VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY (VCAT or Committee)

MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 7, 2018 MEETING

GAITHERSBURG, MD 

ATTENDANCE:

Visiting Committee 

Members Attending

Adler, Allen 

Brooks, Rodney

Colwell, Rita 

Garvey, Michael (Mike)*

Holt, William (Bill)*

Ishak, Waguih 

Prafullchandra, Hemma

Sizer, Theodore (Tod)

Designated Federal Officer 

Shaw, Stephanie 

NIST Leadership Board 

Boehm, Jason 

Brockett, Del

Copan, Walter

Dimeo, Rob

Dowell, Marla

Fangmeyer, Bob

Harary, Howard

Jenkins, George

Kayser, Rich 

Kimball, Kevin 

Lin, Eric

Molnar, Mike

Olthoff, Jim

Rochford, Kent 

Romine, Chuck

Royster, Cecilia 

Schiller, Susannah

Singerman, Phillip

Thomas, Carroll 

Vaughn, Robert (Skip)

Wixon, Henry 

NIST Staff 

Acierto, Linda

Avila, Regina

Bedner, Mary

Butters, Rolf

Carnahan, Lisa

Cranmer, David

Currens, Chris

Dodson, Donna

Evans, Heather

Gayle, Frank

Green, Ashley

Guo, Yuebin

Hardy, Robert

Hooker, Stephanie

Ivy, Nahla

Jahanmir, Said

Kauffman, Leah

Makar, Susan

McBride, Tim

Miner, Laurel

Morrow, Jayne

Na, Charles

Nadal, Maria

Ouimette, Mylene

Patterson, Isaac

Porter, Gail 

Przybocki, Mark

Reidy, Kari

Reiff, Joy

Robinson, Crissy*

Satterfield, Mary

Schufreider, Jim

Seiler, David

Shyam-Sunder, Sivaraj

Silverthorn, Courtney

St. Pierre, Jim

Stieren, David

Teske, Michael

Thorne, Roger

Williams, Carl

Wilkinson, Richard

Witherell, Paul

Zangmeister, Rebecca

Zielinski, Paul

Others

Ambrose, Mitchell – American 

 Institute of Physics

Auvil, Stephen – Tedco

Blaustein, Rochelle –

 Department of Energy

Cohen, Gail - Science, 

 Technology, & Economic 

 Policy, National Academies 

 of Sciences, Engineering & 

 Medicine

Duncan, James – Verizon

Eggers, Matthew – US 

 Chamber of Commerce

Milliken, Lindsey - Lewis-

 Burke Associates LLC

Schreiber, Bret – Maryland 

 Department of Commerce

Shivakumar, Sujai – Science, 

 Technology, & Economic 

 Policy, National Academies 

 of Sciences, Engineering & 

 Medicine

Varma, Gayatri - MedImmune

*Participated Remotely
2

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Call to Order - Dr. Rita Colwell, VCAT Chair

Dr. Colwell called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and reviewed meeting logistics. Dr. Colwell mentioned this 

was Bill Holt’s last meeting and thanked him for his contributions to NIST. Dr. Colwell turned the meeting over 

to Dr. Copan.

SESSION I: NIST UPDATE

NIST Update – Dr. Walter Copan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and 

Technology and NIST Director

Dr. Copan also expressed his appreciation to Bill Holt for his contributions to NIST over the past six years. He 

then provided an update on NIST’s safety and security culture, personnel changes, program highlights, and a 

discussion of NIST’s strategic priorities. Beginning with security, Dr. Copan stated that a review of NIST’s 

security program was initiated after several penetrations to its perimeter and buildings by undercover 

personnel. Through training, all-hands meetings, and support and encouragement from the leadership team, 

progress has and continues to be made to instill a positive culture of security and safety at both NIST 

campuses. 

Dr. Copan then provided a brief update on personnel changes. These included himself officially becoming the 

NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Dr. Eric Lin as the 

Director of the Material Measurement Laboratory. Dr. Copan then mentioned that the federal budget process is 

ongoing and an announcement of the FY 2019 President’s budget request is scheduled for February 12, 2018. 

