[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NANOTECHNOLOGY: FROM LABORATORIES
TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 20, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-75
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-145 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MO BROOKS, Alabama FEDERICA WILSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas SCOTT PETERS, California
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming AMI BERA, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona DEREK KILMER, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
CHRIS COLLINS, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
May 20, 2014
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Witnesses:
Dr. Timothy Persons, Chief Scientist, United States Government
Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 17
Dr. Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director of the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy Director of the
Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, National Institute
of Standards and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 44
Dr. Keith Stevenson, Professor, Department of Chemistry &
Biochemistry, The University of Texas at Austin
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
Dr. Mark Hersam, Professor, Department of Materials Science &
Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering & Applied Science,
Northwestern University
Oral Statement............................................... 66
Written Statement............................................ 68
Mr. Les Ivie, President & CEO, F Cubed, LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 75
Written Statement............................................ 77
Discussion....................................................... 90
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director of the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy Director of the
Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, National Institute
of Standards and Technology.................................... 102
Mr. Les Ivie, President & CEO, F Cubed, LLC...................... 109
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement for the record by Representative Lamar S.
Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 114
NANOTECHNOLOGY: FROM LABORATORIES TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry
Bucshon [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. The Subcommittee on Research and
Technology will come to order.
Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing titled
``Nanotechnology: From Laboratories to Commercial Products.''
In front of you are packets containing the written testimony,
biographies, and truth-and-testimony disclosures for today's
witnesses. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an
opening statement.
Nanotechnology is an area of great promise for the future
of the U.S. economy, the leaps and bounds in scientific
knowledge base, and in terms of potential products and
employment opportunities as the technology continues to mature.
Many believe it has the potential to be the next industrial
revolution, leading to significant social and economic impact.
Nanotechnology is already prevalent in our lives; it is in
sunscreens, and cosmetics, batteries, stain-resistant clothing,
eyeglasses, windshields, and sporting equipment.
The development of nanomaterials that are stronger,
lighter, and more durable may lead to better technology for
items such as bulletproof vests and fuel-efficient vehicles.
Just recently, I learned of a new technology developed at
Sandia National Laboratories and the University of New Mexico
Cancer Center in which a hybrid particle, made up of a porous
silicon nanoparticle core, contains small peptides that are
targeted to proteins expressed specifically by cancer cells. It
is an ideal vehicle to deliver the custom drug combinations
needed for personalized medicine and may transform how we
deliver antibiotics and antivirals.
As a cardiothoracic surgeon and medical professional, I
find this application of nanoscience to medicine not only
fascinating but also having important implications for our
Nation to keep medical costs down and subsequently may have
some affect on national security and our economy.
In 2013 the National Science Foundation nanotechnology
investment supported 5,000 active projects over 30 research
centers and several infrastructure networks for device
development, computation, and education. It impacted over
10,000 students and teachers. Approximately 150 small
businesses were funded to perform research and product
development in nanotechnology through the Small Business
Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer
Programs. It is also my understanding that three new exciting
directions are planned for 2015, including nanostructure
composite materials, nanoscale optics, and photonics.
Unfortunately, despite these promising activities funded
directly by the National Science Foundation, the President's
budget for key directorates that carry out nanotechnology
research within the NSF's Research and Related Activities
Account is disappointing with a $1.5 million overall decrease.
On the other hand, the Frontiers in Innovation Research and
Science and Technology, or FIRST Act, of which I am an original
cosponsor, passed our Subcommittee this past March with
increases to several key directorates that fund nanotechnology
basic science research. In addition to the NSF, the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI, is the U.S. Government's
effort to coordinate the nanotechnology research and
development activities of the federal agencies.
While nanotechnology is not a new scientific field, it
still remains an emerging, important, and relevant area. The
House passed an NNI reauthorization bill in both 110th and
111th Congresses only to see it die in the Senate.
This hearing today provides us with an opportunity to get
feedback on the future of NNI and have a serious discussion
about the national priorities for this technology. The
President's proposed budget for NNI in Fiscal Year 2015 is
$13.3 million less than Fiscal Year 2013 and is estimated to be
less than it spent in Fiscal Year 2014. These budget numbers
are concerning, especially for an area of R&D that holds an
important place in our Nation's economy and national security.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and to a
productive and fruitful discussion on U.S. nanotechnology
investments, priorities, and policies. Again, thank all of you
for joining us today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Chairman Larry Bucshon
I would like to welcome everyone to today's Research and Technology
Subcommittee hearing titled ``Nanotechnology: From Laboratories to
Commercial Products.''
Nanotechnology is an area of great promise h for the future of the
U.S. economy, the leaps and bounds in the scientific knowledge base,
and in terms of potential products and employment opportunities as the
technology continues to mature. Many believe it has the potential to be
the next industrial revolution, leading to significant social and
economic impact. Nanotechnology is already prevalent in our lives; it
is in sunscreens and cosmetics, batteries, stain-resistant clothing,
eyeglasses, windshields, and sporting equipment. The development of
nanomaterials that are stronger, lighter, and more durable may lead to
better technology for items such as bulletproof vests and fuel
efficient vehicles. This is especially important as gas prices continue
to remain high.
Just recently, I learned of a new technology (developed at Sandia
National Laboratories and the University of New Mexico Cancer Center)
in which a hybrid particle, made up of a porous silica nanoparticle
core, contains small peptides that are targeted to proteins expressed
specifically by cancer cells. It is an ideal vehicle to deliver the
custom drug combinations needed for personalized medicine, and will
transform how we deliver antibiotics and antivirals.
As a cardiothoracic surgeon and medical professional, I find this
application of nanoscience to medicine not only fascinating but also
having important implications for our Nation's national security and
economy, including ways to lower medical costs.
In 2013, the National Science Foundation (NSF) nanotechnology
investment supported 5,000 active projects, over 30 research centers
and several infrastructure networks for device development,
computation, and education. It impacted over 10,000 students and
teachers. Approximately 150 small businesses were funded to perform
research and product development in nanotechnology through the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) Programs. It is also my understanding that three new
exciting directions are planned for 2015, including nanostructured
composite materials, nanoscale optics, and photonics.
Unfortunately, despite these promising activities funded directly
by the NSF, the President's budget for key directorates that carry out
nanotechnology research within NSF's Research and Related Activities
Account (RRA) is disappointing, with a $1.5 Million overall decrease.
On the other hand, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and
Technology (FIRST) Act, of which I am an original co-sponsor, passed
our Subcommittee this past March with increases to several key
directorates that fund nanotechnology basic science research.
In addition to the NSF, the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) is the U.S. government's effort to coordinate the nanotechnology
research and development activities of the federal agencies. While
nanotechnology is not a new scientific field, it still remains an
emerging, important and relevant area. The House passed an NNI
reauthorization bill in both the 110th and 111th Congresses, only to
see it die in the Senate. This hearing today provides us with an
opportunity to get feedback on the future of NNI and have a serious
discussion about national priorities for this technology.
The President's proposed budget for NNI in fiscal year (FY) 2015
($1,536.9M) is $13.3 Million less than FY2013 ($1,550.2), and is
estimated to be less than what is spent for FY14 (1,537.5). These
budget numbers are concerning, especially for an area of R&D that holds
an important place in our nation's economic and national security.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony and to a productive and
fruitful discussion on U.S. nanotechnology investments, priorities, and
policies. Again, thank you all for joining us today.
Chairman Bucshon. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, and thank you
for holding this hearing today on nanotechnology.
It has been a little more than three years since this
Committee last held a hearing on nanotech, so I am happy we are
returning to one of my favorite topics.
Federal investments in nanotechnology research have already
led to job creation in my state and across the Nation, and I
believe the potential for return on our relatively modest
federal investment is many times what we have already
witnessed. I am fond of saying I drank the nanotech Kool-Aid
the first time I visited Chad Mirkin's lab at Northwestern
University. I am very happy that we have someone from
Northwestern here today.
I was amazed by what could be done at the scale of a single
atom. In nanotechnology there is now a branch of engineering
that simply did not exist 26 years ago when I was getting my
degree in mechanical engineering at Northwestern also. By
controlling individual atoms, we can create new materials and
products, and with that, companies and jobs.
The Science Committee recognized the promise of
nanotechnology early on-holding our first hearing close to 15
years ago to review federal activities in the field. The
Committee was subsequently instrumental in the development and
enactment of the statute in 2003 that authorized the
interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative, the NNI, as the
Chairman spoke about.
