkeley today, who would probably be better able to speak to that 

directly, but let me speak a little bit for the user community of JGI, 

and again, it is an opportunity to make available to the broader 

user community advanced sequencing tools. That is something that 

at the level that JGI provides it to the scientific community, it is 

something we don’t have available, and it is a very vibrant community. JGI today hosts about 1,800 users a year. Last year, they published 188 publications. They looked at sequencing the genome of 

microbes that were found at the bottom of the Deepwater Horizon 

well to understand, you know, how we can use what microbes are 

doing to actually clean up hydrocarbons in the future. They published the first publicly available sequence for soybean, which gives 

us insight, for example, into how nitrogen is fixed in organisms so, 

you know, for crop rotation, and if you look at it in terms of what 

they can accomplish, JGI produced 40 trillion bases of sequence 

data last year using their advanced sequencing tools. That is amazing, and it takes us as users from not just collecting genome data 

but actually to understand what the function of individual genes is. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. It sure would be interesting to see a sort of return on investment in terms of federal money invested and commercial value generated, but I think that is a pretty complicated 

question. 

Dr. Wasserman, I heard some proposals to cut funding for user 

facilities that are not energy related. Would that affect your work? 

Dr. WASSERMAN. It depends on whether one considers the Advanced Photon Source an energy-related facility or not. At the moment, half of its work is the traditional realm of the Office of 

Science of the DOE, chemistry, physics and materials. The other 

half is the biological side. So we clearly benefit from the investment 

the DOE has done and that is why we have built our own beam 

line, our own research facility at the place. But if the emphasis on 

energy work continues, we presume that the APS will continue to 

function and therefore we will benefit as well. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

I think I will yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. If the gentleman would like another minute, 

if you have questions. We were just notified that the votes will be 

at 11:00, so if you want to—do you have another question? 
115 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Tichenor, you mentioned that the industrial benefits from 

partnering with the national user facilities. Can you elaborate a little bit on how the partnerships help advance and develop our national interests? 

Ms. TICHENOR. Well, I think they help from multiple perspectives. First, I think it is in the national interest to have companies 

that are strong and the companies that are coming and doing research are doing that research there to strengthen their own firms, 

to make them competitive, and competitive companies here are 

going to contribute to the economy, and I am not the economist 

here at the table—I don’t know if we have one—but I think that 

is a good thing. 

But, you know, there is a lot of intellectual sharing that goes on 

with the users that come to the user facilities and the lab researchers that are there. We learn a tremendous amount. The labs don’t 

have a lock on all the intellectual capital in the country. There is 

a tremendous amount of very, very good science that goes on in the 

companies, and when you provide these user facilities, and I can 

only speak, of course, about our own leadership computing facility, 

it is like a brain magnet. I mean, it attracts really, really smart 

people, and we want to be surrounded by smart people. We learn. 

And a lot of the work that is being done in industry, the scientific 

work, is very complementary often to work that is underway at the 

labs and so it becomes a meeting place where the ideas can be 

shared. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

This is an excellent example of how very well-targeted money 

from the government can benefit the society at large, so thank you 

for your testimony this morning. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. I am going to continue 

to reserve my time. 

The gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to just 

follow my colleague, Mr. McNerney, in the benefits to everybody of 

the federal investment in science, technology. 

Where in the process when it is federally funded is this research 

made available to whoever would be interested? Example: I have 

heard that in medicine, it isn’t until the final paper comes out that 

then it becomes public but the studies and the results of those 

studies step by step by step are not published, and the medical scientists have said to me, we start over and over many times in our 

research because those basic research finds that might not even 

have anything to do with that original research was going to be 

about is not made available. So am I talking about something that 

works that you can help me with? 

Dr. WASSERMAN. In the biological field, there are two types of 

publication. There is the standard paper, which to our academic 

colleagues is their product of their scientific work, and we do that 

as well when we have reached a completion stage of the science 

that we do on a proprietary basis out of the APS. There is a second 

level of publication, which is supported through the National Institutes of Health known as the Protein Data Bank, which is a collaboration within the United States and with other protein data 
116 

banks operated in Asia and Europe, and together these data banks 

allow you to deposit structures of proteins that other people can 

use, possibly ourselves in development of medicines, other university researchers who may be working in a related area, and so that 

can be made quite quickly. It is a requirement of publication to put 

your data into the Protein Data Bank, but there are many other 

structures that are available there for the general researcher that 

are put there well before publication occurs. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Dr. Hall. 

Dr. HALL. And I think one way of thinking about these user facilities is that they are tools. They are tools that we use to build 

amazing technology products and tools that we use to build American competitiveness. And those tools, as Ms. Tichenor indicated, 

are constantly being developed, and if I can again use the battery 

technology development as an example, we saw that Rutgers and 

Brookhaven had developed a tool to do a certain thing. We saw how 

it could be adapted to help us understand the chemistry that was 

happening in batteries and improve our product. We did that. The 

world saw what we were doing with batteries. Other people working on batteries came from other companies and universities and 

used the tools that we had developed and the methods that we had 

developed. So everyone benefits. Other researchers will use that 

tool in a slightly different way. So the key is that we all work together to continue to improve these tools. That will accelerate the 

technology development in the country, and that just happens all 

the time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But it is preventable that we don’t hold back in 

our government facilities in sharing—— 

Dr. HALL. All the work that we did was done in a completely 

non-proprietary, open way, and Brookhaven has publicized that, 

trying to build a very large consortium around being a center for 

battery research. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, thank you very much, and I will recognize myself, I guess, to close the round of questioning. 

And I am going to just follow up a little bit, I think, some of the 

things that the gentleman from Texas had asked. You know, since 

they are government facilities, obviously political issues arise, and 

I frequently get asked in town hall meetings and by constituents, 

look, why don’t we keep, you know, American investments in America, you know, why do have what amounts to foreign aid, and so 

I am going to delve a little bit into the idea that we are letting foreign entities use these facilities, which are in the end funded by 

American tax dollars. 

So first of all, and I guess, Dr. Drell, listen, thanks for coming 

and not talking about more fascinating technology which I will 

never understand, but is it true that foreign applicants have access 

on an equal basis with American applicants to your facility, for instance? 

Dr. DRELL. That is true. The peer-review process does not look 

at where a proposal comes from. It looks at the quality of the 

science, and that is reciprocated at facilities around the world. 
117 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. And that was my other question, is it 

in fact reciprocated because it is a different model. For instance, 

the NIH, which I am much more familiar with, you know, as far 

I know, I think you have to be an American, you know, the principal investigators, that they have to be American or American entities. 

Dr. DRELL. To get a grant—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Yes. 

Dr. DRELL [continuing]. A specific grant, you would need to be— 

to fund your research group, to fund your postdocs, to fund your 

graduate students. 

Chairman HARRIS. Sure, but my—— 

Dr. DRELL. But beam time—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Right, but those are—both flow from American taxpayer dollars. You know what I mean? 

Dr. DRELL. Yes. 

Chairman HARRIS. So the average American looking at it is going 

wait a minute, you know, we are kind of subsidizing this foreign 

entity, but it is, as far as what you are saying, we have access, our 

scientists have access to their instruments. We probably just have 

better and wider variety of instruments, we would like to think. 

Dr. DRELL. At the moment, certainly, in that realm. I would also 

like to emphasize that most—many of the teams, let me say, that 

have international participation also have U.S. participation. It is 

rare to have a team that is exclusively—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Sure. It is part of a collaborative effort. 

Ms. Tichenor, is that true at your facility also? 

Ms. TICHENOR. Basically, it is. I mean, DOE does not distinguish 

in their peer-review proposal process between different countries. 

They are looking for the most cutting-edge science, and in fact, that 

is what the facility was funded to do, right, is to support the most 

cutting-edge science and so the peer-review process winnows 

through all of those applicants to do that. Another way to think 

about it is, when you have foreign researchers there, we are not 

paying for those researchers. We don’t fund them, right. Their own 

countries are. So their own countries are making an enormous investment in that research, and we get the benefit of it. We provide 

the tool but we get the benefit of all that investment that they 

have made and those people and that time and then we get access 

to all the results. 

Chairman HARRIS. Again, believe me, I get it. I mean, I get that 

science shouldn’t have boundaries but again, once you ask the government to participate, politics, which is—— 

Ms. TICHENOR. Understood. 

Chairman HARRIS. Are there equivalent facilities overseas, facilities, supercomputing facilities, for instance, that our—or do we 

really have the best in the world so really it is kind of a one-way 

street? 

Ms. TICHENOR. Well, we are pretty fortunate right now that we 

have got some of the top systems. Now, this fluctuates, you know, 

because systems constantly are being upgraded. But there are certainly very similar, maybe not at any point in time one country has 

the most powerful system than another but they do leapfrog each 

other, and many of those are in university and national laboratory 
118 

environments where, again, those countries have made a similar 

determination. We want to attract the best brains and so they 

make them available. 

Chairman HARRIS. At your two facilities, what is the estimate of 

the percent of foreign use, Dr. Drell? 

Dr. DRELL. At the LCLS, it is 50 percent right now. 

Chairman HARRIS. Fifty percent? 

Dr. DRELL. Right. 

Chairman HARRIS. Ms. Tichenor? 

Ms. TICHENOR. You know, I would have to get back to you and 

get—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Ballpark? 

Ms. TICHENOR. I don’t know. I wouldn’t even want to—it is highly collaborative. It is highly collaborative. 

Chairman HARRIS. No, I understand that. 

And I am just going to close with just a kind of rhetorical question, I guess, for Dr. Wasserman and Dr. Hall, because you are the 

two private entities. You know, what is floated around here on 

Capitol Hill is that for some reason if a company is successful and 

profitable, they should pay a little bit more, and, you know, that 

is floated around now for small businesses. Should we go to a sliding scale for fees for user facilities? You know, if you are a profitable company, you pay more? What do you think? Do you think 

that is a good idea, you are more profitable, you pay a higher fee 

to the government? You can call it a tax to use the facility if you 

want. 

Dr. HALL. Well—— 

Chairman HARRIS. It is a rhetorical question. You don’t have to 

answer. 