Dr. Copan then provided some program highlights in key priority areas for NIST. In the area of quantum 

science, tremendous advances have been made by the Joint Quantum Institute with the University of Maryland 

in creating a 53-atom quantum simulator, which are specialized quantum computers that can model complex 

quantum systems. Next, he described an article by Forbes and the New York Times about the NIST artificial 

neuron, which is part of the artificial brain program based on the Josephson Junction Technologies. In internet 

of things (IoT), he Global Cities Challenge - a collaboration between NIST and the Home Security Science and 

Technology Directorate - enables local governments, nonprofit organizations, academia, technologists, and 

corporations from around the world to form teams to work on IoT applications in cities.

In disaster resilience, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (MEP) awarded $5 million 

through local MEP centers to assist small and medium sized manufacturers in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, 

Florida, and Puerto Rico to recover from the recent hurricanes. In addition, NIST’s Engineering Laboratory sent 

preliminary reconnaissance teams to these disaster sites to determine whether in-depth investigations are 

warranted. NIST anticipates performing an extensive study on the impact of Hurricane Maria on Puerto Rico’s 

built infrastructure.

Next, aging infrastructure on NIST’s campuses in Boulder and Gaithersburg continues to be a problem with 

buildings that were built in the 1950’s and 1960’s. For example, building 245 in Gaithersburg, which houses 

NIST’s radiation physics program that provides traceability and calibration services for every x-ray, biomedical, 

and nuclear medicine procedure, was recently closed for business for almost two weeks due emergency repair 

of a steam pipe resulting in a loss of $2 million in lost productivity of research, $10 - $15 thousand lost in daily 

management meetings, and $140 thousand for repairs.
3

Dr. Copan described his priorities for NIST that include cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing innovation and 

quality, NIST’s Return on Investment (ROI) Initiative that deals with technology transfer, and One NIST, an 

initiative that focuses on agility, interdependence, and pride across the NIST organization. Dr. Copan also 

reminded the Committee of the technical priorities identified as part of the NIST strategic planning process: 

quantum science, bio-economy, artificial intelligence, and internet of things.

For more information, see Dr. Copan’s presentation.

SESSION II: RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) FROM FEDERAL RESEARCH

Introduction – Dr. Phillip Singerman, Associate Director for Innovation and 

Industry Services

Dr. Singerman began by informing the VCAT that Dr. Copan is formally launching a comprehensive 

assessment of federal technology transfer efforts, with the objective of ensuring a greater return on investment 

for the Federal Government’s annual budget for research and development. He then reviewed the structure of 

the session and introduced the speakers.

Dr. Singerman reminded the Committee that it previously discussed technology transfer in October 2012. NIST 

focused its responsibilities to promote the commercialization of technology from its scientific enterprise, a 

function shared by universities and other federal research organizations. NIST established a technology 

transfer policy committee to guide its efforts in this area and reflect the full range of work NIST performs to 

benefit society and the economy. Dr. Singerman then shared a more inclusive definition of technology transfer 

for NIST, which includes developing a plan to increase transfer to partners, expanding the view of technology 

transfer and track outcomes, and the improvement of the economic impact assessment.

For more information, see Dr. Singerman’s presentation.

Overview of Federal Law and Policy in Tech Transfer and Related NIST 

Authorities – Dr. Paul Zielinski, Director, Technology Partnerships Office, NIST

Dr. Zielinski gave a high-level overview of technology transfer in the United States to the VCAT. NIST’s goal is 

to assist private industry in making innovations, distribution, selling, and having new innovations available to 

the public. Dr. Zielinski reminded the Committee that $140 billion is spent annually on federal research and 

development. The research is performed across many different agencies but the technology must transfer to 

the private sector who will make and distribute these innovations.