We have passed a widely supported bipartisan update to the
NNI bill in the House three times since 2008. Unfortunately,
all three times this bill has died in the Senate. I hope with
the Chairman's help we will have an opportunity to take up an
NNI reauthorization bill once again in this Congress, and who
knows, maybe the fourth time will be the charm.
I don't think the NNI requires major revisions. It seems to
be working pretty well, but I do think there are opportunities
to formalize some of the recommendations we have received in
the last few years from PCAST and the National Academies on how
to strengthen the program even further without any additional
cost. These opportunities include ways to strengthen technology
transfer and streamline the reporting requirements for the
program. I welcome thoughts from our witnesses today on how we
can continue to improve upon the existing program.
Nanotechnology is a broad field encompassing much more than
just material science or semiconductors. For instance,
nanotechnology is beginning to help us understand biology at
the cellular level. We are now seeing applications that were
not even imagined 13 years ago when NNI was first created. The
range of potential applications is broad and will have enormous
consequences for electronics, energy transformation and
storage, materials, and medicine and health, to name just a
few. I am sure that we will hear about some of those
applications from today's witnesses, including Mr. Ivie from F
Cubed.
Part of our discussion on nanotechnology must include the
barriers and opportunities surrounding nanomanufacturing. I
know that Dr. Persons will talk about some of the challenges
the United States is facing in this area today, including a
need for more U.S. involvement in international standards
setting, continued sustained investment in this area, and a
national vision for U.S. nanomanufacturing capability.
Finally, I think it is also important to talk about the
environmental, health, and safety, or EHS research, that must
be part of any comprehensive nanotechnology research strategy.
I know that Professor Hersam was part of a report on
nanotechnology research directions that included a review of
recommendations for nano EHS research and hope we can spend
some time during the Q&A on this important topic.
Once again, I am happy we are having this hearing today. I
look forward to all the witness testimony and the Q&A. Thank
you all for being here and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Dan Lipinski
Thank you Chairman Bucshon for holding this hearing today on
nanotechnology. It has been a little more than three years since the
committee last held a hearing on nanotechnology, so I am happy we are
returning to one of my favorite topics. Federal investments in
nanotechnology research have already led to job creation in my state
and across the nation, and I believe the potential for return on our
relatively modest federal investment is many times what we'vealready
witnessed.
I'm fond of saying that I ``drank the nanotech kool-aid'' the first
time I visited Chad Mirkin's lab at Northwestern. I was amazed by what
he could do at the scale of a single atom. In nanotechnology there is
now a branch of engineering that simply did not exist 26 years ago when
I was getting my degree in mechanical engineering. By controlling
individual atoms we can create new materials and products, and with
that, companies and jobs.
The Science Committee recognized the promise of nanotechnology
early on, holding our first hearing close to 15 years ago to review
federal activities in the field. The Committee was subsequently
instrumental in the development and enactment of a statute in 2003 that
authorized the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative--the NNI.
We have passed a widely supported, bipartisan update to the NNI
bill in the House three times since 2008. Unfortunately, all three
times the bill died in the Senate. But I hope that with the Chairman's
help we will have an opportunity to take up an NNI Reauthorization bill
once again in this Congress. Who knows, maybe the 4th time will be the
charm?
I don't think the NNI requires major revisions. It seems to be
working pretty well. But I do think there are opportunities to
formalize some of the recommendations we have received in the last few
years from PCAST and the National Academies on how to strengthen the
program even further, without any additional costs. These opportunities
include ways to strengthen technology transfer and streamline the
reporting requirements for the program. I welcome thoughts from our
witnesses today on how we can continue to improve upon the existing
program.
Nanotechnology is a broad field encompassing much more than just
materials science or semiconductors. For instance, nanotechnology is
beginning to help us understand biology at the cellular level. We are
now seeing applications that were not even imagined 13 years ago when
the National Nanotechnology Initiative was first created. The range of
potential applications is broad and will have enormous consequences for
electronics, energy transformation and storage, materials, and medicine
and health, to name just a few examples. I am sure that we will hear
about some of those applications from today's witnesses including Mr.
Ivie from F Cubed.
Part of our discussion of nanotechnology must include the barriers
and opportunities surrounding nanomanufacturing. I know that Dr.
Persons will talk about some of the challenges that the United States
is facing in this area today including a need for more U.S. involvement
in international standard setting, continued sustained investment in
this area, and a national vision for a U.S. nanomanufacturing
capability.
Finally, I think it is also important to talk about the
environmental, health, and safety--or EHS--research that must be part
of any comprehensive nanotechnology research strategy. I know that
Professor Hersam was part of a report on nanotechnology research
directions that included a review and recommendations for nano-EHS
research and hope we can spend some time during the Q&A on this
important topic.
Once again, I am very happy we are having this hearing today. I
look forward to all of the witness testimony and the Q&A, and I thank
you all for being here today. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. I now recognize
the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for her
opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning.
This morning, we are discussing nanotechnology. As a long-
time member of the Committee, I am proud that the Committee
recognized a need for an increased level of investment and
better interagency coordination in this area almost 15 years
ago. That recognition led to the creation of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, or the NNI as it is called, which
has invested nearly $20 billion in nanotechnology research and
development since 2001.
The investment in NNI is one of the reasons that the United
States is a global leader in nanotechnology research and
development. Unfortunately, like too many other research areas,
our leadership position is now being challenged. In a 2014
report on nanomanufacturing, which I am sure Dr. Persons will
discuss this morning, the GAO reported that the United States
is facing challenges to maintaining its leadership position in
nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing. Several of our global
competitors like the European Union and Japan are making
significant and sustained investments in nanotechnology while
we are busy debating on how much to cut our research agencies.
If we are going to maintain competitiveness, then the United
States needs to make strong and sustained investment in
nanotechnology and enact federal policies that help technology
and manufacturing development and play a central role in
international standards development.
While we need to strengthen our leadership position in
nanotechnology, we should also recognize that there are
opportunities to work with our global partners. One area for
collaboration is the area of environmental, health, and safety
research, or EHS research. Unlike the nanomanufacturing
research, there is no obvious competitive advantage in EHS
research. Instead, all global nanotechnology partners benefit
from a greater understanding of potential environmental,
health, and safety aspects of nanotechnology.
As a former nurse, I recognize the need to understand and
mitigate the potential risks to new technologies, including
nanotechnology. Without a strong EHS research program on
nanotechnology, we would be left with the uncertainties of
surrounding potential risks for people and environments that
are exposed to nanomaterials and nano-enabled products.
In addition to concerns about public health and safety, I
am worried that these uncertainties could also lead to
unsubstantiated negative public perceptions about
nanotechnology, which could have serious consequences for its
acceptance and use. The NNI has always included activities for
increasing understanding of the environmental and safety
aspects of nanotechnology, but I believe that EHS research did
not receive sufficient attention to funding for many years and
I applaud the current Administration's increased emphasis on
EHS. But I remain concerned about our new slow progress in this
area of research.
We need a strong nano EHS research program to protect the
public and to ensure that any nanotechnology regulations will
be grounded in science, not perception. I hope to hear from our
witnesses today about their thoughts on this issue.
And in closing, I am hopeful that we can work together to
ensure that the United States remains the leader in
nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing while working with our
global partners.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here and I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committeee
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This morning we are discussing
nanotechnology. As a long-time Member of this Committee, I am proud
that the Committee recognized the need for an increased level of
investment and better interagency coordination in this area almost 15
years ago.
That recognition led to the creation of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, or the NNI as it is called, which has invested nearly $20
billion in nanotechnology research and development since 2001.
The investment in the NNI is one of the reasons that the United
States is the global leader in nanotechnology research and development.
Unfortunately, like too many other research areas, our leadership
position is now being challenged.
In a 2014 report on Nanomanufacturing, which I am sure Dr. Persons
will discuss this morning, the GAO reported that the United States is
facing challenges to maintaining its leadership position in
nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing. Several of our global competitors
like the European Union and Japan are making significant and sustained
investments in nanotechnology while we are busy debating how much to
cut our research agencies.
If we are going to remain competitive, then the U.S. needs to make
strong and sustained investments in nanotechnology; enact federal
policies that help technology and manufacturing development; and play a
central role in international standards development.
While we need to strengthen our leadership position in
nanotechnology, we should also recognize that there are opportunities
to work with our global partners. One area for collaboration is in the
area of environmental, health and safety research or EHS research.
Unlike with nanomanufacturing research, there is no obvious
competitive advantage in EHS research. Instead, all global
nanotechnology partners benefit from a greater understanding of
potential environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanotechnology.
As a former nurse, I recognize the need to understand and mitigate
the potential risks to new technologies including nanotechnology.