Listen, I want to thank all the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of the 

Committee may have additional questions for you, and we will ask 

you to respond to those in writing. The record will remain open for 

two weeks for additional comments from the Members. 

The witnesses are excused. Thank you all for coming. The hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
119 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
120 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
121 

The FUTURE of America is the 

RESEARCH 01 TODAY 

u.s. House of Representatives Committee on SCience, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Hearing on Department of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science to Drive 

Innovation through Fundamental Research held June 21, 2012 

Response to Subcommittee "Questions for the Record" 

Dr. Antonio Lanzirotti, Ph.D. 

Chairman, National User Facility Organization 

Senior Research Associate, The University of Chicago 
122 

Response to Ms. Lofgren's Questions 

During the hearing on June 21 st Ms. Lofgren's asked me to address the questions (summarized 

below). I welcome the opportunity to provide what assistance I can and thank the 

Congresswoman for her interest and engagement on this matter. 

01: "Have you had an opportunity to take a look at the National Academy report on the NNSA 

management of the national security labs? Take a look at it and whatever insights you have I 

would very much appreciate receiving. And I'm sure other members of the committee would as 

well." 

02: "I just received a copy of a letter from April from Oxford University from the head of the user 

group for the National Ignition Facility talking about the micromanagement of the science from 

the user groups trying to use that facility. It's a two-page letter. I'd ask that we make it available 

to other members of the committee. But I'd like you, if you wouldn't mind, to take a look at this 

letter as well and to give whatever insights you might have on how to correct this concern." 

Response: 

Representative Lofgren raised two questions that relate to management of laboratories 

overseen by the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA). Specifically we were asked to 

(1) examine a letter the Ms. Lofgren received dated April of this year from Dr. Justin Wark 

(Oxford University), who currently serves as Chair of the National Ignition Facility's User Group. 

Dr. Wark's letter describes recent difficulties in scheduling time for user experiments at the NIF 

facility. I have been asked to comment to what degree these issues may reflect 

micromanagement of the science program by NNSA. Ms Lofgren asked me to give whatever 

insights I may have on how to correct this concern. I was also asked to (2) examine the recent 

National Academy report on the NNSA management of the national security labs and provide 

any relevant comments from the perspective of scientific User communities. Given that NUFO 

represents Users of scientific facilities, we feel it is only appropriate for us to comment on both 

these issues with regard to how they impact access by the scientific community as well as 

facility efficiency and productivity in meeting User needs. 

The National User Facility Organization (NUFO) membership currently includes users from six 

scientific user facilities that receive NNSA funding to support opeiations. These include the 

National Ignition Facility (NIF). the Jupiter Laser Facility (JLF) and the Center for Accelerator 

Mass Spectrometry (CAMS), all at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; facilities at Los 

Alamos National Laboratory that are part of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) 

including the Proton Radiography (pRad) facility and the Weapons Neutron Research (WNR) 

facility; and the Laboratory for Laser Energetics (OMEGA) at the University of Rochester. All 

these NNSA-supported facilities provide unique capabilities that simply cannot be produced at 

other laboratories. They all have a core mission in national security science in understanding 

and maintaining the nation's nuclear deterrent without testing. However, their uniqueness 

provides one-of-a-kind opportunities in fundamental and applied research that directly translates 

in to high user demand for access. For example, research proposed by the burgeoning user 

community at NIF will allow scientists to explore the physics of the newly discovered exoplanets, 

Page 2 of 14 
123 

explore studies in experimental astrophysics, and utilize the collision less shock waves that can 

be launched and provide insight into the formation of the intergalactic magnetic field. The 

willingness for DOE to make these unique tools available to the broader scientific community for 

research should be commended and fostered. 

To help address Representative Lofren's question, we solicited input from the User 

Organizations of these facilities that are NUFO members and solicited additional information 

from Dr. Wark to better understand the situation at NIF that led their User Organization to 

express concerns. 

Additional information regarding User concerns at NIF 

Let me first provide some additional information regarding the situation at NIF that generated 

concern on the part of their scientific User community. To better understand the concerns, we 

feel it is appropriate to give some historical perspective as we understand it. An active and 

viable user program at NIF was encompassed within the scope outlined in the 1997 NIF Facility 

Use Plan for NIF-oriented fundamental science. It was formally announced to the wider 

international community in September of 2009, with a call for proposals in 2010. The 

community was informed that it was envisaged that 15% of the time on the NIF would be 

available for its use as an open user NNSA facility. A peer-review proposal call came in July 

2010 and eight programs (out of 40 submitted to the call) were recommended for allocation. 

With active encouragement from DOE, the initially approved group self-organized to form the 

"NIF User Group", which now numbers in excess of 250 scientists. The user community, upon 

being informed that they were successful in the peer reviewed process, has garnered further 

financial support and employed postdocs and graduate students to undertake the work. Their 

expectation of obtaining time on the NIF at the 15% level was endorsed by Dr. Donald Cook in 

his memo of 20 August, 2010 to Dr. Bill Brinkman, and is consistent with what has been 

promised to the fundamental science community for at least five years. 

To date, however, none of these eight experiments have received dedicated NIF shots 

(although one group has executed shots in a "ride-along" mode to programmatic work). It is in 

this context that the NIF community expressed its concerns about the original draft guidance 

from NNSA. Since that time, it is our understanding that the actual guidance given to the NIF 

director allows up to 40% of NIF time for non-SSP shots, but given the pressure to achieve 

ignition, that may still leave the science users with little dedicated time to start their programs. 

Discussions are still ongoing with the Director of the NIF and with NNSA, but there is still 

extreme concern in the User community about the present situation. 

User Community perspectives in the context of the National Academies of Science report 

A number of factors obviously contribute to providing users of DOE scientific facilities the most 

advanced instruments for research and the highest quality of support. I believe that, for the 

Users of these facilities, the most pressing concerns generally are issues that result in barriers 

to access and impacts to experimental efficiency. The issues highlighted above reflect how 

barriers to access are hindering the nascent NIF user community, a community pressing to use 

a new (for the academic community) facility. For the more established User communities at Los 

Page 3 of 14 
124 

Alamos (WNR and pRad) and the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics 

(OMEGA) I have received no indication that major issues exist in the ability of these facilities to 

support User programs. For those users that are allocated time, the data they collect appears to 

be of high quality and of high scientific impact and the facility scientists that support the user 

program appear to be dedicated, knowledgeable, and committed to providing users the highest 

quality of support. We are confident that Users of the NIF facility would similarly receive the 

highest quality support and use their access for great scientific achievements if the barriers to 

access can be resolved. 

From what we have learned from our User communities, we do not know if these access issues 

reflect micromanagement of the science program at NIF by NNSA or if this problem is related to 

the management issues highlighted in The National Academies report. Similarly, as noted, we 

do not know of particular issues at other NNSA-supported user facilities that are potentially 

impacted by findings identified in this report. However, as Users of these facilities, whether they 

are supported by NNSA or BES or other entities, we recognize that unforeseen events arise that 

can impact the amount of time that is expected to be available for external science programs. At 

NNSA-supported facilities unexpected needs may arise to support a lab's core mission in 

national security science. At all DOE User facilities, unexpected budgetary constraints do occur 

that can force facility directors to cut operating schedules below previously stated levels. While 

this is understandable, it must be understood that scientists make tangible investments in time 

and research funding and engage students in projects based on assumptions of how much time 

will be available for User science. I would argue that for these facilities to foster cutting-edge 

research and productive user communities, a good-faith effort must be made to provide access 

at levels consistent with stated intentions. 

Our sense is that there is now a tangible effort underway between NNSA and the Office of 

Science to share lessons-learned and best practices for user facilities across the Department, 

with an important goal of evaluating access models and how facilities balance mission needs 

with needs of the Users. An important example of this effort is a User Facility Forum scheduled 

for July 19, 2012 in Washington D.C.(Forrestal building) coordinated jointly by NNSA and the 

Office of Science. The User community (represented by NUFO) was asked to partiCipate in this 

program and we are eager to see what recommendations are put forward. As always, the 

scientific user community of these facilities is happy and eager to provide our advice and 

perspective if it is useful. 

Page 4 of 14 
125 

Response to Written "Questions for the Record" 

Below I provide responses to the Subcommittee's "Questions for the Record", I thank the entire 

Committee for the opportunity to clarify my comments and the interest and engagement of 

Members on these matters, 

Question #1: In general, how do other countries manage intellectual property associated with 

user facility research conducted using government resources? 

a, Please provide any recommendations regarding potential opportunities to improve 

DOE's current user facility IP structure, 

Response: 

We thank the Committee for this follow-up question; issues regarding intellectual property (IP) 

associated with work conducted at federally funded research facilities are of significant interest 

to the scientific user community and there is currently a very vigorous discussion underway 

among federal agencies, scientists, and publishers on this topic, 

How do other countries manage intellectual property associated with user facility research 

conducted using government resources? 

As you may imagine, there is significant diversity in international approaches to IP generated 

from experiments at "public" scientific user facilities, As an organization, NUFO is probably not 

best suited to characterize other countries' IP policies; we would presume that DOE itself has 

looked at these issues in developing its facility policies, Obviously Agreements between Users 

and Facilities that specify IP rights can be very complex, However, in a hope of providing a 

useful framework for discussion and highlighting some of the differences, we have solicited 

some information from our counterparts at a suite of international user facilities that provide 

similar capabilities to user facilities in the DOE complex with roughly similar-sized user 

communities, Admittedly, this is not a complete sampling of international approaches and 

doesn't express the details of what may be included in their respective User Agreements, We 

are providing only what has been expressed to us in a condensed manner. However, this does 

demonstrate that although there are general similarities in approach there are also some 

notable differences that also exist. 

At most of these facilities, there is recognition of the differences between IP generated from 

proprietary versus non-proprietary work. Obviously we would recommend DOE be solicited 

directly for details and accuracy on their User Agreements since we are only summarizing our 

understanding of the language included in Agreements we have examined. Our understanding 

is that in the U.S., User Agreements between DOE facilities supported by BES and user 

institutions for non-proprietary work generally specify that the Government shall have Unlimited 

Rights in Technical Data first produced or specifically used in the performance of the work at the 

facility. The User retains the right to use this data for its private purposes subject to patent, 

security or other provisions that may be specified in the Agreement. For proprietary work, the 

User retains "Unlimited Rights" to use, duplicate or disclose technical data, in whole or in part, in 

any manner and for any purpose Whatsoever, and to permit others to do so. DOE (and/or the 

Page 5 of 14 
126 

facility Contractor) retains unlimited rights to any technical data furnished to it by the User that is 

not marked as "Proprietary Data". The agreements define what is considered "Proprietary 

Data". 