Dr. Zielinski then provided a brief history of federal technology transfer. In 1947, President Truman issued an

Executive Order that recognized the federal laboratories, built during the Second World War, as an economic 

driver and potential for innovation across the economy. In the 1980’s, two pieces of legislation were passed 

that are genesis of technology transfer: the Bayh-Dole Act which addresses intellectual property and patenting

ownership; and the Stevenson-Wydler Act, which set up structures to help to get the innovations into the 

marketplace. In 1982, the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) was established to give money 

to small businesses to commercialize technologies. In 1986, the Federal Technology Transfer Act amended the 

Stevenson-Wydler Act, creating cooperative research and development agreements, which formalized publicprivate partnerships. There is consistent growth across administrations to move information from the federal 

laboratories to the private sector for economic gain and global competitiveness.
4

He described various mechanisms NIST uses to partner with the private sector. NIST can enter formal 

cooperative research and development agreements to develop products and/or advance the research toward 

commercialization. NIST can also partner with the private sector through the NIST Organic Act, which allows 

and encourages NIST to work with U.S. industry as well as user facilities.

NIST, through specific delegations from the Secretary of Commerce, has a unique leadership role in promoting 

and reporting on the strength of federal efforts on policy coordination as well as the promulgation of technology 

transfer regulation. NIST also has a statutory role as the host agency for the Federal Laboratory Consortium for 

Technology Transfer. Finally, NIST submits annual reports to the President, Congress, and the Office of 

Management and Budget on technology transfer by Department of Commerce and across all agencies.

Dr. Zielinski finished by highlighting how patenting is different in the government verses in the private sector. 

The government’s goal is to advance it mission, so it must determine how to communicate intellectual property 

in a way that advances its mission. For example, in some cases, NIST enters a Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreement resulting in a product with a private company. 

Discussion: 

The group discussed the following topics the incentive for individual investigators at NIST to patent.

For more information, see Dr. Zielinski’s presentation.

Panel Discussion of Benefits and Limitations of Current Technology Transfer 

Policy – Stephen Auvil, Senior Vice President at TEDCO; Gayatri Varma, Director, 

Collaborations Partnering & Strategy Washington D.C. Metro Area Biotechnology 

MedImmune; Rochelle Blaustein, Deputy Director. Office of Technology 

Transitions, US Department of Energy 

Mr. Auvil began by describing TEDCO: a state economic development organization with a purpose to foster the 

commercialization of research and technology to create and sustain of businesses across Maryland, and a 

mission to discover, invest in, and help build great Maryland-based technology companies. 

Mr. Auvil continued by informing the VCAT that from 2000 to 2014, $17 million was invested in programs that 

support technology transfer from federal laboratories, mostly located in Maryland. Several showcase events 

were held that brought federal laboratories and industry together. This was a great way to engage the public 

and government sectors. One example program, the Fort Detrick Technology Transfer Initiative, invested $50 

thousand in awards to 26 life science companies. On average, those companies created four jobs, had 

revenues in their final year close to $1 million, a high average salary, and advanced technology development 

by three technology readiness levels.

TEDCO has three programs with the federal government. Two are focused on supporting technology scouting 

and entrepreneurship with federal laboratories (NIST and the Naval Air Warfare Center). The third is a 

partnership with the U.S. Department of Commerce to help entrepreneurs navigate the Food and Drug 

Association medical device commercialization process. Mr. Auvil described two challenges for federal 

laboratory technology transfer: states are hesitant to support what they view as a federal responsibility, and it is 

difficult to get an exclusive license from the federal government.

Mr. Auvil summarized factors that lead to exceptional university technology transfer. These include

entrepreneurial culture, quality and the nature of research, incentives to support technology transfer, and the 
5

ability to manage conflicts of interest rather than avoid them. Mr. Auvil emphasized that these factors also 

contribute to technology transfer from federal laboratories, and described several programs to improve them.

Next, Dr. Varma from MedImmune described how MedImmune is building an ecosystem to foster technology 

commercialization. MedImmune hosts two bio-networking events for postdocs, scientists from industry and 

academia, and federal laboratories. They also host several events for Chief Executive Officers from local 

companies, bringing them together to discuss new strategies. Every spring they hold the BioHealth Capital 

Region Forum bringing influential leaders together.

Dr. Varma agreed with Mr. Auvil that conflict of interest needs to be managed and not avoided. If a federal 

employee wants to start a company, they must leave the organization to do so because of conflict of interest. 

Universities provide professors leave to startup a new company on their own time, which is preferable.