Without a strong EHS research program on nanotechnology, we will be
left with uncertainties surrounding potential risks for people and
environments that are exposed to nanomaterials and nano-enabled
products. In addition to concerns about public health and safety, I am
worried that these uncertainties could also lead to unsubstantiated
negative public perceptions about nanotechnology, which could have
serious consequences for its acceptance and use.
The NNI has always included activities for increasing understanding
of the environmental and safety aspects of nanotechnology. But I
believe that EHS research did not receive sufficient attention or
funding for many years.
I applaud the current Administration's increased emphasis on EHS,
but I remain concerned about our slow progress in this area of
research. We need a strong nano-EHS research program to protect the
public and to ensure that any nanotechnology regulations will be
grounded in science not perception. I hope to hear from our witnesses
today about their thoughts on this issue.
In closing, I am hopeful that we can work together to ensure that
the United States remains the leader in nanotechnology and
nanomanufacturing while working with our global partners.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses, a
very distinguished panel. Our first witness today is Dr.
Timothy Persons, Chief Scientist of the United States
Government Accountability Office. He is also the Co-Director of
the GAO Center for Science, Technology, and Engineering, a
group of highly specialized scientists, engineers,
mathematicians, and information technologists. He works with
the GAO's chief technologist to lead the production of
technology assessments for the U.S. Congress.
Prior to joining the GAO, Dr. Persons has held key
leadership roles in the national security community. In 2007
Dr. Persons was awarded a Director of National Intelligence
Science and Technology Fellowship focusing on computational
imaging systems research. He received his bachelor's in physics
from James Madison, a master's in nuclear physics from Emory
University, and a master's in computer science and a Ph.D. in
biomedical engineering from Wake Forest.
Our second witness is Dr. Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director
of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy
Director of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Dr. Whitman received a bachelor's in physics from Brown and
a master's and Ph.D. in physics from Cornell. After a National
Research Council post-doctorate research fellowship at NIST,
Dr. Whitman joined the research staff at the National Research
Laboratory. At NRL, Lloyd was the head of the Surface
Nanoscience and Sensor Technology Section. In addition to
leading research at NRL, Dr. Whitman served as a Science
Advisor to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
for Chemical and Biological Defense and Chemical
Demilitarization Programs.
Our next witness is Dr. Keith Stevenson, Professor in the
Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the University Of
Texas at Austin. Dr. Stevenson is a well-established
electrochemist, materials chemist, and nanoscientist with over
145 referred publications, six patents, and five book chapters.
He is the Director of the 38 million Center for Nano- and
Molecular Science and Technology. He is also acting Thrust
Leader on an 11.2 million DOE Energy Frontiers Research Center
at UT Austin.
In addition to being the State Director of the Welch
Foundation Summer Scholars Program, he is one of the founding
faculty members of a program now known as the Freshman Research
Initiative at UT Austin.
At this point I now recognize the Ranking Member Mr.
Lipinski to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
As a Northwestern alum, I am very excited to have a
Professor from Northwestern University here this morning even
though he has his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois.
Dr. Hersam is a Professor--Yes, that is the Chairman's
school.
Dr. Hersam is a Professor of Material Science and
Engineering Department, as well as being Director of the
Materials Research Center. His interdisciplinary research group
focuses on analyzing and manipulating nanomaterials at the
atomic and molecular scale. Professor Hersam is a nationally
recognized leader in research in nanotechnology, a member of
several scientific societies, and winner of numerous teaching
and research awards.
In addition to his work at Northwestern, Dr. Hersam founded
a company NanoIntegris that is a leading supplier of high
purity semiconducting and metallic inks.
It is my pleasure to welcome Dr. Hersam to our Committee
today.
Chairman Bucshon. And our final witness is Mr. Les Ivie,
President and CEO of F Cubed, LLC. Mr. Ivie was also Founder
and Chief Operating Officer of Gas Clip Technology, Inc. Prior
to founding F Cubed, he was Chief Technology Officer at
Honeywell International.
Mr. Ivie was Senior Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer of Zellweger Luwa AG in Switzerland. He was a Founder,
Board Member, and later Chairman of the Board of Textillio AG,
an Internet company based in Zurich, Switzerland. Mr. Ivie held
a variety of positions at United Technologies Corporation.
Mr. Ivie graduated from Portland State University with a
bachelor of science and mathematics and a bachelor of science
and economics from the University of Denver with a master's of
business administration.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here.
It is going to be an interesting hearing.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each after which Members of the Committee have
five minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will
be included in the record of the hearing.
At this point I now recognize Dr. Persons for five minutes
to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. TIMOTHY PERSONS, CHIEF SCIENTIST,
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Dr. Persons. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski,
Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee, good
morning.
I am pleased to be here to discuss the ongoing transition
of nanotechnology from the laboratory into commercial products,
or also known as nanomanufacturing.
As a reminder, nanotechnology is defined as the control or
restructuring of matter at the atomic or molecular scale,
about--a range of about 1 to 100 nanometers, the latter being
about 1/1000 the thickness of a human hair.
Last year, the Controller General of the United States
convened a strategic forum on this topic, which brought
together experts from a wide range of relevant backgrounds to
discuss the status and implications of this issue. We recently
issued a report on the forum, a portion of which I am covering
in today's remarks.
Specifically, my testimony will highlight how the United
States compares with other countries in nanotechnology R&D and
competitiveness, identify some key challenges to innovation,
briefly present some key policy issues, and discuss two
examples of public-private partnerships designed to promote
U.S. innovation in nanomanufacturing.
And I ask that Figure 1 be brought up on the screen.
[Slide]
Dr. Persons. This slide illustrates several examples of
some nanoscale science discoveries in transition from the lab
into real-world nanotechnology-enabled products. Moving from
left to right, the first column of the figure contains examples
of nanoscale components discovered by the basic science
community. The second column contains new or enhanced
prototypes enabled by the nano components, and the third column
then shows new or improved products of the commercial sector
which may require manufacturing at large-scale, that is either
size and number.
As a quick example, following the top row of the chart,
research on nanoscale transistors enables more powerful and
sophisticated semiconductor chips, which then result in
lighter, faster, and more powerful computers and smartphones
like what used to be a supercomputer I hold essentially in the
palm of my hand because of nanotechnology. The experts at our
forum told us that the United States likely leads in
nanotechnology R&D today but the United States faces global-
scale competition. In terms of R&D funding levels, the United
States is still considered the overall leader, yet is possibly
lagging in public sector support in comparison to some other
major nations. For scientific publications, the United States
is considered the leader in quality, yet it terms of quantity
has already been surpassed by China.
Turning to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing
itself, the four industry sectors we studied indicate that the
United States remains the leader in some areas, namely
nanomedicine and semiconductor design. On the other hand,
experts said the United States has been challenged in
semiconductor manufacturing, the development of nano-enabled
concrete materials, as well as lithium-ion batteries for
electric vehicles, even though a recent announcement by a major
American manufacturer of electric vehicles to build a large
battery production plant could reverse this latter assessment.
Our forum participants identified several challenges,
including significant global competition, the unintended
consequences of prior off-shoring of manufacturing, direct
foreign threats to U.S. intellectual property, and the fact
that the United States currently lacks a holistic strategy for
nanomanufacturing.
Moreover, another major challenge is a key funding gap
called the ``missing middle,'' which I hold up in Figure 2,
which occurs between the proof-of-concept and production
environment demonstration phases of the manufacturing
innovation process. This challenge was a particular concern to
our experts in terms of the barrier it represents to small and
medium-sized U.S. enterprises where a good deal of innovation
occurs.
In terms of policy issues, forum participants said the
United States could improve its competitive posture by pursuing
one or more of the following three approaches: first,
strengthen innovation across the U.S. economy by continuing
and/or updating policies and programs which support innovation
in general; second, promote innovation in U.S. manufacturing
possibly in the form of public-private partnerships; third,
design a holistic strategy for U.S. nanomanufacturing led and
facilitated but not overly driven by the federal government.
Insufficient efforts by the United States to participate in
international development of basic nanotechnology standards and
the need for a revitalized integrative and collaborative
approach to environment, health, and safety issues were other
policy considerations our participants identified. Two examples
of public-private partnerships designed to address the
``missing middle'' were identified in our study. The first is
the Center for Nanomanufacturing Systems for Mobile Computing
and Mobile Energy Technologies, or NASCENT, a manufacturing
innovation ecosystem founded at the University of Texas at
Austin in 2012. NASCENT is designed to partner with industry
and create processes and tools for manufacturing nano-enabled
components in the mobile and energy sectors, among others.