We have solicited input from four foreign synchrotron light source facilities: the European 

Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in Grenoble, France; the Canadian Ught Source (CLS) in 

Saskatoon, Canada; the Diamond Ught Source (DLS) in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom; and the 

SPring-S synchrotron radiation facility in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan. These four facilities share 

similar community IP requirements and concerns to the four synchrotron light sources managed 

by BES. 

The ESRF tells us that all IP generated from experiments that use their public (peer review or 

non-proprietary) program belongs to the User groups concerned, unless there is a clear 

collaborative aspect with ESRF scientists in which case it would be shared. However, as in the 

U.S., the public peer review experiments must publish their results - although patent protection 

may be applied beforehand to be funded, of course, by the IP owners. AIlIP generated by their 

commercial (Le., paying for access or proprietary) industrial users belongs to those users unless 

there are specific contractual conditions otherwise. The commercial clients do not need to 

publish and all results remain confidential. 

SPring-S informs us that any intellectual property rights resulting from the use of SPring-B 

belong to those who conducted the research. In the event that users have applied for a patent 

or other form of intellectual property protection for the results obtained through the use of 

SPring-B, they are required to promptly notify the facility when the application is published. 

SPring-S makes no distinction between proprietary and non-proprietary as to who owns the IP. 

The Canadian Light Source informs us that they have standard arrangements in place for the 

bulk of situations they encounter with Academic and Industrial users (which they classify as their 

two primary user steams); however a few Agreements are negotiated for unique situations. 

Academic users are required to publish analytical results, including data, analysis of data, 

patents or patentable subject matter relating to the use of the facility. The CLS retains rights to 

any methodology, analytical techniques, process, etc. that relate to the conduct of work or 

operation of the CLS facility, including software, eqUipment, information, or other technology 

developed by CLS. The Academic User also grants license for use at CLS for any facility-related 

IP it may develop through its use of their facility. For Industrial, paid projects that are performed 

by CLS staff, the facility assigns experiment-related IP rights to the client but retains rights to 

any methodology, analytical techniques, process, etc. that relate to the conduct of work or 

operation of the CLS facility. As with U.S. facilities, the goal of the industrial paid projects is to 

recover actual costs (including staff time). The CLS also tells us that they occasionally have 

Industrial clients who come in to perform experiments onsite themselves. These Industrial 

clients are offered a reduced rate reflective of the actual costs. The IP arrangements are the 

same. Anything facility-related is retained by CLS; anything research-project related belongs to 

the Industrial User. 

The Diamond Ught Source in the UK specifies that intellectual property for non-proprietary 

work (including copyrights, design rights, patents and trademarks, and all other similar or other 

Page 6 of 14 
127 

monopoly or property rights whether registrable or not) originating with either party prior to the 

commencement of use of DLS Facilities ("Background IP") shall remain the property of the party 

introducing such Background IP. The parties shall not have any rights to the Background IP of 

the other party. The User will own the IP in any results generated solely using their materials 

and solely based on Background IP owned or licensed to them. IP arising from research carried 

out by the User using DLS' Background IP or incorporating significant contributions of DLS 

employees ("Joint IpH) shall be jointly owned by the User and DLS as tenants in common in 

equal shares unless otherwise agreed by both parties in writing. The use of the Joint IP is 

decided on a case-by-case basis at a later date. For proprietary Users, unless expressly stated 

to the contrary in their Contract, nothing in the Contract assigns or transfers any Intellectual 

Property Rights or grants either party any license to use any Intellectual Property Rights 

originating with the other party prior to the commencement of the Contract, except that DLS 

(and any sub-contractor of DLS) may use, for the purpose of performing its obligations under 

the Contract, all information, software and materials (including the Samples) supplied to it by or 

on behalf of the Customer. DLS then agrees to assign to the Customer the Intellectual Property 

Rights in the Results. 

Recommendations regarding potential opportunities to improve DOE's current user facility IP 

structure 

For the very small subset of international facilities we have highlighted here, it seems to me that 

IP rights for proprietary work are generally comparable to those specified within DOE (and 

specifically BES) User Agreements. These policies seem appropriate for IP protection and in 

keeping with international practice. The differences primarily seem to be with respect to IP rights 

for data collected as part of non-proprietary work. At least for these facilities, the more general 

practice is that IP generated from experiments that access facilities for non-proprietary research 

unambiguously belongs to the User groups concerned, unless there is a clear collaborative 

aspect with facility SCientists, in which case it would be shared. This seems to differ from the 

policy in place at the DOE BES facilities (or at the very least is not as clear with respect to nonproprietary IP rights). 

Neither I nor NUFO have a particular recommendation as to which approach for non-proprietary 

work is most appropriate for IP protection at DOE facilities. It seems fair to conclude that at 

some facilities abroad ownership of intellectual property clearly rests with the User. The current 

policy for access to DOE facilities for non-proprietary research specifies in practicality that the IP 

output from basic research is publication in open literature and this is in keeping with 

international practice. 

However, I think it should be noted that, for Universities and Companies, the IP specifications 

set forth within the master user agreements used at DOE facilities often seem to generate 

confusion, take a very long time to implement and can be a disincentive and a stumbling block 

for smaller institutions or businesses in accessing facilities. Better clarity in language to make 

clear what the intent of the agreement is (particularly with respect to IP rights and User liability) 

would be tremendously helpful. This is often exacerbated by the fact that organizations that wish 

to access user facilities at different Laboratories must sign a standard agreement for each 

Page 7 of 14 
128 

Laboratory because each is operated by a different contractor. Provisions in these standard 

agreements may even vary from laboratory to laboratory and negotiations over these provisions 

start afresh with each discussion. It would be helpful if a single, master, DOE-wide agreement 

on intellectual property and liability issues, applicable to al/ contractor operated facilities, could 

be executed to provide access to any and all of (at least) the BES user facilities. This would 

avoid laboratory contractors' individually negotiating user agreements. We believe that DOE 

recognizes this issue and has been working to effect changes. We also recognize how difficult a 

task this is to address given that, within DOE, some policies and regulations incorporated in 

user agreements are mandated by law while others are imposed by the facility contractor. We 

as an organization are always more than happy to help in that discussion if it's useful. 

We also recognize that there is an ongoing broader discussion at the Federal level, in 

consultation with the U.S. scientific community, as to whether data collected by recipients of 

federal research funding or by scientists using federally funded facilities for non-proprietary 

research should be made publically available. I personally believe that the approach taken by 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy is the correct one. More specifically, input is 

gathered by OSTP from al/ interested parties via Requests for Information on the subject of 

Public Access to Digital Data Resulting from Federally Funded Scientific Research. I believe 

this open approach fosters vigorous discussion not only with Federal agencies but also among 

the scientific community and is more likely to generate recommendations that have broader 

acceptance. 

Page 8 of 14 
129 

Question #2: Please provide any further detail regarding your recommendation for additional 

partnerships between new user communities and DOE facilities, 

a, Specifically, you note "more standardized requirements for access across the DOE 

complex are still needed that will make it easier for academia and industry to use these 

world-class research tools," What sort of requirements are you referring to? 

Response: 

Recommendations for additional partnerships 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to expand on my statements regarding 

partnerships between user communities and DOE user facilities, As I'm sure the Committee is 

aware, such partnerships with universities, industries or government agencies other than DOE 

have had various different incarnations over the years, Such partnerships obviously allow 

facilities to leverage material capital from dedicated users to the lasting benefit of the facility, In 

tight budgetary times, these investments provide significant leverage for facilities, However, 

from the user community perspective there is even a larger benefit in that such partnerships 

provide intellectual capital that the facility itself may lack, 

As an example, at synchrotron facilities today life scientists constitute the largest single 

user group, pursuing research interests that are outside the traditional mission of BES, 

Partnerships between facility stewards with NIH, BER, universities and pharmaceutical 

industries both in the past and today have been invaluable in providing resources and scientific 

staff for beamlines that specifically address the needs of life science users, It is my belief that 

the ability of facilities to successfully tackle many of the most important scientific problems 

increasingly depends on facility stewards working with industry and university partners in a 

comprehensive collaboration, 

I also believe there are opportunities to foster new partnerships designed to tackle 

specific scientific goals or attract new user communities, As stated by Dr, Ernest Hal' in his 

testimony, industrial users in particular can significantly benefit from more structured 

partnerships that allow different stakeholders to come together and collaborate to ultimately 

benefit the broader scientific community, I also very much agree with Dr. Hall that SEMATECH 

is an excellent example of the types of partnerships that can bring broad collaborative 

involvement The SEMA TECH (SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology) consortium formed 

as an industrial partnership among leading chipmakers and the federal government to address a 

specifiC industrial and scientific problem: improvement in chip manufacturing capabilities, That 

partnership included investments on the part of the consortium in equipment and scientific staff 

at DOE scientific user facilities to tackle the problem, As a result of SEMATECH's work, within 

10 years of their formation, the domestic semiconductor industry had grown by 16%, The benefit 

to U,S, industries (broadly and not for the benefit of one specifiC company or university) was 

very clear. I believe we should foster similar partnerships to tackle overarching problems-be 

they in energy technologies, environmental sciences, materials and manufacturing, life sciences 

or in supporting the missions of other agencies such as NIH, DARPA, NASA, etc, 

Fostering such new partnerships first and foremost requires an educational initiative on 

the part of DOE in collaboration with experienced users who know the scientific questions, 

Supporting such educational initiatives does require a small amount of initial funding but should 

Page 9 of 14 
130 

be viewed as an investment towards future achievement and efficiency. I would also point out 

that within the Office of Science there has been a move away from the stewardship models (socalled "steward-partner models") of the past for its new facilities. I believe that this change has 

unintentionally generated some ambiguity for potential partners that should be carefully 

evaluated. For these new facilities, it is not clear how partnerships between a facility and 

another institution are formed; the benefit of such a partnership for the outside institution may 

also be ambiguous; and potential partners do not always understand how (or if) their investment 

gives them a voice in the scientific direction of the facility. Clarifying these requirements for new 

facilities in open discussion with potential partners will help ensure that we encourage industrial 

use and provide incentive for both industry and universities to develop mutually engaging 

relationships, rather than discouraging investment. 