In closing, Dr. Varma stated for federal laboratories or universities, when engaging in licensing negotiations 

with a company, it is important to understand anything scientists develop is only one piece of the puzzle. The 

negotiations must be flexible to accommodate the range of efforts and technologies required to produce the 

final product and get it to market. Finally, Dr. Varma emphasized that she believes that federal laboratories will 

have more success spinning out technologies if they can take equity from startups instead of requiring license 

fees. 

Ms. Blaustein from the Department of Energy shared her perspectives. She began by describing an initiative to 

improve entrepreneurial culture and capabilities among researchers. Federal agencies are working with 

National Science Foundation through the I-Corps program: an intensive 2-month program for researchers to 

come together with industry mentors to do customer discovery and understand the science needs of industry. 

The program helps to move technology to the marketplace, provides business education to the researcher to 

help them work better with industry, and improves federal laboratory recruitment and retention.

Ms. Blaustein highlighted two areas where she sees opportunities for improvement in federal technology 

transfer. The first is simplifying access to expertise – frequently the inventor - necessary to successfully 

commercialize a technology. Currently, these arrangements require two arrangements (a patent license and a 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement), which are sometimes handled by two offices. This 

doubles the necessary transaction cost. Second, copyright should be available for software developed by 

federal employees. Since Stevenson-Wydler was passed before the value of software was widely understood,

the lack of copyright for software makes exclusivity – and therefore commercialization incentive – difficult to 

achieve. 

Lastly, Ms. Blaustein mentioned that some federal government entities use third-party intermediaries bypass

some of these restrictions. The Department of Energy has leveraged their contractors as third-party 

intermediaries to work more closely with industry, providing some of the things the federal government is not 

permitted to do by shifting the risk to that third party. A foundation is one type of third-party intermediary.

Discussion: 

The group discussed the following topics:

- The importance of increasing fundamental research funding, and approaches to raising the visibility of 

the outcomes from basic research.

- How and whether to focus on and calculate return on investment.

- Pros and cons of open-source software versus maintaining copyright.

- Costs and benefits of requiring scientists to leave federal service to start companies.

For more information, see Mr. Auvil’s presentation.
6

Plan and Vision for NIST Efforts in Federal Technology Transfer Policy – Dr. 

Walter Copan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and 

NIST Director

Dr. Copan introduced his vision for improving federal technology transfer. NIST will begin a comprehensive 

initiative to assess federal technology transfer efforts, policies, and practices to ensure greater return on 

investment from the federal government's nearly $140 billion annual investment in research and development

(R&D). This initiative will also examine unintended consequences of legislation that have created barriers to 

engagement between the federal laboratories, academia, and industry, and suggest changes to enable greater 

access and value to the nation's research enterprise. He calls this “Unleashing American Innovation.” 

This initiative has significant support from the current administration and in Congress on a bipartisan basis. Dr. 

Copan has also introduced the initiative to the Council on Competitiveness, which was highly supportive of the 

effort. 

Barriers exist between state-level organizations or private foundations and the federal laboratories because 

they cannot overcome the legal barriers, state-level charter, and federal mandate. NIST can reduce regulatory 

burdens of technology transfer to attract private sector investment in later-stage R&D and improve to the bridge 

between industry, academia, and the federal laboratory system. 

Dr. Copan briefly described his next steps. NIST will engage with the Licensing Executives Society, the 

Association of University Technology Managers, the Industrial Research Institute, and the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science and others to work on creating a framework initiative. A Federal 

Register notice will come out in the spring with a request for information to solicit feedback from the public.

In closing, Dr. Copan mentioned there is a link on the NIST website, that provides a high-level outline of this 

initiative and access to reports including reports from the National Academies from studies conducted on 

technology transfer and higher-level issues that affect NIST and the nation. 

Discussion: 

The group discussed the following topics:

- Finding the right balance between advancing science and technology and commercialization.

- Time spent on foreign patent verses domestic patent decisions.

For more information, see Dr. Copan’s presentation.