The second is the College of Nanoscale Science and
Engineering, or CNSE, in Albany, New York, established in 2004.
CNSE is a precompetitive R&D prototyping and educational
public-private partnership for advancing nanotechnology for the
semiconductor industry. Equipped with state-of-the-art tools
and partnered with a global consortium of the major computer
chip manufacture, CNSE's collaborative work allows for the
development of chips just short of mass production.
In conclusion, based on the views of a wide range of
experts, nanoscale control and fabrication are creating
important new opportunities and challenges for our Nation. As
such, our experts see potential benefit in pursuing forward-
looking strategies designed to help the global economic
position of the United States as it moves further into the 21st
century.
Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of
the Committee--Ranking Member Johnson, excuse me--this
concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Persons follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Dr. Persons.
I now recognize Dr. Whitman for five minutes for his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. LLOYD WHITMAN,
INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION OFFICE AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
THE CENTER FOR NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Whitman. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski,
Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee, it is a
privilege to be here today to discuss nanotechnology and the
U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, known as the NNI.
As Dr. Persons noted, the field of nanotechnology aims to
understand and control matter at sizes of about 1 to 100
nanometers. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. If I
reference a sheet of paper, it is about 100,000 nanometers
thick, and a DNA double helix is about two nanometers in
diameter. So nanotechnology involves working at the scale of
atoms and molecules.
The reason this size range is so interesting is because
things this small often have properties completely different
than both larger objects of the same material and the
individual atoms and molecules within. By changing the size and
composition of nanoscale materials, one can create things with
unique properties that have a tremendous range of promising
applications.
Consider gold, for example. Bulk gold like that in jewelry
is of course gold-colored and chemically inert, but gold
nanoparticles, depending upon their size, may look pink or
purple or red and can actually be used to catalyze chemical
reactions. They can even be used to target and kill cancer
cells. You can read about many other nanotech breakthroughs,
including many aimed at improving our national security, at our
Nano.Gov website.
So how did the NNI get where it is today? In the 1990s, the
tools to make and measure things on the nanoscale developed
very rapidly, making the promise of nanotech increasingly
clear. In response to this promise, the NNI was launched in
2000 and authorized by Congress in 2003. There are now 20
federal agencies actively participating in the initiative
supported by R&D funding totaling over $1.5 billion per year.
It is important to emphasize that the NNI is not a
distinctly funded program with a centralized budget and
management but rather a well-coordinated multiagency
initiative. The NNI is coordinated through the Nanoscale
Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee of the
National Science and Technology Council. The National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office, which I direct, provides
support for the Subcommittee and acts as the primary point of
contact on the NNI, among other duties specified in the 2003
act.
The NNI functions as a collaborative effort of the
participating federal agencies, thereby leveraging the funding,
avoiding duplication, and providing an effective way for these
agencies to work towards common goals and objectives. These
goals are outlined in the NNI's strategic plan, which was just
updated in February and are highlighted-- and budget details,
along with research accomplishments and plans, are highlighted
every year in the NNI supplement to the President's budget.
Federal nanotechnology innovation in the United States is
strong. We are advancing research, developing and maintaining
the U.S. workforce and infrastructure, supporting responsible
development, and fostering commercialization. The most recent
reviews of the NNI by the National Nanotechnology Advisory
Panel and by the National Academies agree with this assessment.
However, there is always room for improvement.
This year's updated strategic plan describes a number of
ways federal agencies will further strengthen the NNI laying
out specific interagency objectives under each of the goals.
The plan calls out the importance of the nanotechnology
signature initiatives, which agencies collaboratively
established to spotlight areas of national significance that
can be advanced more rapidly through focused, coordinated
research. It also introduces revised budget categories called
program component areas, which have evolved over the years as
the field has matured.
The sustained strategic federal investment in
nanotechnology, combined with strong private sector
investments, has made the United States the global leader in
nano. For example, it is estimated that in 2012 U.S. companies
invested over $4 billion in nanotech R&D, far more than
investments made by companies in any other country. Although
the annual federal investment is relatively modest in
comparison, it plays a very different role, namely supporting a
critical pipeline of foundational research innovations that
will form the seeds for future industry investment. The NNI
also demonstrates the government's long-term commitment to the
field, very important to sustaining the private sector support
needed to bring nanotech products from lab to market.
The 21st century Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act of 2003 has provided an excellent framework for the
coordination and oversight of the NNI. It has brought federal
agencies together to develop and implement an efficient and
effective national strategy for nanotech R&D, including a
robust, well-coordinated program of environmental health and
safety research needed to ensure that new nanotech products are
safe.
In conclusion, the NNI has sustained vital support for
fundamental groundbreaking research, development,
infrastructure, and education and training, programs that
collectively constitute a major U.S. innovation enterprise. It
is essential that the United States continue to lead the way.
The Nation's economic growth and global competitiveness depend
on it.
So I thank the Chairman and the Members of the Committee
for the opportunity to appear before you today and I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Whitman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Dr. Whitman.
I now recognize Dr. Stevenson for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. KEITH STEVENSON, PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY & BIOCHEMISTRY,
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Dr. Stevenson. Thank you, Chairman. And on behalf of the
State of Texas and the University of Texas at Austin, I am
happy to represent and provide testimony today on the
nanotechnology state of affairs.
You have asked me to summarize the current state of R&D in
the area, as well as provide future prospects. In addition, as
Lloyd just spoke about, talk about the details and the impact
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and what it has done
over the last 14 years.
I also have been asked to talk about the importance of the
federal fundamental funding in this area, as well as how my
university has contributed to the STEM-based initiatives and
growth of the nanotechnology workforce.
First, I would like to address the importance of the
nanotechnology initiative. I myself started my career in 2000
and grew up with the growth of this program. I think it is safe
to say now this program has been assessed and reviewed and
measured with many different types of quantitative outcomes,
and it is clear to say that it has been very successful across
many levels. In particular, I would say most importantly
bringing fundamental new knowledge, new understanding to the
area. The growth of--and establishment of over 50 journals
dedicated to nanotechnology and science across many different
subdisciplines, you are starting to lose count with that.
Additionally, the amount of infrastructure that has been
built up across the Nation, every national lab has typically a
subset of dedicated nanotechnology and nanofabrication tools.
They also have many large-scale universities that interact with
both national labs but also with other state institutions like
the University of Texas at Austin that facilitate interactions
not only from national labs but also with new industries.
Also, the training of the nanotechnology workforce, without
the establishment of infrastructure on this scale, it is clear
to say that we have really dedicated, well-trained staff that
help enable the science based around the broad context of
nanotechnology in this area.
The importance of continually investing in fundamental
research is hard to describe in simple terms, but really I
think what you can see from the past developments in the area
is that the growth of this field has really accelerated things
on many levels, not only just from the fundamental
understanding like I said but the connections that it makes to
the next level. It was talked about the ability to make new
discoveries, but there does rely in some sense a continued
investment at the next level to bridge the gap, as was
highlighted by the GAO, to be able to transition those
fundamental discoveries into actually new technologies,
innovations, and products that we can then lead to the
productivity of new areas.
There are several fundamental questions that we would like
to be able to address. For instance, can we--we still need to
figure out how we can perfect the synthesis and fabrication of
precise multifunctional structures that really create new
technologies. We don't really know how to scale nanoscience
right now. It has been very costly in the sense and it is not
very efficient.
Additionally, at UT Austin in particular, the ability to be
able to train students in this area, we have invested in
several different initiatives at many different levels. One is
to really hook students at the very earliest level at STEM
education, so what we could do is we recruit students at the
freshman level and put them into the research lab and expose
them to the concepts of nanoscience and technology. We have
been able then to then escort them through a two-year program
which then they then transition into more advanced science and
engineering labs. And then from that they then typically are
encouraged and given fellowships and internships at the next
level to then go to graduate school in the STEM-based areas.
Additionally, at UT Austin we have established a core of--a
suite of user instrumentation that has allowed us to train
hundreds if not thousands of students in the area of
nanoscience and technology. We have a graduate level portfolio
program that gives them certification in the area. It is not a
degree-granting program but it allows them to really work
interdisciplinary across as many as 14 different departments to
be able to really foster nanoscience.
The outcome of this is that over 120 of these students are
now at many levels, academic institutions, national labs,
startup small businesses based on what they have learned as
graduate students, and work for the government agencies.
And with that I would like to conclude and thank everyone
for the opportunity to be able to testify on behalf of the
State of Texas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stevenson follows:]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much, Dr. Stevenson.