The need for more standardized requirements for access across the DOE complex 

My statement regarding more standardized access refers primarily to the User 

Agreements each institution must establish with the laboratory. To access user facilities at 

different laboratories, each university and industrial company must sign a standard agreement 

for each laboratory because each laboratory is operated by a different contractor. Provisions in 

these standard agreements sometimes vary from laboratory to laboratory, which means that 

negotiations over these provisions start afresh with each discussion. These user agreements 

invariably are a source of concern to the users' institutions. It would be helpful if a single master 

DOE-wide agreement applicable to all contractor operated facilities could be executed to 

provide access to any and all of the BES user facilities. This would avoid laboratory contractors' 

individually negotiating user agreements. For users, this would decrease the legal costs of 

conducting research at more than one facility. Such flexibility would also allow for the relocation 

of research programs from oversubscribed facilities to ones that are underutilized, something 

that is very difficult given current requirements. From the users' perspective, there is benefit in 

having facilities across the DOE complex working together for scientific benefit rather than 

separately. Simplifying a user's ability to more seamlessly tackle scientific problems by using 

multiple facilities and giving facilities the ability to efficiently guide users to other, more suitable, 

resources within the DOE complex should be encouraged. Again, I believe DOE is trying to 

move in this direction but to be fair, since each laboratory is operated by a different contractor, 

implementing such a recommendation could necessitate a re-evaluation of agreements between 

National Labs and contractors. 

Another area for improvement is for reciprocity in training among differing facilities. While 

we understand that facilities have unique safety reqUirements, there are also areas of significant 

commonality. Yet, users who access multiple facilities are required to essentially be trained 

repeatedly on the same material, which for them is frustrating and inefficient. Areas where 

reCiprocity is sensible without compromising safety should be identified. I would also like to point 

out with regards to the User Agreements that for many industrial partners the aspects of the 

agreements that deal with issues of liability can be the most difficult to resolve. While IP rights 

can be protected through declaring proprietary access, the dark cloud of unlimited liability in 

either money or time hanging over their heads whenever they run experiments or operate 

equipment can be very hard to accept. 

Page 10 of 14 
131 

Question #3: Your testimony says, "It is important to recognize that a 'one size fits all' approach 

to user access may not be optimal in some cases." Can you describe how various users differ 

in practice and research? 

Response: 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss this issue further. As I stated in my 

testimony, I believe that it is in the best interest DOE, the scientific user community and the 

Nation to attract new scientific communities and industrial users to our facilities and make them 

aware of how they can be utilized in their research. Educational offerings for new user 

communities are important in this respect. 

For those of us that have worked closely with User Facilities for a long time and have seen the 

rapid growth of inexperienced user communities, it is very apparent how certain user groups 

require different levels of support or different modes and levels of access dictated by the 

technical requirements of their studies. 

For example, while most users come to DOE facilities for individual experiments, others need 

recurring and/or rapid access to address their scientific requirements. Facilities currently have 

some flexibility to meet these needs, and this flexibility should be retained and expanded where 

appropriate. For example, those users studying biological and soft matter systems may require 

extensive support in preparing their samples for neutron or X-ray beam time on-site. Access to 

protein expression and crystallization facilities and polymer and ligand synthesis facilities at 

synchrotron and neutron facilities are invaluable to these user communities and require 

investments to implement. Increasingly, DOE facility managers are recognizing this need and 

are planning to build support facilities to accommodate them, for example the planned biology 

village for NSLS-II, the automated crystallization facility planned for APS, and the deuteration 

and crystallization facilities at LANSCE and SNS and HFIR. 

Users with time-sensitive biological samples may also require rapid access to beam lines, often 

within a short 24-hour window of having prepared their sample for analysis. Industrial users 

similarly may require characterization of new materials with rapid throughput methods to 

accelerate discovery. This requires not only access policies that can accommodate these 

needs, but often technological investments to enable them such as robotics for sample 

manipulation and remote access computing so that Users can mail in samples and collect data 

from their home institutions. For these efforts, the facility needs to make dedicated and 

concerted efforts in developing and executing required technologies. 

As pointed out by the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee in their report on 

"Strengthening the Link between Basic Research and Industry," industrial users also often 

require slightly modified review criteria when they submit proposals for non-proprietary 

research. While these proposals should still be reviewed on the basis of scientific merit, 

modifying review criteria to also weigh technological impact will allow them to compete more 

fairly. 

Page 11 of14 
132 

Another point I would make is that having respected scientific staff on hand at the facility that 

are knowledgeable of the science the user community is hoping to address is invaluable. This 

can be difficult since the natural tendency of a Facility is to hire scientists that address, first and 

foremost, the technical requirements of the facility in operating their instruments efficiently. But 

the interaction between facility scientists that understand the scientific questions the visiting 

users are hoping to address can make all the difference in ensuring a successful experiment. 

Partnerships between facilities and external institutions such as universities and industry where 

the Partner contribution includes providing knowledgeable staff to support facility instruments 

has historically been an extremely valuable method of providing expertise the facility itself may 

lack. These partnerships have historically been highly successful and should continue. 

Page 12 of 14 
133 

Question #4: It is longstanding policy for most research conducted at scientific user facilities to 

be transparent and published in the open literature. However, it seems concerning that the 

United States' top international competitors not only get access to and benefit from the research 

conducted at U.S. user facilities, they can even compete to use these machines themselves. Is 

there any way we can change policies to better benefit U.S. companies and citizens without 

disrupting longstanding practice of open scientific inquiry? 

Response: 

The Committee is quite right that it is longstanding international policy that most research 

conducted at scientific user facilities is intended to be transparent. Both U.S. and international 

policy (generally) is for access to foreign facilities to be effectively reciprocal, an approach that 

benefits the entire scientific community. The requirement for publication in peer-reviewed 

literature as a condition for non-proprietary facility access reflects the reality that open-science 

is conducted as if there were no national borders. As a result, not only do U.S. and international 

scientists benefit from the research conducted at U.S. user facilities, U.S. researchers benefit 

from studies conducted by scientists at facilities abroad, regardless of their nationality. 

I do believe it is very reasonable (and healthy for science) to periodically ask if eXisting policies 

need adjustment to ensure that U.S. companies and citizens are not encountering barriers to 

access of U.S. facilities as a result of this competitive environment. Each facility type tends to 

have unique user community dynamics in this respect. What I mean is that some facility types 

tend to have larger international partiCipation from visiting sCientists, typically because they have 

unique instruments or specialty programs that are not available elsewhere. However, we can 

look at metrics for the Advanced Photon Source (APS) at Argonne National Laboratory as a 

reasonable indicator of the level of foreign usage. Of the DOE user facilities, the APS hosts the 

largest number of Users (as defined by BES) annually, roughly 4000 per year, and the scientific 

usage cuts across many disciplines. If we examine Foreign Visits and Assignments (FVA) for 

the APS we see that approximately 46% of the users annually are foreign nationals. However, if 

we look at how many of these users are from foreign institutions, we see that this category only 

accounts for 6% of almost 4000 users that come to the APS each year. In other words, 

although we host a large number of foreign nationals, these scientists are generally students 

and faculty at U.S. universities and scientists at U.S. companies that simply are not U.S. 

citizens. 

For industrial access it is again reasonable to ask if this competitive policy impedes access by 

U.S. companies relative to foreign ones. Again taking the APS as an example, only about 2% of 

the experiments conducted at the facility annually are proprietary in nature and only 0.2% of 

work done at APS is proprietary work conducted by foreign industries. Clearly, foreign 

proprietary research is only a tiny fraction ofthe total work conducted. Additionally, for 

proprietary or IP-protected research, the current system offers opportunities for laboratory and 

DOE management to determine whether the proposed research is in the national interest. I 

would argue that based on these levels of usage by U.S. users, particularly for proprietary 

access, further regulations or restrictions seem unwarranted. 

Page 13 of 14 
134 

I would also, respectfully, like to make some personal observations on this topic. I believe that 

competition is healthy for the scientific endeavor. U.S. scientists are better having to engage in 

collegial competition with our international counterparts. In science, communication implies 

cross-fertilization. The communities surrounding U.S. science facilities become richer for seeing 

firsthand what our colleagues from abroad are working on. While it is certainly true that they 

may take scientific inspiration back home, they leave scientific inspiration behind just as often. 

Similarly, as foreign countries build advanced user facilities of their own, attracting top U.S. 

scientific talent to use them, these foreign nations are benefiting from the knowledge these 

researchers bring as part of conducting experiments at these facilities. In these times of budget 

stringencies, user facilities worldwide are attempting to avoid duplication and redundancy in 

services with other facilities. Sharing of resources through exchange of access also enables 

U.S.-based scientists to have use of additional resources not locally available. I truly do believe 

that U.S. companies, U.S. scientists, and U.S. citizens benefit substantially by the current 

system. It is very hard for me to imagine that any change to policy that serves to reduce the 

healthy, beneficial competition that currently exists would actually serve the intended purpose. 

Ultimately, adequate and sustained funding for basic research in the U.S., not only in supporting 

facilities but particularly in supporting individual primary investigator, is the best way of ensuring 

U.S. scientists and companies continue to lead in scientific discovery and innovation worldwide. 

Page 14 of 14 
135 

-------------------------------.~~ ~ .... ,..,..'it; ~~ 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 

The Honorable Congressman Andy Han-is 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

2321 Rayburn House, Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6301 

July IS, 2012 

Persis S. Drell 

Professor and Director 

SLACMS 75 

persis0JSLAC.Stanford.EDU 

RE: DEPARTMENT O~- ENERGY IJSER FACILTIES: UTILIZING THE TOOLS OF SCIENCE 

TO DRIVE INNOV ATJON THROliGH FVNDAMENTAL RESEARCH 

Dcar Chainnan Harris, 

NATIONAL 

ACCELERATOR 

LABORATORY 

I appreciate the 0pPOliunity to participate in the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearing on 

June 21, 2012. Transcript edits follow: 

Line 404: 'actions' should read 'applications' 

Line 405: 'virus' should read 'viruses. 