SESSION III: NIST ROLES IN CYBERSECURITY

Update on NIST Cybersecurity Programs, Current Mandates, and Calls for 

Expanded NIST Roles in Cybersecurity – Ms. Donna Dodson, Chief Cybersecurity 

Advisor, Information Technology Laboratory, NIST & Director of the National 

Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE)

Ms. Dodson began her update by reminding the Committee that NIST cultivates trust in technology through 

cybersecurity through a program that revolves around research, development, and transition to practice with 

industry. 

Ms. Dodson highlighted recent work of the NIST cryptography program. NIST is leading a world-wide 

competition in quantum resistance cryptographic standards. NIST has received and is reviewing with industry 
7

and academia worldwide about 70 algorithms and supporting technical packages. To adequately review these 

standards, NIST has increased its capabilities through additional funding and hiring of eight new 

cryptographers. NIST has also been updating its cryptography testing and accreditation program to keep pace 

with the growing number of requests. NIST has also been growing cryptography capabilities as they relate to 

blockchain applications and lightweight cryptographic algorithms.

Next, Ms. Dodson briefed the VCAT on recent work in risk management. NIST is building better mechanisms to 

understand and manage cybersecurity risks. NIST has been working to incorporate privacy and security 

controls throughout its risk management program. NIST continues to build its system lifecycle to support strong 

risk management. Supply chain is another area of importance, to understand not only what, but also where the 

parts and pieces came from that are being employed into digital capabilities.

Ms. Dodson also highlighted NIST’s work to strengthen cybersecurity of systems that bridge physical and 

digital infrastructure – the so-called IoT. NIST’s laboratories are working on definitions, guidelines, and best 

practices, as well as coordination of standards across sectors of the digital economy. In addition, the NCCoE is 

working on IoT use cases. For example, the NCCoE staff worked with over 80 percent of the manufacturers in 

the U.S. on security, architectures, and capabilities for IoT in health care environments with wireless infusion 

pumps.

Ms. Dodson described several mandates that give NIST cybersecurity responsibilities. Executive Order 13800, 

“Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure” gives NIST responsibilities in 

risk management, the Cybersecurity Framework, and the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education. In 

addition, the Office of Management and Budget recently updated their cybersecurity guidelines for federal 

agencies through A-130, which incorporates NIST standards and best practices.

Finally, Ms. Dodson summarized Congressional interest in expanding the NIST role in cybersecurity. This 

includes the Main Street Act, to have NIST expand its role with small and medium-sized businesses and 

transportation; the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, Assessment, and Auditing act, which would give NIST an 

auditing role; among others. 

Discussion: 

The group discussed the following topics:

- Why cryptography for quantum computing and quantum communications is so difficult?

- Where the experts in cryptography are from, and how to recruit them to NIST?

- Differences between the National Security Agency’s program to attract PhD cryptography students and 

NIST’s program.

- How to ensure NIST has appropriate resources to address new mandates.

For more information, see Ms. Dodson’s presentation.

NIST’s Role in Cybersecurity – a view from the private sector – Mr. Matthew 

Eggers, Executive Director, Cybersecurity Policy National Security and 

Emergency Preparedness Department US Chamber of Commerce 

Mr. Eggers briefed the VCAT on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s (or Chamber) view of NIST’s role in 

cybersecurity. He summarized the Chamber’s relationship with NIST in three key areas: 

• The Cybersecurity Framework

• Education and Advocacy

• IoT Security
8

The Chamber of Commerce believes the Framework has been a remarkable success and powerful tool that 

represents the best example of public-private partnerships in action.

On education and advocacy, the Chamber of Commerce partners with state- and local-chambers of commerce

to promote the Framework. NIST participates in these educational events held across the country to promote 

the use of the framework with local university academics, state officials, and Chief Information Officers. Secret 

service and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials also participate to discuss potential partnerships with 

business. Mr. Eggers also stated that they also have a Global Information Security Working Group that 

promotes alignment with the Framework internationally.

With regard to IoT, the Chamber recognizes the need for industry to lead the effort to strengthen cybersecurity 

of these systems. NIST will likely have a similar role as with the Framework and enterprise risk management. 

In closing, Mr. Eggers shared the Chamber’s perspective on legislation proposing an auditing role for NIST. 