Dr. Hersam, you are recognized for five minutes. By the
way, I graduated from the University of Illinois, so welcome.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK HERSAM, PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING,
MCCORMICK SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING & APPLIED SCIENCE,
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
Dr. Hersam. Very glad to hear it.
On behalf of Northwestern University, I would like to thank
Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, Ranking Member
Johnson, the entire Subcommittee on Research and Technology for
the opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
I am currently Professor of Material Science and
Engineering, Chemistry, and Medicine, and Director of the
Materials Research Center at Northwestern University. My
research group studies and develops nanomaterials for use in a
wide range of technologies, including electronics,
photovoltaics, batteries, catalysis, and bioimaging.
A significant portion of our research has been patented and
commercialized, including our work on carbon nanomaterials that
serve as the basis of a startup company that I cofounded called
NanoIntegris. I have also been deeply involved in the
development of education and outreach activities based on
nanoscience and nanotechnology.
The vast majority of my research has been funded by the
National Nanotechnology Initiative. While much of this research
focuses on applied technologies, the systematic application
developments have been punctuated by discontinuous
unanticipated breakthroughs.
Therefore, while I strongly support the emergence of
applied nanotechnology research funding, nanoscience remains an
extremely fertile ground for discovery and therefore a
diversified federal funding portfolio that includes strong
support for fundamental research is critical to realize the
full potential of nanotechnology. In particular, an expansion
of the National Science Foundation Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Centers would foster fundamental research, bring
new discoveries, and accelerate innovation in nanotechnology
education and outreach.
With its ability to impact diverse and interdisciplinary
problems in medicine, health, environment, water, energy,
catalysis, electronics, photonics, magnetics, and
infrastructure, nanotechnology touches essentially all
technological sectors and will continue to impact economic and
job growth for the foreseeable future. In my role as Co-Chair
of the National Science Foundation's sanctioned global study
entitled, ``Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal
Needs in 2020,'' it is apparent that this opinion is now widely
held globally leading to substantial investments in
nanotechnology by governments throughout the industrialized
world.
Consequently, to maintain American global competitiveness
and fully realize nanotechnology applications, sustained and
predictable support of the National Science Foundation
Nanosystems Engineering Research Centers and related applied
research centers across all funded agencies would be required.
In addition, the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
should be reinstated to provide regional hubs and enable
universal access to nanotechnology infrastructure.
The ultimate judge of the utility of any technology is its
ability to succeed as a commercial product in the marketplace.
Towards that end, the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center
at Northwestern University has launched 14 startup companies in
diverse technologies ranging from biomedical diagnostics to
nanoelectronic materials.
The company that spun out of my lab, NanoIntegris, is among
those 14 startups. In its early stages, NanoIntegris benefited
significantly from federal funding in the form of small
business innovation research grants that supported the scale-up
of our carbon nanomaterial technology. By accelerating our
technical milestones, federal funding allowed NanoIntegris to
more quickly focus on business development, ultimately growing
revenue and creating jobs. Expansion of the Small Business
Innovation Research program will thus enable more
nanotechnology startup companies to negotiate the so-called
Valley of Death.
Furthermore, reforms targeting improved efficiency of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, where I have
consistently experienced waits of four to five years for a
nanotechnology patent be issued, will allow valuable
intellectual property to be secured quickly, thereby reducing
commercialization risks and accelerating economic growth.
It is well documented that the United States is trailing
many other industrialized nations in STEM education. While this
problem is multifaceted with no simple solution, the situation
is certainly improved when the most talented American students
are inspired to pursue careers in science and engineering. In
that regard, the incorporation of nanotechnology content into
education and outreach efforts has been exceedingly successful.
For example, under the support of the National Science
Foundation, I incorporated nanotechnology into our materials
science and engineering curriculum, resulting in a doubling of
our domestic undergraduate population. From the perspective of
commercialization, the Small Business Evaluation and
Entrepreneur Program has united science, engineering, and
business students in the development of business plans that
have helped spawn multiple startup companies from Northwestern
University.
At the graduate level, the National Science Foundation, the
National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship
Programs have been superlative at recruiting and retaining the
top domestic science and engineering talent. Therefore, beyond
its clear successes in producing significant discoveries and
fostering innovation, the National Nanotechnology Initiative
has proven to be one of the best federal programs for enhancing
STEM education and thus American global competitiveness.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you again for this
opportunity and your ongoing support of nanotechnology
research, education, and commercialization. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hersam follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Dr. Hersam.
I now recognize Mr. Ivie for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. LES IVIE, PRESIDENT & CEO, F CUBED, LLC
Mr. Ivie. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and
honorable Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Les Ivie and
I am President and CEO of F Cubed, a company engaged in the
commercialization of molecular detection technology for the
rapid identification of pathogenic bacteria such as MRSA in
wounds, Listeria in food--in contaminated foods, and E. coli in
water samples. Our particular technology rests on exclusive of
licenses obtained from the University of Notre Dame in South
Bend, Indiana, as well as the Israel Institute of technology in
Haifa, as well as several in-house patented inventions.
Our investors have been extremely generous. However, we
would not exist today if the underlying science behind our
technology had not found support from the National Science
Foundation or the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
F Cubed is not a direct recipient of any federal funding.
However, the University of Notre Dame has received
approximately $3.9 million in federal grants that were
specifically used to develop our technology. I would
respectfully suggest that funding basic research in an academic
environment it is a good social and financial investment.
Entrepreneurs will pursue and fund these technologies assuming
that the economic environment is supportive, human resources
are available, and regulatory obstacles remain manageable.
With regard to human resources, STEM education is of
critical importance to F Cubed. In the field of nanotechnology,
the availability of well-educated employees is critical to
every company. STEM graduates come in at least two varieties.
The typical STEM graduate is an individual with a bachelor,
master, or doctoral degree.
However, there is another type of STEM graduate that is
important and often forgotten in this educational debate. In
the area of nanotechnology there are valuable two-year programs
that produce individuals with associate degrees. The NSF-
supported Nanotechnology Applications and Career Knowledge
network, or NACK, is a good example of such a program. These
two-year programs are important because they graduate
individuals that have knowledge and capability to operate and
prepare robotic and electronic equipment that is used to
manufacture nanotechnology products.
STEM education is not monolithic. It is critical to support
both traditional four-year and advanced degree programs, as
well as two-year programs that produce the technicians that
actually operate production lines for nanotechnology products.
F Cubed is an advisory member of NSF NACK and is fortunate
enough to have a two-year nanotechnology program offered by Ivy
Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana. It is the only
such program in Indiana. Many states have no comparable
programs whatsoever. This deficiency is absolutely worth
correcting.
F Cubed has exclusive licenses with two prestigious
academic institutions and significant experience in identifying
technologies and negotiating contracts with technology transfer
offices. As an experienced licensee, we can state that the most
challenging barrier to technology transfer is the time consumed
in concluding negotiations. It is undeniable that startups are
the engine that converts intellectual property into
commercially interesting products. Startups license and
commercialize new ideas and de-risk emerging technologies.
With a few adjustments in the enabling language of grants,
the federal government could reduce a major obstacle associated
with technology transfer, thus ensuring that recipients are
incentivized to quickly commercialize intellectual property and
get it into the hands of companies willing to make a
development risk benefiting the licensor and licensee,
benefiting taxpayers who will see a greater and faster return
on their tax dollars, and bolstering the economy at large.
With regard to regulations, the materials used in
nanotechnology are often new and exotic. Nanomaterials are used
in minute quantities and are often so expensive the companies
are economically incentivized to use as little as possible and
absolutely minimize waste. Life science community benefits from
an existing array of laboratory material safety practices, as
well as good manufacturing practices that are not only
customary within the industry but required by federal agencies
such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
F Cubed strongly supports objective and thoroughly peer-
reviewed scientific investigations into the potential impact
that nanomaterials may have on health and the environment under
the guidance of the National Science Foundation or programs
such as the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule process
established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It
maybe that the quantity of nanomaterials in the environment is
so low that additional regulation is unnecessary beyond current
industry safety practices.
The United States is a worldwide leader in nanotechnology.
Our national approach to regulation must be rational and
objective, not driven by misunderstanding of the materials in
question or unsubstantiated fears.
In conclusion, nanotechnology is important to our
universities, businesses, and consumers, many of whom will
advance--will benefit from advances in medicine, food safety,
and a cleaner environment. Federal funding is a large component
of basic research and translation of such research into
products by privately financed companies must be faster and
more deliberate if we are to maintain our worldwide lead. It is
critical that qualified technicians, engineers, and scientists
emerge from STEM programs, and finally, regulation must be
informed and intelligent. Safety is paramount.
Thank you for your support of nanotechnology.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ivie follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Ivie, for your testimony
and all of the witnesses for their fascinating testimony.
I want to remind the Members that the Committee rules limit
questioning to five minutes and the Chair at this point will
open the round of questions. I recognize myself for five
minutes.
First, Dr. Whitman, according to the President's 2015
National Nanotechnology Initiative supplement, the proposed
Fiscal Year 2015 NNI budget is $1.537 billion, which is $1
million less than the estimated Fiscal Year 2014 spend amount
and $13 million less than what was spent in Fiscal Year 2013.
How can we remain competitive with flat or decreased funding?
Dr. Whitman. So, first, let me comment that historically
the actual budgets when they are reported are--can be quite a
bit larger than that in the request. Many of the agencies,
including the Department of Defense and even many programs
within NIH and NSF and DOE aren't specifically--aren't nano-
specific solicitations such that at the end of the process nano
tends to be very competitive in competing for funds so that
when the cross cut is done, it may in fact turn out that the
nanotechnology budget may even have increased.
So generally my comment would be that nanotechnology has
continued to be quite competitive in solving problems and
leading to funding in the current very tight budget
environment.
Chairman Bucshon. Yes, that makes sense.
Mr. Ivie, in your written testimony you write that our
national approach to regulation of nanotechnology must be
rational and objective and not driven by misunderstanding of
materials in question or by unsubstantiated fear. What type of
leadership and priorities should be coming from the federal
government regarding research on the environmental and safety
impacts of nanotechnology?
Mr. Ivie. I think the--excuse me, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has a process which I refer to in my written
testimony as UMCR, the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule,
which has been very effective in identifying potential
contaminants in the environment and has been very deliberate in
the way they approach this problem, much as they do with some
of the things we look for such as E. coli, Listeria, and
terracoccus. That is a good starting place for regulation of
the materials that we use I think. It has been very deliberate
and they relied on scientific processes and scientific
contribution to that so I think that is probably the best place
to start.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
And as a physician, anyone want to comment? I was really
interested in reading in the press about the gold nano
particles you mentioned Dr. Whitman--being attached and used
for anticancer therapy. I was really excited about the
possibility of micro-targeting cancer because, as a
cardiovascular surgeon, we macro-targeted it by removing it.
But obviously that doesn't cure cancer in many aspects; for
example, lung cancer, even in earlier stages, there is still a
percentage of people that eventually do not survive their
cancer even though there is no detectable cancer in the body at
the time. Does anyone want to comment about the future of that?
Dr. Hersam, I see you--I mean I--that is an exciting area.
And, Dr. Persons.
Dr. Hersam. Yes. I think the opportunity for nanomaterials
in this regard is the fact that in one particular material you
can control multiple properties concurrently, so we can
functionalize nanoparticles with a particular therapeutic
agent. You can also functionalize it with a species that will
direct where the agent will be delivered, and then you can have
an external trigger such as an optical trigger, which can tell
you exactly when the drug will be released. And I think it is
that temporal control or time control of the release which
gives you the opportunity to give clinicians a new knob to turn
to realize new therapies, more effective therapies.
Chairman Bucshon. So in cancer cells is there a surface
protein or something that you target? Is that how it works?
Dr. Hersam. You can do it in that way. You can take
advantage of differences in the pH or the local acidity of the
environment. It doesn't mean it is a triggering release. Or you
can have an external trigger, which would be dictated by the
clinician.
Chairman Bucshon. Dr. Persons.
Dr. Persons. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We did do a profile on
nanotherapeutics as part of our study and we did look at one
particular group, but I would just add to what Dr. Hersam was
saying. There is some exciting work on functionalizing these
nanoparticles. First of all, we will be able to just make them
with pristine accuracy down to that scale and even design them
so that they do have sort of a Trojan horse effect if you will
uptake into the cancer or the malignant cells. So the highly
targeted nature of that is very exciting.
Thank you.
Chairman Bucshon. Anybody else have any comments on that?
If not, then I yield to Mr. Lipinski for five minutes for
his line of listening. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
I just wanted to start out by talking about a potential
reauthorization of NNI, which, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, we haven't done since 2003. I just want to start by
asking any recommendations that anyone has of--starting with
Dr. Whitman, anything you would like to see in a
reauthorization of NNI?
Dr. Whitman. So as I commented in general, we think that
the 2003 act is fairly good. We have I think discussed in the
past with a number of the Members one of the peculiar aspects
of it is that there are actually multiple assessments called
for in that act on different timescales and on different
timescales than our other reporting. So we are--we have both a
National Nanotechnology Assessment Panel and a National
Research Council Panel on different timescales plus annual
budget supplements and triennial strategic plans. So as the
director of the office responsible for all of that, it is
somewhat of a perpetual cycle of preparing for a review,
responding for a review, and so having a somewhat more
efficient schedule for those and perhaps not as much redundancy
would be helpful.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Does anyone else have any recommendations?
Dr. Hersam. Yes. I mean what I would say is if we look at
the maturity of nanotechnology, it is tempting to say there are
winners and we should invest in those winners and really
develop technologies to a higher level and I think that that
should happen. However, nanoscience itself remains a fertile
area for breakthroughs, unanticipated new technologies. And so
I think a diversified portfolio both on the fundamental
research side and on the applied side is critical to take
advantage of the full potential of this field.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Dr. Stevenson?
Dr. Stevenson. Yes. I would like to comment.
We had an NNI site, one of these infrastructure
nanotechnology network sites at our Pickle Research Campus that
is home of the Materials Research and Engineering Center, and
they were part of the NSF last round of funding and they
decided not to fund any of the new NNI sites. And this had
quite an impact on our local campus just being able to bridge
the gap so that we have a lot of facilities that need care and
feeding, and also there is a lot of large user base with
dedicated staff scientists. And without that continued funding,
then there is bridge funds essentially that are needed in order
to keep that operational.
The other thing to recognize is that a lot of this
infrastructure that has--like these networks that have been
built up, now there are several other new initiatives that
actually are intertwined with the development and discoveries
made in nanotechnology such as materials genome, the BRAIN
Initiative, and a few others, mesoscale science in particular
with the Department of Energy. Those types of new initiatives
actually rely on a lot of the infrastructure and resources that
were established by the NNI over the last 13 years.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Dr. Persons?
Dr. Persons. Thank you, sir. I just would follow up. GAO in
past work in looking at the NNI of course encourages a risk
management-based approach on nano environment, health, and
safety issues, so just would encourage based on our past work
focus on that, although again in the same mode that Mr. Ivie
was talking about in terms of a reasonable regulation type
domain.
I would also just echo what our study found, one of the
large emphases on the need for international standards on these
things as it moves into the commercial sector. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
I want to move on to technology transfer that I think is
critical. I know, Dr. Hersam, when you were starting your
company NanoIntegris that you applied and received SBIR grants,
which you talked about. Can you talk about the importance of
the SBIR program? And I will start with you and see if anyone
else has any comments about what can be done to improve
technology transfer when it comes to nanotech.
Dr. Hersam. Yeah. So I would say that the SBIR program has
been absolutely critical. In the very early stages it allows
prototype developments. I think that is key in order to get
additional private capital injected into nanotech companies.
The Phase 2 funding is especially important for going to the
next level, which is often the scale-up level. The scale-up is
critical if you want to get your product to a larger market.
I think there is an opportunity to reassess the Phase 3
program. Often when you are entering into Phase 3 you approach
this valley of death where if the company doesn't get a
significant injection of capital, it can perish at that stage,
and I think there is a lot of companies that are suffering at
that moment. A little bit more investment from the federal
government there would bring those to a profitable level and
that of course would lead to economic growth.
Mr. Lipinski. Anyone else want to--okay.
I will yield back.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Collins for five minutes for his line
of questioning.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon.
Dr. Whitman, I am from western New York. Cornell University
has been a big participant in the NNIN, and recently their
funding has come to an end, as we have--now looking at the next
gen. I just wonder could you help the Committee understand a
little bit more about where the next generation NNIN stands?
And I believe there was some proposals you were asking, you got
a couple of groups that submitted but neither one was selected.
And I know our big concern in New York is the State matches
the funds that come out of the NNIN. And as Dr. Stevenson said,
there is infrastructure there and you just can't cut it off and
then expect it to reappear if there is even a six month delay.
And so, you know, on behalf of Cornell University and others, I
would like to better understand where that initiative stands
and is there a basic understanding you can't just turn the
spigot off and expect to turn it back on six months later.
Dr. Whitman. So, unfortunately, although the NNCO is hosted
by NSF, I am actually not part of the NSF organization so that
is really a question that you would have to ask NSF leadership.
I can briefly comment on what they have stated publicly, which
is that the program is important and they are, actually
recently had a ``Dear Colleague'' letter soliciting advice on
how best to proceed with the program, so it is not--I think the
intention from NSF appears to be to continue the program in
some form. So, you know, I would be happy to take the question
for the record to NSF and get a response but----
Mr. Collins. Yeah, maybe if you could.
Dr. Stevenson, do you have any other comment as you have
witnessed this firsthand?
Dr. Stevenson. Yeah. I mean it is a little bit--with all
the pressure with the cuts and the deficit, especially with new
centers, like there was encouragement to actually diversify and
create other nanoscale research and engineering centers. Maybe
that is not going to be the best way to go if we already have
these established networks because these are serious
investments. The--so there needs to be some pushback, I think a
little bit to some of these agencies to say, hey, you already
invested in this. You need to continue to do so. You can't just
leave these people hanging.
Mr. Collins. Well, and right now I think, you know, time is
of the essence.
Dr. Stevenson. Yeah, it--and this is really impacting our
UT campus, our resources as well.
Mr. Collins. So is there anything you could suggest that we
could do on this Committee or in Congress to try to expedite
this black hole that appears to be there?
Dr. Stevenson. Just to recognize that these resources just
can't be cut off and that there are people behind them that
actually enable science, other funded initiatives and the
growth of the technology base. So at the NNIN site in Texas
they are--have several companies, over 50 that use this
facility on a daily basis, and those companies need that
access, too, especially the small companies.
Mr. Collins. Well, you know, again, Cornell shares that
concern and so do I, so, you know, we will have to see what we
might do to at least ask more questions and understand this is
a resource that just can't be turned off and then turned back
on.
With that, Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Johnson for her five minutes for her
line of questioning.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Whitman, the National Nanotechnology Initiative has had
a workforce development component since it was established.
Could you please speak to the efforts on education and
workforce development and also talk a little bit about the
education outreach activities at the elementary or secondary
level and how the NNI agencies such as the National Science
Foundation is providing resources for teachers or informal STEM
educators so they can effectively integrate nanotechnology
concepts into the classrooms and activities?
Dr. Whitman. I will do my best.
So this is not an area I have deep personal expertise, but
I can tell you that nanotechnology--the federal government has
worked hard to make nanotechnology a part of the federal-wide
K-12 and postsecondary STEM education strategy. The NSF and the
Department of Education have had a number of programs to do
that. We in the NNCO do outreach at a variety of places. I
actually personally attended the booth at the Science and
Engineering Festival, which was a lot of fun.
And there is also--NSF and other agencies support the
National Nanomanufacturing Network, which also supports
education, and there is also EHS-related work encouraging
people to learn about the safe use of nanoparticles.
Again, if you want to take that question for the record and
I can provide additional information.
Ms. Johnson. Okay. Thank you.
I am concerned about the turning off and on, as just been
mentioned, and also in any kind of sustainability of how we can
make sure there is a workforce, a research group in the future.
Does anybody else on the panel have any comments?
Dr. Hersam. Yeah. I am happy to comment on that.
So the National Science Foundation Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Centers would devote about, you know 1/4 to 1/3 of
their budget to precisely STEM education and outreach. These
programs were outstanding because you would have the latest in
research impacting work being done at K-12 level, general
public outreach, undergraduate level. And these centers were
designed to run for ten years, and the problem is after those
ten years you have all this momentum and then, as you
mentioned, the spigot is turned off and that gap in funding
really decimates those programs.
And consequently, having sustained and predictable funding
will not only influence the fundamental research but perhaps
more importantly STEM education and therefore American
competitiveness.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
What about the gentleman, Mr. Ivie, the Notre Dame
graduate, do you see any deficit in your work in the future for
talent?
Mr. Ivie. Yes. We see deficits in a couple of areas. One of
them is in my written testimony and in my spoken testimony I
highlighted the impact that people with associate's degrees
have on our business. For us this is important because these
are the people that actually operate our production lines and
these people are hard to come by right now, and that is
primarily because the NSF program, NACK, the Nanotechnology
Applications and Career Knowledge Network is just starting to
take off.
Typically in our business we hire people with bachelor's
degrees, master's degrees, Ph.D.'s, and while they may be
interested in--for working on a production line with a robot
that is applying nanomaterials to our product for a few weeks,
this isn't something they want to make a career out of. So this
is one thing we are particularly concerned about.
I think the other thing we are concerned about in general
is the issue that I am sort of hearing from some of the other
testimonies, which is spreading federal government money over
too much territory. As an entrepreneur, we view our business
responsibility as taking this technology and commercializing
it. We don't see it as the university's responsibility to do
that for us. That is why we go out and find private individuals
with a lot of money. Now, of course, Uncle Sam has a lot of
money as well but that probably should be used somewhere else
and I think that is also something that needs to be dealt with
on the technology transfer side.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Johnson from Ohio for his line of
questioning.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing today.
Dr. Whitman, in your written testimony on the NNI you
write, ``there is always room for improvement, as also
suggested by the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel and the
National Academies.'' Could you please give us an idea of which
specific areas you think need improvement and why they are
necessary? Can you expand on that, please?
Dr. Whitman. Sure. So one of the areas, you know, we have
been working hard at is improving our interface to the business
community, both to provide resources to them and so that we can
hear them as stakeholders. So, for example, we heard mention
about the availability of things like the SBIR program so we
have in our office a full-time industrial liaison person now
and we have taken a number of steps to try to make our website
a better resource for industry and interface with groups like
the Nanotechnology Business Commercialization Alliance to make
sure they know who they need to talk to, bring people together,
and support their needs as an industry community. That is one
example.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Hersam, in your testimony you write that you ``have 28
nanotechnology patents pending, which implies that my
commercialization attempts have largely occurred without formal
patent protection.'' So is this mainly due to the delays at the
United States Patent and Trademark Office?
Dr. Hersam. That is correct. So the time from filing a
patent to getting initial office action in my experience has
typically been about three years, and then after the office
action you are looking at another year or more before the
patent is issued. This field moves so quickly that if you are
going to commercialize, you have to go to market before your
patent is issued, and therefore you are assuming risk because
there is little legal recourse if your patent is not yet
issued.
So any effort that can streamline the operation or improve
the efficiency of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office I think
will improve the ability to commercialize nanotechnologies
because you reduce risk that will allow easier time gaining
investments and protecting IP, which was developed in the
United States.
Mr. Johnson. How many patents team you have with the Patent
and Trademark Office now?
Dr. Hersam. Issued?
Mr. Johnson. No. How many do you have waiting?
Dr. Hersam. The 28 that you mentioned.
Mr. Johnson. The 28 are still waiting?
Dr. Hersam. That is right.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. And how long have they been there?
Dr. Hersam. It depends on the----
Mr. Johnson. Give me the oldest one.
Dr. Hersam. I have one that was filed in 2005 that is still
pending.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Good grief, nine years.
Dr. Hersam. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. How in your mind could the process be reformed
at the Patent and Trademark Office and what specific policies
do you think should be fixed and addressed, especially in this
area that we are talking about, nanotechnology
commercialization?
Dr. Hersam. You know, it is hard to know exactly why thing
get delayed, but presumably it is not enough patent examiners
in this field. I mean that is what I would anticipate as a
limiting factor. It just takes--there is a large stack on the
desk and it takes a long time to get through those. So getting
them on the desk of the examiner more quickly presumably would
be more examiners would help significantly.
Mr. Johnson. But nine years. You think--I mean
nanotechnology, I can't imagine that there is--I mean maybe
there are and maybe I am wrong, but I can't imagine that there
are that many people flooding the desk of the nanotechnology
department at the Patent and Trademark Office.
Dr. Hersam. Yes. So in that regard I guess I am as
mystified as you are and it is not transparent or obvious to me
why it takes so long.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. All right.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that--those are all the questions I
have. I yield back the remaining balance of my time. Thank you,
gentlemen.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Kelly for five minutes for her line of
questioning.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Several of you mentioned successful public-private
partnerships, including the College for Nanoscience and
Engineering in New York. Are there lessons we can learn from
public-private partnerships in nanotechnology, in particular
partnerships that involve significant leveraging of private
funds? And whoever cares to answer can answer, which I hope
someone cares to answer.
Mr. Ivie. I will take a stab at it.
Ms. Kelly. Okay.
Mr. Ivie. The University of Notre Dame has a program called
ESTEEM, which is a graduate one-year program for establishing
science and entrepreneurship amongst STEM graduates. I think we
have seen that as becoming successful because, number one, they
implant interns into our organization. That is people with
degrees that are useful, help us develop our products, and also
to turn these students into entrepreneurs themselves.
I think most four-year graduates, while they like the idea
of becoming a business owner, what they don't like is the idea
of becoming impoverished in the process of doing that. However,
what we have tried to explain to them is that if you are going
to risk something, risk something before you have a home,
several car payments, and children to support.
So we have seen that partnership between us and them and
other small businesses in our community become very successful.
Ms. Kelly. That is great. I am sure they are worried about
all the student loan debt.
Mr. Ivie. They are, believe me.
Ms. Kelly. Anyone else?
Dr. Whitman. So it certainly works best when you have a
combination of strong technology pull from the industry where
they see a market and a need that can be met and a good
technology push with a new technology. That is what you will
see in something like the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative.
It also works well when the nature of that public-private
partnership involves a lot of--a significant amount of
precompetitive work such that industries feel they can work
together at that stage, so that certainly is the case there.
And then the other one--there is one actually with the forest
products related to nanocellulose. In fact, there is a workshop
going on today about that field and the challenges and
opportunities for commercialization, but there is already a
public-private partnership in the area as well so you need
those kind of combination of things that make it work.
Dr. Persons. Yes, ma'am. And I would just add on to Dr.
Whitman's statement on--emphasizing the precompetitive research
and development sort of environment that is set up there. It is
also--and seeing as each case is co-located with universities
so you have this nice ecosystem of training, as has been
mentioned a number of times. And there are strong involvement
in integration with industry needs overall, so there is lots of
industries coordination on that side and there is coordination
on the STEM or the educational side.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Dr. Stevenson. I would add one specific example that
Texas--is that--is part of the establishment of the NNIN site.
They worked with a local company that was founded at University
of Texas, Molecular Imprints. It has now been sold to Canon.
And with that agreement the Molecular Imprints gave them a
significant discount on the state-of-the-art lithographic
capabilities that then helped facilitate the training from
people from local companies to use this technology at the NNIN
site. And this was only enabled because of the partnership
between the federal investments to establish the NNIN
capabilities Texas but also the fact that this company is
really innovating in that particular area a totally different
way of doing nanofabrication than what is currently done in the
commercial sense.
So this partnership really had led not only the training of
people at different companies but also students and graduate
students in this area, so it was a very emerging cutting-edge
technology that was enabled from that.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Stockman, five minutes.
Mr. Stockman. I am from Texas so I am glad to hear so much
about Texas, and I think University of Houston also had some
nanotechnology, so I don't want to--representing Houston, I
don't want to leave that out.
I have a friend up in Dallas who spent I think close to
$100 million of his own money--I wish I could say I spent
that--but--and one of the things he found out is he developed a
nanotechnology. The people in the government, particularly the
EPA, were not as familiar with what he was doing and they came
in there and--in a way that prohibited him from doing things
and research, which I don't--there is a gap between government
regulations and what they know and what they are proposing. And
then the DOD told him he can't sell his product to pay for his
research because they said it is classified, so DOD won't buy
it. And so what happens now--he is looking at going to--in
transferring his entire company to Abu Dhabi, and I am
wondering if we can't get feedback from you on how we could
make sure that we don't lose private corporations because they
feel restricted either through the EPA or the DOD. So feel free
to answer.
Dr. Stevenson. I am happy to answer at least one aspect of
that question. First of all, EPA seems to be bifurcated in
their behavior towards certain materials. For example,
contaminants that you would find in water such as Lake
Michigan, they might spend 20 to 25 years examining the
problem, coming up with a prescription for the solution to the
problem, and then implementing the solution. What we have seen
in nanotechnology is there already are a huge number of
regulations we are required to comply with, whether that is
laboratory safety, material safety, OSHA requirements, in
Indiana, the Indiana Department of Safety and Health and then
the University of Notre Dame, so there is already a very large
contingent of regulations that we have to comply with.
I think part of what we are seeing is probably a political
reaction, number one, and secondly, a misunderstanding of what
it is we are dealing with. They don't understand the
characteristics of the materials and many of their laboratories
that they have in places like Cincinnati have not dealt with
these things before.
So the solution to what EPA is doing I am not sure what the
solution is, but one thing I am certain is not a solution is
not talking about it and that seems to be what is on the agenda
right now. There isn't a lot of public disclosure about what
they are going to do.
Mr. Stockman. Given that you are in the private sector, is
there any way you can get to this Committee some of the
problems you are seeing? Because I think for us we make laws
for you to make and facilitate your productivity and we want to
see you succeed, but if we don't know the problems, we can't
correct that. And to me it was alarming because here is a guy
who put in a lot of his own money and now is forced to leave
because the people--given the rules and regulations, a lot of
them don't have a clue. I mean they don't have a clue about
what you are doing and so they just shoot in the dark at
regulations saying, well, I hope this regulation is going to
help. We don't really know. There is no case study to prove our
regulation is going to help and it is driving people out even
before this industry takes off.
And for me to see America's competitiveness being driven
down by people that don't know what is going on is pretty
alarming to me.
Mr. Ivie. Well, I think in my opinion what I would rather
see happen instead of giving F Cubed a grant, for example, or a
small business loan, what I would refer to see is something
like a program at the U.S. EPA for the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rules that they already have in place to examine
these things over a period of time with the NSF or an
organization like that. We already know this has worked with
other contaminants such as hexavalent chromium or hormones that
are being injected into the water system through waste streams.
That is probably the most important thing. I just don't think
they are being pressured to do that. That is where their true
scientific capability lies.
With regard to your friend who is going to Abu Dhabi, one
thing I can say, we experience this on a daily basis. Many
organizations in places, not so much the Middle East but in
Asia, are spending a huge amount of money trying to do what we
are doing. That is they are trying to develop entrepreneurs to
take over nanotechnology. The difference is that so far from a
cultural point of view they have not succeeded in doing that.
It is not because they are not just spending the money to try,
however.
Mr. Stockman. Well, they don't even make the distinction
between friable and un-friable or in suspension. They just use
a shotgun.
But I appreciate your feedback. If you can get us ways that
we can improve the efficiency, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Ivie. Certainly.
Mr. Stockman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
the hearing.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. And--excuse me. At this point
I would like to thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony, very fascinating subject, and the Members for their
questions. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and written questions from Members.
The witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Lloyd Whitman]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Responses by Mr. Les Ivie
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement of lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science,
Space and Technology
Thank you Chairman Bucshon for holding today's hearing.
Many believe nanotechnology has the potential to usher in the next
industrial revolution. Last February, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) released a report that the Committee's Chairman Emeritus,
Mr. Hall, and I had requested, titled, ``Nanomanufacturing: Emergence
and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human
Health.''
The report described nanomanufacturing as a future megatrend with
societal and economic impacts that could surpass even the digital
revolution. It also predicted further scientific breakthroughs in this
area that will lead to new engineering developments and improvements in
the manufacturing sector.
The report recommended that Congress update current innovation-
related policies and programs and that we promote U.S. innovation in
manufacturing through public-private partnerships. One such public-
private partnership is the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure
Network (NNIN). The NNIN is a partnership of user facilities, supported
by the National Science Foundation (NSF), which serves the needs of
nanoscale science, engineering and technology.
The University of Texas at Austin is home to one of these
facilities called the Microelectronics Research Center (MRC). This
center performs research to improve materials used in the integrated
circuit industry and related industries.
The MRC is more than a clean room with open-access to advanced
nano-fabrication equipment. It is a community of scientists who work
together to share knowledge in order to ensure a more advanced and
competitive America.
More importantly, MRC is leading the way in the instrumentation for
manufacturing--precisely the area that was recommended for emphasis in
the GAO report.
In 2013, NSF requested proposals for a Next Generation
Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NG-NNIN). Two teams of
universities responded to this call. Last March, NSF decided not to
fund either of the NG-NNIN proposals under consideration.
Given the importance of nanotechnology research and the GAO report
recommendation that the U.S. maintain and enhance competitiveness in
this area, I don't know of a good explanation for NSF's decision.
I look forward to the witnesses' testimony on how we can ensure
that the U.S. remains the world leader in nanotechnology research. I
would especially like to thank Chemistry Professor Keith Stevenson,
from the University of Texas at Austin, for his participation this
morning.