My response to the questions submitted by the "f\·Tembers ofIlle Committee follows on the next page, 

Sincerely, 

Persis S. Drcll 

Professor and Director 

ec: Rep. Brad l\;liller 

Ranking Nlember 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

SLAC NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY' 2575 SAND HILL ROAD· MENLO PARK - CALIFORNIA' 94025' USA 

Operated by Stanford University for the US Depaitment of Energy 
136 

U.S. HOUSE OR REPRESENTATIVES 

COlvfMITTEE ON SCIENCE. SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SlmCOlvfMlTTEE ON ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Andy Harris 

Department of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science to 

Drive Innovation through Fundamental Research 

Dr. Persis Drell 

1. In general, how do other countries manage intellectual propel1y associated with user facility 

research conducted using goven1ment resources? 

Page 2 

Based upon velylimited data available to SLAC', it does not appear that research facilities around 

the lVorld that are engaged injill1damentai research have a consistent approach to the regulation 

or management of intellectual property created by guest users altheirfacilities. In some 

instances, our scientists have been able to conduct research at some of those facilities without 

executing any agreement regarding intellectual property rights. From this, we conclude that any 

inventions developed by our scientisls at thosefad/ilies would belong to DOE or Stanford 

However, SLAC is engaged primarily infundamental research as opposed 10 applied research and 

arefrequently collaborating with scieniLvts from the host institution. This might not be the case if we were engaged in applied research at those facilities. 

a. Please provide any recommendations regarding potential opportunities to improve DOE's 

current user facility IP structure. 

1 do not have any recommendations or proposed changes or suggested improvements 10 

DOE'sclirrent IF structurefor our userfacilities. Congress Izasfilllded and DOE has 

cOlls/rueted a variety of large research!'lei/ilies that DOE makes available jill' lise by 

others Oil a merit-based priority. As managers of government sponsored user facilities, 

we are minC(/itl afoul' responsibilities to protect the government's interest in intellectual 

proper~y generated using government.fimds alldjacilities. Similar to other DOE 

laboratories, our lIser agreementsfall into one u[two categories: (J) Non-proprietary 

agreements that allow the UserFee use of the facility for an approved experiment, which 

requires users to publish the results ()[the research undertaken at the facility and grants 

the US Government a government use license in any intellectual property generated 

from the research performed at the facility or (2) a ProprietalY User Agreement that 

allows the User to pelf ann their approved experiment on a "full cost recovery" basis, 

delay or limit publishing o/lheir research results, and granls the US. GOl'ernment a rei)' 

limited set of rights into any intellectual properly generated through their experiment. In 

this way we ensure that the benefits of the research pelf armed at no cost to the User 

remain availablefor U S. Government use within the United States, and retain limited 

rights for the government even when/he work is pelformed on ajull cost basis. 

SLAC NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY' 2575 SAND HILL ROAD· MENLO PARK· CALIFORNIA' 94025' USA 

Operated by Stanford University for the US. Department of Energy 
137 

1 also wish to provide some additional background in rC.lponse your hearing question on 

international users at SLAC 

Page 3 

In FYI], 2, OJ] scientists participated in experiments at SLAC 's two major userfacilities, the 

Linac Coherent Light Source and the Stan(ord Synchrotron Radiation Light Source. 75% of them 

represented US institutions (US universities, government labs, industlY) and 25% percent 

represented institutions outside the US. 

At Ihe LCLS alone, 4J percent of users in FYil represel7ted US institutions. This rough(v tracks 

the percentage of research proposals receivedFolII US instillltiollSfbr thaI period. It also r~flects 

the unique status o( the LCLS /l7lile there are many .I}'nchrotronlight sources like our SSRL 

operating throughout the world, until recent(v the LCLS was the only operatingfree-electron Xray laserfacility. and so it has attracted strong, pent-up global demandfrom scientists who have 

been waitingfor this chance to explore questions [hat were entire(v out 0/ reach before. ,~fier the 

US, the largest number of experimental proposals ji)r the FYII run came from Germany, Fi'ance, 

the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, Japan, South Korea and Australia. 

lv{any of these proposalsji'oll1 other countries include US scientists; LCLS proposals on average 

involve 15 collaborating researchers. Having the best scientists in the warld come here to 

collaborate and share their expertise with our researchers has tremendous benefits for the 

American research enterprise. 

The tradition of making IIserfilcilities available to the scientists l1'ith the best research proposals, 

regardless of where they came from. is based On decades o(pragmatic experience: This is simp(y 

the way the best science gets done, and the way the quickest progress is made. Especial(v(or 

research with no immediate economic application, the free exchange of injbrmatiol1 is generally 

viewed as 10 the benefit of evelyone. 

As an example, experiments at the LCLS have been testing a new technique called "self-seeding" 

that greatly improves the power and capabilities ofthefacility's X-ray laser beam. This idea 

originated wilh scientists at the German nationallabaratOfY, DES):; who published their findings 

in the open literalUre. People at otherfi'ee-electron X-ray laser labs around the world are closery 

watching the SIAC experiments and are already planning to incorporate se!f~seeding into their 

own/acilities. Meanwhile, SLAC scientists have been traveling to Japan to pelform experiments al 

Ihe newfree-electronlaserfacility that recently opened there. In today's world, thisf/uid 

movement of people and ideas is essential for the developmel1l of groundbreaking technologies 

andfor progress in evely.field (?/science. 

SLAC NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY· 2575 SAND HILL ROAD· MENLO PARK' CALIFORNIA· 94025· USA 

Operated by Stanford University for the US Department of Energy 
138 

Stephen R. Wasserman 

Questions for the Record 

1) In general, how do other countries manage intellectual property associated 

with user facility research conducted using government resources? 

Dr. Lanzirotti has provided a summary of intellectual property provisions at several 

international synchrotrons: the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (France), 

the Canadian Light Source, the Diamond Light Source (UK), and the SPring-8 

synchrotron facility (Japan). As a user of three of these facilities, we can confirm 

that the agreements between Lilly and the synchrotron incorporate the IP terms Dr. 

Lanzirotti described. 

a) Please provide any recommendations regarding potential opportunities to 

improve DOE's current user facility IP structure. 

As we noted in our original written testimony, Lilly covers all costs associated with 

its experiments at the Advanced Photon Source, including, through our support of 

the general user program, the original investment in constructing the APS. We 

believe that in cases where there is no financial support from the government for 

experiments at user facilities, ownership of intellectual property should 

automatically rest with the user. This simple framework is employed at the 

international synchrotrons with which our company has relationships. The current 

master user agreements from DOE laboratories have ambiguities in this area. 

The uncertainties in ownership and rights to IP can be a disincentive for proprietary 

and possibly non-proprietary, users to interact with the National User Facilities. 

Indeed Lilly has designed its operations at the APS to avoid potential IP issues. 

Users would benefit from clarity in the terms on intellectual property within the 

user agreements. To our knowledge the DOE has never asserted its potential IP 

rights to inventions by users at National User Facilities. Consequently there appears 

to be little if any downside to creating an IP environment that is more welcoming to 

proprietary users. 

We recognize the importance of demonstrating the effectiveness of DOE's support 

for the national user facilities. However, it is required that an invention covered by 

the user agreements be reported to DOE Patent Counsel within 6 months of 

conception or reduction to practice. This timeline is much too short for industry 

and could result in premature public disclosure. We suggest instead that inventions 

be reported immediately after publication of the relevant patent application. 

2) Your testimony notes the opportunity to improve user agreements for DOE's 

National Scientific User Facilities. Further, you mention Eli Lilly is working 

with Argonne National Laboratory to update the agreements for the use of the 
139 

Advanced Photon Source beamline. Please further elaborate on how user 

agreements could be improved. 

In recent years the Department of Energy has revised its user agreements. The new 

agreements have a distinct advantage over the previous versions. They now cover 

mUltiple user facilities within a single national laboratory, rather than each facility 

individually. A global agreement that covers all DOE user facilities remains a goal 

for the future. 

The new agreements, an example of which is attached, focus on users who perform 

experiments on facility-owned and -operated beamlines. The management of the 

Advanced Photon Source agrees that these agreements can use improvement, 

especially for beamlines that are operated independently of the User Facility. Areas 

for development include indemnification for damage caused by general users to 

beam line equipment owned by non-DOE organizations, termination provisions, and, 

as discussed above, intellectual property. We are confident that DOE and its 

contractor laboratories, working with users such as ourselves, will be able to 

address these concerns to the benefit of both sides. 

3) It is longstanding policy for most research conducted at scientific user 

facilities to be transparent and published in the open literature. However, it 

seems concerning that the United States' top international competitors not 

only get access to and benefit from the research conducted at U.S. user 

facilities, they can even compete to use these machines themselves. Is there 

any way we can change poliCies to better benefit U.S. companies and citizens 

without disrupting longstanding practices of open scientific inquiry? 

The significant number of international users at National User Facilities is often a 

reflection of the high quality educational opportunities available in the United States. 

At the Advanced Photon Source, the great majority of international users are 

affiliated with academic institutions in America. 

Because of the international reciprocity of science, Lilly is able to use X-ray 

synchrotrons in other countries. In this way we continue to obtain data of a quality 

similar to that from the APS when the light source has scheduled shutdowns for 

maintenance. 

A goal of the DOE Office of Science is to leverage the capabilities of the National User 

Facilities to the greatest benefit for U.S. researchers, corporate and academic. 

Possibly the best way to do so is to match the needs of scientists and technologists 

with what the facilities offer. This approach requires the ongoing effort at many 

facilities to educate new users. Novice users can benefit from the great expertise of 

scientists employed by the facility. To encourage scientific discourse between 

facility and user, a new legal infrastructure that supports and enhances this type of 

interaction may be required. 
140 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, ANn TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Andy Harris 

Department of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science to 

Drive Innovation through Fundamental Research 

Ms. Suzy Tichenor 

How does Oak Ridge National Laboratory determine how much of its supercomputing 

capacity is available for industrial use? How is tile remainder oCtile facility's computing 

capacity primarily allocated? 

In accordance with the Computational facilities Allocation Policy 1 established by the Office of 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) in the Office of Science of the U.S. 

Department of Encrgy (DOE), time on the Jaguar high-performance computing system at the 

Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) is allocated through three programs. Industry 

is eligible to apply for time through any of these programs: 

1. 60% of the system is allocated through the flagship Innovative and Novel Computational 

Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program.2 The mission of the INCITE program 

is to enable high-impact, grand-challenge research that could not otherwise be performed 

without access to the DOE's leadership-class systems. This program is open to all researchers 

across academia, industry, and govemment from around the world. Allocations are made 

through an annual peer review proposal process. For program year 2012. INCITE made 

awards totaling 940 million cpu hours on Jaguar with allocations generally ranging from 

20 million to 100 million cpu hOllrs. GE Global Research, Pratt & Whitney, Boeing, General 

Atomics, Shell, and Procter & Gamble (some in paJinership with universities) have all 

received INCITE awards, proving that industry can win allocations based on merit and 

impact in this highly competitive program. INCITE has a "computational readiness" 

requirement to ensure that projects arc, in fact, able to usc a leadership-caliber supercomputer 

such as Jaguar. That requirement stipulates that projects typically mllst be able to usc 20% of 

the system in their production runs. 

2. 30% oftl;c system is allocated through the ASCR Leadership Computing Challenge 

(ALCC):' The mission of the ALCC is to award time for special situations of interest to the 

DOE with an emphasis on high-risk, high-payoff simulations in arcas directly related to the 

agency's energy mission, such as discovering and understanding new materials and chemical 

processes. advancing the clean energy agenda, and understanding the Earth's climate; for 

1 http://science.energv. gOY /-/media! "ser/pdf/incite! docs/ Allocation~process.p.qf 

2 http://science.energv.gov/ascrifacilities/incite/ 

3 Ntp:!lscience.encrgv.gov!ascrifacilities/glccl 

Page 1 of4 
141 

national emergencics; j{Jr exploratioll of Ilew frontiers in physical and biological sciences; or 

for broadening the community ofresearchcrs capable of using leadership computing 

resources. This program is open to all researchers across academia, industl·Y. and govemmcnl 

from around the world. ALCC allocations arc made through an annual peer review proposal 

process. [<'or program year 2012. United Technologies Research Center, GE Global Research, 

semiconductor manufacturer Global [<'oulldries, and Ramgen Power Systems, a small 

engineering fiml in Seattle that is developing novel technology for carbon sequestration, 

received allocations of time on Jaguar ranging [rom 7 million to 40 million cpu hours. 

Ramgen PO\ver Systems received the largest oflhesc awards (40 million cpu hours). 

demonstrating that big problems arc not the sole purview of big companies. Small 

companies. the backbone oflhe economy. also have complex. cutting-edge problems that can 

benefit tt'om access to leadership class high performance computing systems like Jaguar. 

3. The remaining 10% of the Jaguar system is allocated locally at the discretion of the OLCF 

Director. The principal goals of this Director's Discretion (DD) program are threefold: 

development of strategic partnerships; preparation for leadership computing (i.e., providing 

users the opportunity to configure their application codes for leadership-class capabilities); 

and application performance benchmarking, analysis, modeling, scaling and workflow 

studies, data analytics, and system software and tool development. Applications are accepted 

year-round and an internal Resource Utilization Council makes the final decision, using 

written input from subject matter experts. Grants are typically in the range of I million cpu 

hours but can be as large as 5 million cpu hours. 

OLCF also uses the DD allocations to grant time to industry, although there is not a specific 

set-aside for this purpose. This has been a terrific way for companies to "get their feet wet" 

with leadership computing environments. They are able to rnn much larger problems than 

they can run on their internal systems, work on scaling their software, and/or test government 

or university codes that already scale. And after several years of making DD grants to 

industry, we are seeing companies gain the experience needed to successfully compete for 

larger allocations through the ALCC program, and even the flagship INCITE program. 

Companies that have received DD allocations range from small to some of the largest in the 

nation. SmartTruck Systems, a small South Carolina engineering finn, used Jaguar to 

understand the airflow around long haul (18-wheel) trucks in order to design add-on parts 

that rcdirect that flow and thereby increase fuel efficiency. Access to Jaguar helped 

SmartTruck reduce the time from concept to a manufacture-ready design by 50%. At the 

other end of the spectrum, GM (#5 on the Fortune 5(0) and Ford (#9 on the Fortune 5(0) 

have also had DD projects on Jaguar. 

Please provide some additional examples of unsolved industrial problems that 

supercomputers could help answer. Would it be beneficial to increase the amount of time 

available at Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility for industrial users? 

Use ofmodefing and simulation with high-performance computing can have a dramatic impact 

across every industrial sector. For example, at present the auto and aerospace industries cannot 

do full-scale simulations of automobiles or aircraft; they can only simulate parts of these 

complex systems. Modeling and simulation can be applied across the manufacturing sector to 

Page 2 of 4 
142 

replace or dramatically reduce the need to create physical prototypes. It can expedite the 

development of new and much-needed classes of catalysts, drugs, and lightweight materials for 

cars to increase fuel efficiency. Predictive simulation capability could also substantially improve 

the performance of internal combustion engines4 and accelerate the development of advanced 

nuclear technologies.' 

Although computing resources often fall short of demand across the OLCF application portfolio 

(the INCITE program generally receives three times as many requests [or cpu hours as can be 

accommodated), a more critical issue for industrial projects is their need for support. Industrial 

users typically have less experience in using leadership systems than other users, as discussed 

below. Simply increasing the amount of time available at OLCF to industrial users might be 

beneficial for fin11S that have the in-house resources (talent and software) needed to make 

etfective use of this time, but it WOLl Id not address the need for the additional support that would 

be required to ensure productive use of leadership-class systems by less experienced users. 

OLCF is staffed to support principally the flagship INCITE program, and INCITE awardecs are 

among the most experienced high-performance computing users in the world. Industrial users 

who access OLCF via the ALCC and DD pathways have equally complex problems to solve, but 

they generally do not have the same level of experience in using large-scale systems as INCITE 

users, and their software generally does not scale well. They often need mllch more assistance to 

have a successful experience. 

How does the Leadership Computiug Facility make its resources available to small aud 

mid-size industrial users? What are the biggest obstacles for those firms to achieve 

additional benefits derived from the use ofsnpercomputing? 

OLCF makes its resources available to small and mid-size industrial users through the three 

programs outlined above: INCITE, ALCC, and the DD allocations. The availability of these 

resources is communicated to potential users through general announcements from ASCR and, 

for OLCF, through the outreach efforts of the Industrial Partnerships Program. 

The biggest obstacles to effective use of supercomputing by small and mid-size industrial firms 

are lack of experience in using large-scale systems and lack of software that scales to the highly 

parallel architectures of these systems. 

Many companies (particularly small to mid-size firms) are prevented from advancing in their 

application of modeling and simulation with high-performance computing by a lack of adequate 

in-house expertise. Even companies that are committed to using high-performance computing 

may not be able to maintain the in-house expertise, or enough of it, to apply the technology to 

their problems. And while almost no company can afford a system of the caliber of Jaguar, smail 

and mid-size fim1s in particular often cannot afford to upgrade their small in-house systems to 

more powerful systems that could expand their use of modeling and simulation. 

4 http://science.energy ,gov/besine\vs-and-resources!reports!abstracts!#Presice. 

5 htlp:/iscience.energy.gov/bes/news-and-resources/reportslabstracts/#ACMS. 

Page 3 of 4 
143 

Other challenges impede broader industrial access to our systems. For example, most firms do 

not have extensive in-house software development capabilities, relying instead on commercially 

available software. Commercial software is generally not written to execute on highly parallel 

architectures, frequently scaling from only a few cores (processors) to a few hundred cores. In 

contrast, application software running on leadership computing systems often scales from several 

thousand to a hundred thousand or more cores. Until commercial software firms make the 

investments to scale their software, it will be difficult for many companies to take advantage of 

OLCF resources. And even when commercial codes do scale to several thousand cores, some 

firms using these codes are not taking advantage of this capability. Those finns must make the 

intemal investment to scale up to at least the limits of their commercial software. 

The OLCF plays a role in overcoming these obstacles by providing industrial users with access 

to high-performance computing tools (systems and government/university software that scales), 

talent (OLCF expertise), and training. Through these activities, the OLCF is increasing the 

impact of high-performance computing across the industrial sector. As we arc successful in 

outreach and training to industry, industry should be better positioned to submit more wellqualified industrial proposals, resulting in increased allocations to industry and an increased 

return on the federal government's investment in the OLeF through more impactful science. 

Pagc40f4 
144 

u.s. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMt'VIiTTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Andy Harris 

Department of Energy User Facilities: Utilizing the Tools of Science to 

Drive Innovation through Fundamental Research 

Dr. Ernest Hall 

1. It is longstanding policy for most research conducted at scientific user facilities to be 

transparent and published in the open literature. However, it seems conceming that the 

United States' top international competitors not only get access to and benefit from the 

research conducted at U.S. user facilities, they can even compete to use these machines 

themselves. Is there any way we can change policies to better benefit U.S. companies 

and citizens without disrupting longstanding practices of open scientific inquiry? 

Response from Dr. Ernest Hall, GE Global Research: 

I would like to address several aspects of this important question. 

First, it is our impression that the use of the DOE Scientific User Facilities is at present dominated by 

university, government lab, and industrial users with US affiliations. We do not have concerns about 

either access or information security based on usage by non-US scientists. 

At the same time, as a global company we benefit from access to similar user facilities, particularly 

synchrotron and neutron facilities, in other parts of the world including Canada, Europe, and Asia. We 

have used these facilities in the past for some very specialized experiments or to support our research 

efforts in other global locations, although the great majority of our research of this type occurs in the 

US. We support the open access of the world's scientific community to the world's best research 

facilities. However, it may be desirable to consider some priority or focus on specific US strategic goals 

and institutions (for example, small businesses). For example, the European Synchrotron Research 

Facility gives preference to proposals from contracting, or funding, countries, while maintaining some 

openness to all researchers (http://www.esrf.eu/UsersAndScience/UserGuide/Applying/NonContractingCountries). 

Finally, we generally feel that the DOE policies of open access through the proposal system, plus the 

possibility of protecting intellectual property by doing proprietary research at a cost, is a good system. 
145 

We have argued in the past for adding national priorities, societal impact, and technological importance 

to the proposal evaluation process, in addition to the present criterion of scientific merit, and have seen 

some responsiveness from DOE on this topic. These criteria should also be used in the consideration of 

the construction of new facilities and the operation of existing facilities. Since the cost of doing research 

needs to be passed along to customers of US industries in the form of product prices, it is also important 

that all research at user facilities, including proprietary research, be available at the lowest cost possible. 

In the final analysis, as I mentioned in my oral testimony, the DOE Scientific User Facilities are powerful 

tools that enable the advancement of science and the development of technological solutions to the 

world's most important issues. It is critically important that US scientists have access to the world's best 

tools, both for cutting-edge science and the less-glamorous robust technology development. In the end, 

this is best achieved by openness and participation by all of the world's leading scientists, while ensuring 

appropriate safeguards are in place to protect intellectual property in specific cases. 

(147) 

Appendix 2 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
148 

PROPRIETARY USER AGREEMENT, UCHICAGO ARGONNE, LLC, OPERATOR OF ARGONNE

NATIONAL LABORATORY
149 

fundamental science at NIF, and I believe this was most recently reiterated ina letter from Don 

Cook to Bill Brinkman prior to the May 20 II workshop. It has also been nearly two years since 

approval of the initial set ofNIF fundamental science experiments. 

With these DOE commitments, the demonstrated outstanding capabilities demonstrated by the 

facility, and the momentum from the 2011 workshop and the NIF User Group meeting, it is now 

time to move forward with a strong program ofNIF fundamental science experiments in FY2013. 

I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you further, and will be in 

touch to set up a time. I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to realize the 

scientific opportunities provided by this unique, world-class facility. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Professor Justin Wark 

University of Oxford 

Chair of the NIF User Group 

Cc: 

D. Cook (NNSA) 

J. Quintenz (NNSA) 

K. Levedahl (NNSA) 

E. Moses (LLNL) 

C. Keane (LLNL) 
150 

Tlte Department of Energy has opted to utilize the following agreement lor Designated Proprietary User 

Facilities transactions. Because these transactions are widespread across Departmental facilities, uniformity in 

agreement terms is desirable. Exceptfor the *** provisions, millor modifications to the terms of this agreement 

may be made by CONTRACTOR, but any changes to tlte *** provisions or substantive changes to the nOll *** 

provisons will require approval by the DOE Contractillg Officer, WHICH WILL LIKEY DELAY YOUR ACCESS 

TO TilE USER FACILITY. /n instances where DOE Contracting Officer approval for substantive changes 

cannot be obtained, Work for Others (WFOs~ and Cooperative Research and Development Agreeme11ls 

(CRADAs) may be more appropriate due to tlte increased flexibility suclt agreements afford. Where this 

agreement is to be used as all umbrella agreement for multiple transactions it may be modified to reflect sitch 

usage. 

Proprietary User Agreement 

BETWEEN 

UChicago Argonne, LLC 

("CONTRACTOR") 

Operator of Argonne National Laboratory (hereinafter "Laboratory") under U.S. Department of 

Energy ("DOE") Contract No.DE-AC02-06CHl1357 

AND 

(CONTRACTOR and USER are collectively, "the Parties") 

The obligations of the Contractor may be transferred and shall apply to any successor in interest 

to said Contractor continuing the operation of the DOE facility involved in this Proprietary User 

Agreement. *** 

ARTICLE I. FACILITIES AND SCOPE OF WORK 

Employee(s), consultant(s), and representativc(s) of USER (hereinafter called "Participant(s)") 

shall be pemlitted to use certain Laboratory Proprietary User Facilities [or the purpose of 

pertom1ing the cxperimcnt(s) accepted and approved for performance at the designated 

Proprietary User Facility. This Proprietmy Uscr Agreement shall be incorporated by reference 

and apply to all such experiments accepted and conducted at the designated Proprietary User 

Facilities which are totally funded by USER. 

Upon request by USER and at the CONTRACTOR's discretion, limited non-collaborative 

support services may be provided to the USER by CONTRACTOR employees. 

CONTRACTOR will retain its employees assigned to this work on its payroll and will be 

reimbursed by USER for the account of DOE in accordance with DOE's pricing policy, which 

provides for full cost recovery. 

PU-(Z-ZS-09) 
151 

ARTICLE II. TERM OI<' THE AGREEMENT 

This Agreement shall have a tenn of five (5) years from the effective date. The tem1 of this 

Agreement shall be effective as of the latter date of (1) the date on which it is signed by the last 

of the Parties, or (2) the receipt of any advance payment required under Article III. Unless 

tem1inated in accordance with the terms herein, this Agreement shall automatically renew on a 

year-to-year basis after the initial five year tenn. 

ARTICLE III. BILLING AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES 

A. USER will coordinate with CONTRACTOR to prepare a cost estimate for USER's 

experiment at the User Facility, including potential limited non-collaborative support 

services from CONTRACTOR as requested by USER. All costs will be in accordance with 

DOE Order 0 522.1, "Pricing of Departmental Materials and Services." 

B. Full cost recovery rates arc established at the beginning of each fiscal year and are subject to 

revision to reflect changing costs factors during the fiscal year. No work can begin until this 

advance payment is received by CONTRACTOR. 

C. USER mnst set up and pre-fund the advance payment for the User Account as set forth in the 

CONTRACTOR Policy and Procedure for User Accounts before beginning an accepted and 

approved experiment. CONTRACTOR will invoice USER at the Billing Address provided 

by the USER, and USER will pay each such invoice in accordance with the instructions set 

forth in the CONTRACTOR Policy and Procedure for USER Accounts. 

D. USER represents that the funding it brings to this Agreement does not include federal funds. 

ARTICLE IV. ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS 

USERs and Participants are subject to the administrative and technical supervision and control of 

CONTRACTOR; and will comply with all applicable rules of CONTRACTOR and DOE with 

regard to admission to and use of the Uscr Facility, including safety, operating and healthphysics procedures, environment protection, access to infonnation, cybcr-security, honrs of 

work, and conduct. Participants shall execute any and <Ill documents required by 

CONTRA.CTOR acknowledging and agreeing to comply with such applicable rules of 

CONTRACTOR and the terms of this Agreement. Participants will not be considcred employees 

of CONTRACTOR for any purpose. 

ARTICLE V. PROPERTY AND MATERlALS** 

USER may be pennitted by the CONTRACTOR to fnmish equipment, tooling, test apparatus, or 

materials necessary to assist in the performance of its experiment(s) at the User Facility. Such 

items shall remain the property of USER. Unless the Parties otherwise agree, all such property 

furnished by USER or equipment and test apparatus provided by USER will be removed by 

USER within sixty (60) days of termination or expiration of this Agreement or will be disposed 

PU-(2-25-09) 2 
152 

of as directed by USER at USER's expense. Any equipment that becomes integrated into the 

Uscr Facility shall be the propeliy of the Govemment. USER acknowledges that any material 

supplied by USER may be damaged, consumed or lost. Materials (including residues and/or 

other contaminated material) remaining after performance of the work or analysis will be 

removed in their then condition by USER at USER's expense. USER will return Uscr Facilities 

and equipment utilized in their original condition cxcept for nornlal wear and tear. 

CONTRACTOR shall have no responsibility for USER's property at the Uscr Facility other than 

loss or damage caused by willful misconduct or gross negligence of CONTRACTOR or its 

employees. 

Personal property produced or acquired during the course ofthis Agreement shall be disposed of 

as directed by the owner at the owner's expense. 

ARTICLE VI. SCHEDULING*** 

USER understands that CONTRACTOR will have sole responsibility and discretion for 

allocating and scheduling usage of the Uscr Facilities and equipment needed for or involved 

under this Agreement. 

ARTICLE VII. INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY*** 

A. Personnel Relationships - USER shall be responsible for the acts or omissions of 

Participants. 

B. Prodnct Liability - To the extent permitted by US and US State law, if USER utilizes the 

work derived from this Agreement in the making, using, or selling of a product, process 

or service, then USER hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CONTRACTOR 

and the United States Government, their officers, agents and employees from any and all 

liability, claims, damages, costs and expcnses, including attorney fecs, for injury to or 

death of persons, or damage to or destmction of propClty, as a result of or arising out of 

such utilization of the work by or on behalf of USER, its assignees or licensees. 

C. General Indemnity - To the extent permitted by US and US State law, USER hereby 

agrees to indemnify and hold hannless CONTRACTOR and the United States 

Govenunent, their officers, agents and employees from any and all liability, claims, 

damages, costs and expenses, including attorney fees, for injury to or death of persons, or 

damage to or destmction of property, to the extent such liability, claims, or damages is 

caused or contributed to by the negligence or intentional misconduct of USER or its 

employees or representatives during the performance of the work under this Agreement. 

D. Patent and Copyright Indemnity-Limited - To the extent permitted by US and US 

State law, USER shall fully indemnify the Govcrnment and CONTRACTOR and their 

officers, agents, and employees for infi'ingcmcnt of any United States patent or copyright 

arising out of any acts required or directed or performed by USER undcr the Agreement 

to the extent such acts are not normally performed at the facility. 

E. The liability and indemnity provisions in paragraphs B, C and D above shall not apply 

unless USER shall have been infol1ned as soon as practicable by CONTRACTOR or the 

Government of the suit or action alleging such liability or infringement, and such 

indemnity shall not apply to a claimed liability or infringement that is settled without the 

PU-{Z-ZS-09) 3 
153 

consent of USER unless required by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

F. General DisclaimerTHE GOVERNMENT AND CONTRACTOR MAKE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED 

WARRANTY AS TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE USER FACILITY FURNISHED 

HEREUNDER. IN ADDITION. THE GOVERNMENT, CONTRACTOR AND USER 

MAKE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY AS TO THE RESEARCH OR ANY 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, GENERATED INFORl'\1ATION, OR PRODUCT 

MADE OR DEVELOPED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, OR THE OWNERSHIP, 

MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF THE 

RESEARCH OR RESULTING PRODUCT; THAT THE GOODS, SERVICES, 

MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, PROCESSES, INFORMATION, OR DATA TO BE 

FURNISHED HEREUNDER W1LL ACCOMPLISH INTENDED RESULTS OR ARE 

SAFE FOR ANY PURPOSE INCLUDING THE INTENDED PURPOSE; OR THAT 

ANY OF THE ABOVE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED 

RIGHTS OF OTHERS. TIlE GOVERNMENT, CONTRACTOR AND/OR USER 

SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INCIDENTAL 

DAMAGES ATTRIBUTED TO USE OF SUCH FACILITIES, RESEARCH OR 

RESULTING PRODUCT, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, GENERATED 

INFORl\1A TION, OR PRODUCT MADE OR DELIVERED UNDER THIS 

AGREEMENT. 

G. Notice and Assistance Regarding Patent and Copyright Infringement 

a. USER shall report to the Govcmmen!, promptly and in reasonable written detail, 

each notice or claim of paten! or copyright infringement based on thc performance 

of this Agreement of which USER has knowledge. 

b. In the event of any claim or suit against the Govemmcnt on account of any 

alleged patent or copyright infringement arising out of the performance of this 

Agreement or out of the use of any supplies fumished or work or services 

perfomlcd hereunder, USER shall fumish to the Govemment when requested by 

the Govcmmcnt, all evidence and infonnation in possession of USER pertaining 

to such suit or claim. Such evidence and information shall be fUI1lished at the 

expense of the Govemment except where USER has agreed to indemnify the 

Government. 

ARTICLE VIII. PATENT RIGHTS*;'* 

A. Definitions 

1. "Subject Invention" llleans any invention or discovery of USER conceived or first 

actually reduced to practice in the course of or under this Agreement. 

2. "Patent Counsel" means the DOE Patent Counsel assisting the Facility Operator. 

B. Rights of USER - Election to Retain Rights 

With respect to any Subject Invention reported and elected in accordance with paragraph 

(C) of this clause, USER lllay clect to obtain the entire right, title and interest in any 

patent application filed in any country on a Subject Invention and in any resulting patent 

PU-(Z-ZS-09) 4 
154 

secured by USER. Where appropriate, the filing ofpalent application by USER is snbject 

to DOE security regulations and requirements. 

C. Invention Identification, Disclosures, and Reports 

USER shall furnish the Patent Counsel a written report concerning cach USER Snbject 

Invention within six months after conception or first actual reduction to practice, 

whichever occurs first. If USER wishes to elect title to the Subject Invention, a noticc of 

election should be submitted with the report or within one year of such date of reporting 

of the Subject Invention. 

D. Facilities License 

USER agrees to and docs hereby grant to the Government an irrevocable, nonexc1nsive 

paid-up license in and to any inventions or discoveries, regardless of when conceived or 

actnally reduced to practice or acquired by USER, which at any time through completion 

of this Agreement are owned or controlled by USER and are incorporated in the User 

Facility as a result of this Agreement to such an extent that the User Facility is not 

restored to the condition existing prior to the Agreement (1) to practice or to have 

practiced by or for the Government at the user Facility, and (2) to transfer such licenses 

with the transfer of that User Facility. The acceptance or exercise by the Govenm1cnt of 

the aforesaid rights and license shall not prevent the Govenunent at any time from 

contesting the enfofceability, validity Of scope of, or title to, any rights Of patents herein 

licensed 

ARTICLE IX. RIGHTS IN TECHNICAL DATA*** 

A. Definitions 

1. "Technical Data" means recorded infonnation, regardless of form or 

characteristic, of a scientific or technical nature. Technical data as used herein 

docs not include financial reports, cost analyses, and other information incidental 

to Agreement administration. 

2. "Proprietary Data" means technical data which embody trade secrets, developed at 

private expense, such as design procedures or techniques, chemical composition 

of materials, or manufacturing methods, processes Of treatments, including minor 

modifications thereof, provided that such data: 

a. are not generally known or available from other sources without obligation 

concerning their confidentiality, 

b. have not been made available by the owner to others without obligation 

concerning their confidentiality, 

c. are not already available to the Government without obligation concerning 

their confidentiality, and 

d. are marked as "Proprietary Data." 

3. "Unlimited Rights" means rights to use, duplicate or disclose technical data, in 

whole or in part, in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever, and to permit 

others to do so. 

PU·(2-2S·09) 5 
155 

B. USER agrees to furnish to DOE or CONTRi\CTOR those data, if any, which are (I) 

essential to the perfonnance of work by DOE or CONTRACTOR personnel or (2) 

necessary for the health and safety of such personnel in the perforn1ancc of the work. 

Any data furnished to DOE or CONTRACTOR shall be deemed to have been delivered 

with unlimited rights unless marked as "Proprietary Data" of USER. 

C. USER agrees that it shall have the sole responsibility for identifying and marking all 

documents containing Proprietary Data which are furnished by USER or produced under 

this Agreement. USER further agrees to mark each such document by or before 

tcnnination of the Agrccment by placing on thc cover page thereof a legend identifying 

the document as Proprietary Data of USER and idcntifying each page and portion thereof 

to which the marking applies. The Government and CONTRACTOR shall not disclose 

properly marked Proprietary Data of USER outside the Government and 

CONTRACTOR. The Government and CONTRACTOR reserve the right to challenge 

the proprietary nature of any markings on data. 

D. USER is solely responsible for the rcmoval of all of its Proprietary Data from the facility 

by or bcfore tennination of this Agreement. The Government shall have unlimited rights 

in any Technical Data (including Proprietary Data) which are not removed from the 

facility by or before tennination ofthc Agreement. The Government shall have unlimited 

rights in any Technical Data (including Proprietary Data) which are incorporated into the 

Uscr Facility under the Agreement to such extent that the User Facility or equipment is 

not restored to the condition existing prior to snch incorporation. 

E. Upon completion or tcnnination of the project, USER agrees to deliver to DOE and 

CONTRACTOR a nOll-proprietary report describing the work performed under the 

Agreement. 

ARTICLE X. LABORATORY SITE ACCESS, SAFETY AND HEALTH *** 

As a precondition to using CONTRACTOR User Facilities, Participants must complete all 

CONTRACTOR Site Access documents and rcquirements. USER and Participants shall take all 

reasonable precautions in activities carried out under this Agreement to protect (he safety and 

health of others and to protect thc cnvironmcnt. Participants must comply with all applicable 

safety, health, access to infonnation, security and environmcntal regulations and the 

requirements of the Department and CONTRACTOR, including the specific requirements of the 

Proprietary User Facility covered by this Agreemcnt. In the cvent that USER or Participant fails 

to comply with said regulations and requirements, CONTRACTOR may, without prejudice to 

any other legal or contractual rights, issue an order stopping all or any part of USER's or 

Participant's activities at the Designated Proprietary User Facility. 

ARTICLE XI. PERSONNEL REJ"ATIONSHTPS *** 

Participants will remain employees or representatives of USER at all times during their 

participation in the work under this Agreement, and shall not be considered employees of 

CONTRACTOR or DOE for any purpose. Participants shall be subject to the administrative and 

PU-{Z-ZS-09) 6 
156 

technical supervision and control of CONTRACTOR during and in connection with the 

Participants' activities under this Agreement. 

ARTICLE XII. EXPORT CONTROLS*** 

USER acknowledges that the export of goods or Technical Data may require some form of 

export control license from the U.S. Government and that failure to obtain such export control 

license may result in criminal liability under the laws of the United States. 

ARTICLE XIII. THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTS 

Contracts between USER and third parties for work on CONTRACTOR premises including, but 

not limited to, construction, installation, maintenance, and repair, will be subject to prior 

approval by the Department and CONTRACTOR. The Department and CONTRACTOR may 

require the insertion of specific terms and conditions into such contracts. 

ARTICLE XIV. DISPUTES *** 

The parties will attempt to jointly resolve all disputes arising under this agreement. If the parties 

are unable to jointly resolve a dispute within a reasonable period of time, either party may 

contact the laboratory's Technology Transfer Ombudsman (TTO) to provide assistance. The 

TTO may work directly to resolve the dispute or, upon mutual agreement of the parties, contact a 

third party neutral mediator to assist the parties in coming to a resolution. The costs of the 

mediator's services will be shared equally by the parties. In the event that an agreement is not 

reached with the aid of the ombudsman or mediator, the parties may agree to have the dispute 

addressed by neutral cvaluation. The decision rendered by the neutral evaluator shall be 

nonbinding on the parties, and any costs incurred there from shall be divided equally betwecn the 

parties. Upon mutual agreement, the parties may request a final decision by the DOE 

Contracting Officer. Absent resolution, either party may seek relief in a court of competent 

jurisdiction. 

ARTICLE XV. CONFLICT OF TERi\1S*** 

In the event of any conflict between the ternlS of this document and any other document issued 

by either Party, the temlS of this document shall prevail. 

PU-(2-2S-09) 7 
157 

Æ 

ARTICLE XVI. TERMINATION**" 

Either Party may tcnninatc this Agreement for any reason at any time by giving not less than 

thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other Party, provided that CONTRACTOR shall 

recover payment for tbe costs incurred by CONTRACTOR on behalf of USER prior to 

termination and [or termination costs. 

In witness whereof, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement: 

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES: 

By signing this Agreement, the signatories attest that they are legally authorized to commit their 

respective institutions to this Agreement. 

FOR THE CONTRACTOR: UChicago, Argonne LLC 

BY: G. Briau Stepheuson 

(Name of Authorized Officer, typed) 

SIGNATURE 

TITLE: Interim Associate Laboratory Director for Photon Sciences 

DATE: 

FOR THE USER: 

BY: 

(Name of Authorized Officer, typed) 

SIGNATURE 

TITLE: 

DATE: 

ADDRESS: 

TELEPHONE: 

PU-{2-25-09} 8