First, these responsibilities would divert NIST’s expertise, time, and attention beyond its core mission, to the 

detriment of other work. Second, an auditing role could jeopardize NIST’s working relationship with industry. 

The Chamber has informed the staff of the House Science Committee with their concerns.

Discussion: 

The group discussed the possibility of industry working with NIST to set priorities regarding IoT.

For more information, see Mr. Egger’s handout.

Path Forward to Support Adaption and Adoption of Cyber Security Framework 

(CSF) – Mr. Matthew Barrett, Program Manager for the NIST Cybersecurity 

Framework, Information Technology Laboratory

Mr. Barrett began his presentation by reviewing the properties of the Framework (or CSF). The Framework 

established a common and accessible language that is understandable. The simple language is about 

empowering the non-cybersecurity experts to understand how they affect and are being affected by 

cybersecurity. The CSF is flexible to different sectors and organizations and is meant to be customized to 

account for organizational objectives, varying requirements, budgets, and technical environments, which have 

their own vulnerabilities and threat profiles.

Mr. Barrett emphasized the prevalent use of the Framework: as of 2015, 30 percent of U.S. businesses are 

using the Framework and it is believed that will increase to 50 percent by 2020. Federal agencies are required 

to use the Framework. It is also being used internationally. With increased use, however, there are increased 

demands on NIST’s time and resources. 

Mr. Barrett then described NIST’s strategic focus areas for expanded use of the Cybersecurity Framework for 

2017-2018: small businesses, international organizations and governments, regulatory environments, and 

federal agencies. For example, for small businesses, NIST has been partnering with the National Cyber 

Security Alliance around the Cyber Secure My Business campaign to increase awareness and understanding. 

NIST has also developed Starter Profiles that create profiles for commonly occurring circumstances or 

business objectives.

NIST’s international approach includes bilateral dialogues with over 32 countries worldwide with translation of 

the Framework into Japanese, Italian, and Hebrew, among others. NIST is also working with international

standards development organizations to map standards documents to the Framework to support its use.
9

With regard to regulations, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 states: “Prevent duplication of 

regulatory processes and prevent conflict with, or superseding of regulatory requirements, mandatory 

standards, and related processes.” NIST continues to work with regulators and regulated parties to support use 

of the Framework.

Lastly, Mr. Barrett summarized NIST’s efforts to promote use of the Framework by federal agencies. NIST has 

been consulted as memorandums are authored and have noted use of functions in the FISMA metrics. Some 

examples of NIST’s engagement are:

• The FY 2015-16 Guidance on Federal Information Security and Privacy Management Requirements 

Cybersecurity Strategy and Implementation Plan, OMB Memorandum M-16-03 & 04 

• The update of Managing Information as a Strategic Resource, OMB Circular A-130 

• Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure, EO 13800; and 

• The Cybersecurity Framework: Implementation Guidance for Federal Agencies, drat NIST 

Interagency Report 8170

Discussion: 

The group discussed the following topics:

- The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program’s efforts to support the use of the 

Framework by small- and medium-sized manufacturers.

- How the VCAT can support Framework use.

- Cybersecurity challenges around measurements and supply chain.

- Having the VCAT help to ensure that NIST maintains an appropriate role in cybersecurity.

For more information, see Mr. Barrett’s presentation.

SESSION IV: NEXT STEPS AND ADJOURN

Administrative Business

Dr. Colwell announced the results of the elections. Dr. Rita Colwell was elected VCAT Chair and Dr. Allen Adler

was elected Vice Chair. Both positions will begin their two-year term on April 1, 2018, and end March 31, 2020. 

In January 2020, the members will hold an interim election to select a member to complete the remainder of Dr. 

Colwell’s term as Chair. The members will complete and finalize the 2017 Annual Report through email.

There were no public comments offered.

In closing, NIST shared a video, “The Romance of Precision Measurement” showing the role of NIST and the 

importance of what NIST does through the eyes of past Directors. the VCAT members thanked Dr. Rochford

for his leadership of VCAT and as the Acting NIST Director.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 PM. 

I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge; the forgoing minutes are accurate and complete.

Stephanie Shaw, Designated Federal Officer, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology

Dr. Rita Colwell, Chair, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology