[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MATERIAL SCIENCE:
BUILDING THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY &
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 28, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-236 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky AMI BERA, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia JERRY MCNERNEY, California
GARY PALMER, Alabama ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JIM BANKS, Indiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma JERRY MCNERNEY, California
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California, Vice PAUL TONKO, New York
Chair JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida AMI BERA, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana AMI BERA, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JIM BANKS, Indiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
June 28, 2017
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Marc A. Veasey, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Barbara Comstock, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Witnesses:
Dr. Matthew Tirrell, Deputy Laboratory Director for Science and
Chief Research Officer, Argonne National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Dr. Laurie Locascio, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory
Programs and Director, Material Measurement Laboratory,
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 41
Dr. Adam Schwartz, Director, Ames Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Dr. Fred Higgs, John and Ann Doerr Professor of Mechanical
Engineering, Rice University
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Discussion....................................................... 62
Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 84
Document submitted by Representative Bill Foster, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 86
MATERIAL SCIENCE: BUILDING THE FUTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy
Weber [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. The Subcommittees on Energy and Research
will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittees at any time.
So welcome to today's hearing titled ``Materials Science:
Building the Future.''
I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
Today, we will have the opportunity to review federally
funded research in materials science. I want to thank our panel
of witnesses for joining us to share your important research,
and provide the knowledge necessary to set priorities for basic
science research.
Materials science is the discovery of new materials with
novel structures, functions, and properties. In this area of
science, researchers study the chemical, physical, atomic, and
magnetic properties of an existing material, and use that
knowledge to create new materials with ideal properties. By
designing and creating new materials, researchers at our
national labs and universities can solve complex engineering
challenges and enable the development of new technologies.
Today, federal agencies ranging from the Department of
Defense to the National Science Foundation and DOE are pursuing
research in this area because the value to our end users is
clear. By tailor-making materials for a specific use,
scientists can create materials that increase efficiency and
better store energy; reduce the environmental impacts and
improve the safety of energy production technologies; develop
stronger and more resilient artificial joints; improve high
performance computing systems; and better protect our soldiers
and athletes in the field.
As Madonna would say, we are certainly living in a material
world. For example, Dr. Fred Higgs, who joins us from Rice
University--my sister graduated from Rice, Dr. Higgs--and I
were having that conversation--will testify about how the
development of materials such as diamond-like carbons and
nanocrystalline diamond can lead to long-lasting, wear-
resistant artificial knees and hips that could last decades
longer than today's technology.
At Ames Lab, led by Dr. Adam Schwartz who joins our panel
today, the Department of Energy has cultivated decades of
expertise in metallurgy and materials science. Researchers at
Ames Lab pioneered the use of metallic powders in 3D printing.
As Dr. Schwartz will testify, this expertise has enabled the
production of high-purity metal powders that can be used in the
creation of industrial parts for military, biomedical, and
aerospace applications.
I'm also particularly interested in Ames' ongoing early-
stage research in caloric materials for refrigeration and air
conditioning--I own an air conditioning company, which if--and
we're going to talk about this, in fact, the whole hearing may
be on this-- which if successful--I mean, how cool is that,
right?--which if successful could save 20 to 25 percent of the
generated electricity used for cooling, refrigeration, and air
conditioning in the United States. Now, let that sink in: 20 to
25 percent of the energy used for refrigeration and air
conditioning and heating in the United States.
Finally, just this week, a researcher at Argonne National
Lab, which Dr. Tirrell is testifying on behalf of today, won
the 2017 TechConnect National Innovation Award for developing a
more efficient method to create graphene. This one area of
materials science research could improve technology for
advanced touch screens, long-lasting batteries, transparent and
conducting coatings for solar cells, and next-generation oil-
free solid lubricants.
Materials science also provides a perfect example of the
broad economic benefit of investments in research
infrastructure. The core capabilities and user facilities at
our national labs are essential for the discovery and design of
new materials. There is nowhere else in the world where an
individual researcher or company could access a light source,
high performance computing capabilities, and the specific
expertise in materials synthesis that is available in our
system of national labs.
You may hear today about how this vital area of research is
at risk of being left behind because of budget cuts or changing
priorities but basic and early stage research in materials
science is exactly what this Committee has always supported.
Discoveries in materials science require tools and
expertise provided by national labs, and industry users are
ready and waiting to commercialize--commercialize--they're
waiting to take it to market technology based on this
fundamental science.
Hearings like today's help remind us of the Science
Committee's core focus: the basic research that provides the
foundation for technology breakthroughs. Before we can ever see
the deployment of a better battery, a stronger material for
protective gear, or wear-resistant materials for medicine or
energy production, we must invest in the science infrastructure
that makes these discoveries possible.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr.
Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my fellow Texan, and
also Chair Comstock, for holding this hearing. We have a very
impressive panel today, and I want to thank each and every one
of you being here. I'm going to make my remarks brief because I
think that everybody's really interested to hear what they have
to say today, and I'm sure that as you are aware, we'd be hard-
pressed to find a scientific field that doesn't rely on
materials science at some level to accomplish its research
objectives. It is critically--it is a critically important area
of research for answering the most pressing scientific
questions and advancing our economy in the 21st century.
Lightweight vehicles, high-performance building materials, more
efficient turbines, and solar panels are just a few examples.
The research and development of new materials can provide a
direct benefit to consumers with savings on energy bills and
benefits to our environment.
Scientists at universities, national laboratories, and in
the private industry utilize federal research grants and
scientific user facilities to explore the frontiers of
materials research. A better understanding of the properties of
ceramics, glass, metals, composites, polymers, and plastics is
achieved through materials research. By optimizing these
properties, we can address key hurdles in developing new
technologies with a variety of applications. Energy efficiency
and reliability, public health and safety, and environmental
stewardship can all benefit from strong investments in material
research. In fact, I think we could sit here all day and talk
about the immense benefits of material research, and I know
that we're going to do just that, and like I said a little bit
earlier, I think everybody is really excited to hear what you
have to say.
And while there seems to be strong support for this work in
Congress, we cannot have this conversation without
acknowledging the shortsighted and harmful Trump budget
released last month. The Administration's budget would
absolutely decimate the all-important field of materials
science in the United States. The budget would cut sustainable
transportation and renewable energy by 70 percent and energy
efficiency by 80 percent. It would cut critical research on the
electric grid and fossil fuels in half. It would eliminate
ARPA-E, cut the Office of Sciences by 17 percent, and nuclear
energy by 30 percent. All of these programs help fund the
materials research that we will hear about today. And even if
we wanted to, we can't balance the budget by slashing our
research funding.
The Administration's budget proposal will make the United
States less competitive. These cuts would cause us to lose
jobs, harm our public health, and hurt our international R&D
partnerships. The proposed cuts are just absolutely puzzling.
They just make no sense.
I look forward to hearing from each of you on how the
proposed budget cuts at DOE, at NSF, at NIST could hurt us in
the area of materials research enterprise and U.S.
competitiveness. I am particularly interested in hearing from
Dr. Schwartz about the consequences these severe cuts could
have at his laboratory, which has a special focus on materials
research.
The Administration has claimed that the private sector
would simply start funding these key research areas once the
federal government cuts them from its budget but I don't think
that's based in reality. In fact, Administration officials
recently confirmed that have not even begun a conversation with
the private sector to determine what industry would be able or
willing to pick up. So let's get back to reality and continue
our strong support for these high-value research programs that
are vital for American competitiveness, our quality of life,
and our scientific leadership.
And before I conclude, I do want to apologize to the Chair
and the other Members and our panelists that are here today. We
have an Armed Services markup today downstairs and so I'm going
to be back and forth, but again, I think that what we're going
to hear today is really going to be good and interesting, and I
really appreciate the panelists that are here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Veasey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Well, thank you, Marc. I appreciate that.
The good news is that the President doesn't have the last word.
He may have the first tweet but not the last word. Did I say
that out loud?
I now recognize the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on
Research and Technology, Mrs. Comstock, for her opening
statement.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. Good morning.
Today's hearing focuses on vital research in materials
science. This basic and fundamental research provides the
foundation for important new technologies in many fields
including medicine, transportation, manufacturing, defense,
energy, and computing, which ultimately helps improve our
quality of life and grows the U.S. economy.
Behind every new innovation from the iPhone to the
International Space Station is decades of work by engineers,
physicists, and chemists, creating the new materials that make
it possible.
Advances in materials science have been achieved in a
variety of ways, from public-private partnerships, science
prize competitions, and through investments made by the federal
government, industry, and universities. By investing in STEM
education and the research infrastructure necessary to advance
this area of basic research, the federal government can fast-
track the development of industry specific materials that
benefit American consumers.
One recent example of a public-private partnership that I
find of great interest is the NIST work alongside the National
Football League, General Electric Company, and Under Armour to
support an open innovation prize in search of advanced
materials to better absorb or dissipate energy. The Head Health
Challenge will lead to the improvement in performance of
protective equipment, like helmets, to help and protect head
safety for men and women in uniform; Americans who work in
manufacturing, construction, and other industries; and those
who participate in athletics, starting with children who
participate in school sports. We have heard so much recently
about the long-lasting impact of head injuries, how it might be
connected to Alzheimer's and others. This is really exciting
work that's going on.
This kind of partnership is particularly encouraging
because we should be doing everything in our power to help
protect the lives of those who put themselves on the line for
our freedom and safety as well as American workers and, of
course, our children in those ever-present sports that we know
are wonderful for them but we want them to perform in them
safely.
By investing in materials science research, we invest in
both innovation and the livelihood of our citizens.
Manufacturing is another critical sector where material
science innovation can help create efficiency in production.
While scientists develop new materials in our national labs and
universities, industry applies these new materials to improve
manufacturing, and create new products that keep the United
States competitive in the global economy.
As Chair of the Research and Technology Subcommittee, I am
interested in learning more about NIST's work with
manufacturers and other private industry partners on new
materials testing and standards, as well as the National
Science Foundation's investment in basic research at
institutions like Rice University.
Taxpayer investment in basic and fundamental research,
which the private sector can then develop and commercialize,
provides significant rewards that improve our society and the
lives of our citizens. We must ensure that this research
ecosystem is a vibrant, functioning partnership to spur
innovation and create new industries and, of course, more jobs.
Thank you to our expert witnesses for being here today, and
I look forward to hearing your informative testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Comstock follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mrs. Comstock, and I recognize
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Research and
Technology, Mr. Daniel Lipinski, for his opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Weber and Chairwoman
Comstock, for holding this hearing on federal investments in
materials science research and the economic importance of these
programs.
Materials science and engineering R&D is carried out across
several federal agencies. This research, as we will hear more
about this morning, has applications across many sectors,
including energy, defense, transportation, and even human
welfare, as Chairwoman Comstock mentioned, the better helmets
that can be made to prevent traumatic brain injury.
Unfortunately, as the Office of Science and Technology
Policy detailed in a 2011 paper, the time it takes to move a
newly discovered advanced material from the lab to the
marketplace remains much too long. That white paper was the
genesis of the multiagency Materials Genome Initiative, or MGI.
The MGI is a public-private R&D partnership that seeks to
accelerate the lab-to-market timeline through advances in
computational techniques, more effective use of standards, and
enhanced data management.
The Research and Technology Subcommittee, on which I serve
as Ranking Member, focuses on NSF and NIST, so I want to spend
a moment talking about the important materials research
programs at those agencies. NSF participates in the MGI
primarily through the Designing Materials to Revolutionize and
Engineer our Future program. This program is building the
fundamental knowledge base needed to increase the precision of
new materials development, enabling a shift from trial and
error to designing and producing materials with specific
desired properties. NSF also contributes to MGI through the
Cyber-Enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems
Initiative. As part of this initiative, NSF launched the
Materials Innovation Platforms program to develop
transformative techniques and instrumentation that will improve
understanding and discovery of new, complex material systems.
NIST scientists conduct research in all aspects of
materials science, with the goal of developing better and new
measurement and characterization tools and standards for
advanced materials. The agency's major efforts on material
science research are supported by the Material Measurement
Laboratory, the national reference laboratory for measurements
in the chemical, biological, and material sciences. In addition
to its internal research program, NIST also established the
Advanced Materials Center of Excellence at Northwestern
University, Argonne National Laboratory, and the University of
Chicago, to facilitate the collaboration with leading research
institutes and industry. The Center supports the goals of the
Materials Genome Initiative by developing computational tools
and databases to support materials discovery and production.
Finally, NIST manages the interagency Manufacturing USA
initiative, which includes several institutes focused on
advanced materials. I look forward to learning more about all
of this work from Dr. Locascio.
I want to echo the comments of my fellow Ranking Member,
Mr. Veasey, by expressing my concern about the Trump
Administration's proposed budget cuts to materials R&D across
the science agencies. Not only would these cuts cause us to
lose out on the economic opportunities our materials research
programs create. They would also do great harm to our nation's
ability to stay at the cutting edge of materials science and
the related health, energy storage, technology, and national
security benefits that will be discussed today.
We have an excellent panel before us that can help us
understand not only materials science itself, but also why our
investments in this field are so important for the nation. The
proposed 11 percent cut at NSF, the 13 percent cut to the labs
at NIST, and the even more draconian cuts at DOE must not be
enacted. Today's hearing will give us a few more reasons why we
must reject the President's budget request if our nation is to
stay scientifically and economically competitive, and I
certainly appreciate Chairman Weber's comments about that
budget and what Congress will do. Hopefully we will see robust
funding for these programs.
So I look forward to the testimony and discussion this
morning, and I thank the panelists for being here to share
their expertise with us.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
It is now time for witness introductions, and I'm going to
yield right back to Mr. Lipinski to introduce our first witness
today.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Matthew Tirrell is Deputy Laboratory Director for
Science and Chief Research Officer at Argonne National
Laboratory in my district. At Argonne, he is responsible for
integrating the laboratory's research and development efforts
in science and technology capabilities. He is also the Founding
Director of the Institute for Molecular Engineering at the
University of Chicago, which has a mission to translate
advances in basic physics, chemistry, biology, and computation
into tools to address important societal problems. The
Institute recently partnered with Argonne and Fermi National
Labs to create the Chicago Quantum Exchange, which aims to
serve as an intellectual hub for the science and engineering of
quantum information and to commercialize discoveries through
the Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of
Chicago.
Dr. Tirrell received his achelor's degree from Northwestern
University, just as I did, in engineering, and his Ph.D. from
University of Massachusetts-Amherst. His distinguished career
has included faculty positions at the University of Minnesota,
the University of California-Santa Barbara, University of
California-Berkeley, and induction into the National Academy of
Engineering and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Welcome, Dr. Tirrell. We're happy to have him here today.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
Our second witness today is Dr. Laurie Locascio--is that
right? Okay--Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs
and Director for the Material Measurement Laboratory at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Previously, Dr.
Locascio served as Chief of the Biochemical Division in the
Material Measurement Laboratory. She received a Bachelor's of
Science degree in chemistry from James Madison University, a
master's of science degree in bioengineering from the
University of Utah, and a Ph.D. in toxicology from the
University of Maryland at Baltimore. Welcome.
Our next witness is Dr. Adam Schwartz, Director at Ames
Laboratory. He is also a Professor of Materials Science and
Engineering in the College of Engineering at Iowa State
University. Dr. Schwartz had over 20 years of materials science
research and management experience at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory prior to joining Ames Laboratory. He
received a bachelor's degree and master's degree in
metallurgical engineering as well as a Ph.D. in materials
science and engineering from the University of Pittsburgh.
Welcome.
Our last witness is Dr. Fred Higgs, a John and Ann Doerr
Professional of Mechanical Engineering at Rice University,
where my sister graduated from. Previously, he was a
postdoctoral research fellow at Georgia Institute of
Technology. Dr. Higgs received a B.S. in mechanical
engineering, an M.S. in mechanical engineering, and a Ph.D. in
mechanical engineering--you have a thing for mechanical
engineering--from--pronounce that.
Dr. Higgs. Rensselaer.
Chairman Weber. Rensselaer Polytech Institute in Troy, New
York, but you finally made it to Texas. So I told him he's a
native Texan imported from Florida. So welcome. We're glad you
here.
And Dr. Tirrell, I now recognize you for five minutes to
present your testimony, and welcome to you as well.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MATTHEW TIRRELL,
DEPUTY LABORATORY DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE
AND CHIEF RESEARCH OFFICER,
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Tirrell. Thank you. Chairman Weber, Chairwoman
Comstock, Ranking Member Veasey, and Ranking Member Lipinski
and Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity
to appear today to discuss the future of materials science from
the perspective of the U.S. Department of Energy National
Laboratories.
Argonne National Lab was founded as a chemistry, materials,
and nuclear engineering lab in 1946 as the successor to the
Manhattan Project's metallurgical lab at the University of
Chicago. My colleagues at Argonne and across the national
laboratories seem to improve the way this nation generates,
distributes and uses energy. Materials science and engineering
are essential to this pursuit and to many other sectors of
importance to society. Bringing fundamental advances in
material sciences to reality for the ultimate benefit of
society requires investments at various stages of development.
Though the time scale is accelerating via powerful new
predictive computational methods, many developed at DOE
laboratories, there remains a long lead time from conception,
discovery and synthesis of new materials to their ultimate
useful application. Indeed, important discoveries in materials
science arise often without any application in mind. National
laboratories differ from universities in performing both basic
and applied research in an environment where unmatched
characterization facilities and capabilities for scale-up
exist.
The process of taking a fundamental discovery or invention
to the point that industry will invest in commercial
development is a very non-linear one involving iteration
between fundamental and applied research. Pushing basic science
toward practical applications frequently raises new basic
science questions that have to be addressed before useful
results emerge.
The history of electrochemical research at Argonne leading
to new materials and devices for energy storage is a case in
point. Electrochemical energy storage and research--storage
research and development spans the battery field from basic
materials research all the way to prototyping.
The prototyping often reveals the need for new insight at
the fundamental level and inspires new basic research. A
specific example is the Energy Innovation Hub at Argonne, the
Joint Center for Enter Storage Research, or JCESR. Founded in
2012, JCESR has united government, academic and industrial
researchers from many disciplines in a major research project
that combines discovery science, battery design, prototyping,
and manufacturing science in a single highly interactive
organization. JCESR as an example of collaborative basic
research leading to proof of concept prototypes is one we aim
to model in other materials research areas.
A second powerful example is in the area of quantum
computing. The exponential expansion and the power of
information technology, which we call Moore's Law, has
catalyzed U.S. productivity and growth for over the last 50
years but, like much of our nation's aging infrastructure, this
is now ending as roadmaps that have worked since the 1960s are
now reaching their limits. The research and industrial
communities are mobilizing to search for fundamentally new
approaches to information processing. Quantum computing is
based on exploiting subtle aspects of quantum physics for
unprecedented new information technologies. These technologies
implemented via materials design and development can handle
computationally complex problems, provide communications
security, sensing technologies in ways that are impossible with
conventional hardware.
Recognizing this promise, other nations such as China,
Canada and several European countries are investing heavily in
quantum material science. Argonne in collaboration with the
University of Chicago and Fermilab, and I might add, Ames Lab
and NIST, are poised to compete and lead in this area.
Water research is a third example where basic materials
science is needed. Water and energy are deeply interrelated.
Cooling in power plants, hydraulic fracturing, petroleum
refining, biofuel production account for the majority of water
withdrawals and, conversely, water treatment and distribution
represents large consumers of electricity. This water-energy
interdependence is leading materials scientists to work on
devising new membranes, sorbents, sensors, catalysts and
surface treatments to enable step change in improvements in
energy-water systems.
Across the lab complex, the commitment to materials science
breakthrough means using every specialized tool at hand. At
Argonne, we leverage the high-energy x-rays of the advanced
photon source to see materials at the atomic level and the
computing power of the Leadership Computing Facility for
Materials Characterization and Simulation. Upgrades underway at
each of these facilities will serve to increase their power.
So in summary, DOE labs are an enormous asset in pursuing
the broad spectrum of materials science and engineering
research.
Thank you for your time and attention to this topic, and of
course will answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tirrell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Tirrell.
Dr. Locascio, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. LAURIE LOCASCIO,
ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
FOR LABORATORY PROGRAMS AND DIRECTOR,
MATERIAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Locascio. Thank you. Chairman Weber, Chairwoman
Comstock, Ranking Members Lipinski and Veasey, and Members of
the Committees, thank you for the opportunity to discuss NIST's
role in enabling advances in materials that strengthen U.S.
innovation and industrial competitiveness.
NIST has helped entire industries overcome intractable
challenges by measuring materials with ever-increasing
precision and characterizing new materials for the very first
time. We help American manufacturers be more competitive by
enabling development and testing of materials that perform far
better than previous generations.
Great leaps in our quality of life are linked to great
links in the performance of materials. For example, prosthetics
and medical implants, once limited to ceramic and steel and
harvested bone, are now made from titanium and polymers and
composites. They are stronger, lighter and more functional,
helping more people return to work and live active lives.
NIST has been an essential partner to industry in
supporting the traditional approach to materials discovery. For
example, we have helped the U.S. semiconductor industry, which
generates $166 billion in global sales, overcome measurement
and material limits to making the smaller, faster chips that
the market demands. But traditional materials discovery
requires costly trial-and-error cycles. In a new paradigm, NIST
supports the use of data and models to simulate materials and
predict their performance before spending the money to make
them. This approach is called materials by design. GE used
materials by design to make new alloys for jet engines in nine
years instead of the typical 15 to 20, and the metal in Apple
watches was developed and deployed to market in just two years
using this approach.
Materials by design is such a game changer that it became a
national priority in 2011 with the Materials Genome Initiative.
The MGI, as it is known, benefits nearly all economic sectors
from the chemical industry to electronics, communications, and
biotechnology. The MGI is a partnership among 18 federal
agencies, including some in the Department of Energy and
Defense, along with NASA and NIST.
NIST supports the MGI with new modeling and experimental
capabilities, along with materials data. For example, the
Materials Resource Registry is like an online Yellow Pages for
materials by design, enabling in-depth, worldwide searches of
data collections, computational services, and modeling
software. In this registry, we collect and harvest public data
from materials science programs in universities, industries,
and government to create a valuable national resource, and with
access to all this shared data, researchers can more quickly
design unique materials for the next great American
breakthrough.
To help create an ecosystem for MGI, NIST founded the
Center for Hierarchal Materials Design, or ChiMaD, a consortium
led by Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, and
Argonne National Lab. ChiMaD and NIST together are building
tools to support the MGI nationally while advancing
technologies that the institute cares about, like 2D
electronics and more efficient jet engines. Thanks to the
support of Congress, materials by design is gaining ground
across the entire U.S. materials science enterprise.
Why is an agency like NIST doing this work? We see
ourselves as industry's national lab, a well-respected,
trusted, non-regulatory scientific agency that forms strong
partnerships with industry to tackle critical national needs.
Other countries are investing in their own MGI-like
initiatives. The U.S. faces ever-increasing competition in this
space. We are still the ones to beat, but we need continued
coordination and support among all the players across many
sectors to retain this lead.
We greatly appreciate the Members of these Committees and
others in Congress for the support of federal acceleration of
the innovations in materials science that keep our nation
globally competitive and secure and contribute to our quality
of life.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Locascio follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Schwartz, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ADAM SCHWARTZ,
DIRECTOR, AMES LABORATORY
Dr. Schwartz. Good morning. Chairman Weber, Chairwoman
Comstock, Ranking Members Veasey and Lipinski, and Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
hearing, and thank you for your continued strong support of
materials research.
The United States is the world leader in materials science,
condensed-matter physics, and chemistry research. Federally
funded research has created an innovation system unmatched
anywhere including the private sector. Our leadership is due in
large part to governmental science funding across the continuum
from grand challenge and use-inspired basic research to applied
research and technology deployment. As a country, we've reaped
tremendous benefits in the economics, energy security, national
security, and our quality of living. The United States leads in
discovering and applying materials with novel properties.
New materials discoveries enabled by basic research at our
national laboratories and universities have significant
economic and societal impacts on our everyday lives. Consider
your smart phone, tablet or almost any other consumer
electronic device. Ames National Laboratory and Sandi National
Laboratories collaborated to create a lead-free,
environmentally friendly replacement for lead-based solder.
This advanced alloy was ultimately licensed to over 65
companies in 23 countries with an economic benefit to the
private sector estimated at $610 million per year.
New and experimental--new experimental and computational
capabilities developed from sustained federal investment in a
talented and dedicated scientific workforce have accelerated
the pace of discovery of novel materials. We can now design and
create materials tailored for some specific purposes and soon
will be able to do so much more broadly if appropriate research
continues.
Great opportunities abound for new materials to impact our
world. LED lighting transformed a century-old light bulb
industry that hadn't advanced since Edison. Research to replace
the current 100-year-old compressed-vapor refrigeration with
solid-state magnetic technologies enabled by new materials
could potentially reduce our energy consumption by one-quarter
and have transformative impacts.
An amazing opportunity also exists in information
technology. For decades in the computer industry, the density,
speed and computational power of integrated circuits have
increased exponentially over time as predicted by Moore's Law
but we're fasting approaching the theoretical limits of
processor materials. To go beyond Moore Computing, research is
needed to create new quantum materials that use less energy and
provide computing power beyond today's approaches with
conventional silicon chips.
Tremendous opportunities exist in additive manufacturing,
or 3D printing of metals to fabricate parts for the military,
biomedical, and aerospace industries. Currently, progress is
constrained by a lack of fundamental understanding and control
of kinetic processes as well as a lack of suitable metal
powders. Collaborations between Ames and other laboratories are
pooling their expertise to meet these needs, establishing U.S.
leadership in a fast-growing industry.
The biggest challenge facing U.S. materials research right
now is maintaining our global competitive edge. The rest of the
world is catching up. Countries like China, South Korea and
India are investing increasing percentages of their GDP in
materials research and our global competitive advantage in this
key enabling science is under threat. Will the United States be
the first to invent the next catalyst and in a $30 billion
petrochemical industry, discover the material that will replace
traditional semiconductors in the $350 billion electronics
industry, or provide options for the next critical material on
which our military systems depend? The private sector cannot do
this by itself.
Federally funded research enables world-changing materials
advances like the ability to address critical material
shortages through the basic research provided by the Critical
Materials Institute and the ability to design and create new
materials to revolutionize the electronics, lighting,
refrigeration and air conditioning industries, among many other
manufacturing sectors. The key to future success is sustained
research on fundamental principles and the resulting discovery
of advanced materials.
Ames Laboratory, like other national laboratories and
research universities, is on the cusp of great materials
discoveries that will further the nation's economic, energy and
national security interests but we need your continued support
and resources to meet our mission.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and again,
thank you for your consistent support of materials research.
This Committee's leadership has paved the way for remarkable
innovations. I'd be happy to address any questions or provide
additional information.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Schwartz.
Dr. Higgs, I recognize you for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. FRED HIGGS,
JOHN AND ANN DOERR PROFESSOR
OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,
RICE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Higgs. Chairman Weber, Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking
Members Veasey and Lipinski, and other Committee Members, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittees.
As the John and Ann Doerr Professor of Mechanical Engineering
and the Faculty Director for the Rice Center for Engineering
Leadership at Rice University, I am excited about this
opportunity to provide this testimony today.
Today I'm here to discuss the broad economic impact of
materials science on the nation and the need for America to
invest big in basic science in this area and other fields of
engineering, which are catapulted forward by materials
advances.
Whenever you see a new flurry of research activity or new
radically high-performing technologies, this is almost always
related to some type of material advancing or technology
deployment that finally figured out how to use a cutting-edge
material which was discovered by basic science research no less
than a decade ago.
Today I'll discuss new material advancements, science
competitions, and industry lab partnerships.
New materials can improve the safety and environmental
impact of energy production technologies. In terms of oil and
gas drilling, the development of effective, environmentally
friendly additives and drilling mud may enable more efficient
cooling, lubrication and rock cutting removal from the drill-
rock interface. More efficient and environmentally safe
extraction processes allow workers to have less exposure to
dangerous activities as well. Material advancements can reduce
the impact that energy production processes such as coal and
natural gas combustion have on our environment.
There are also technological benefits of material
advancements in orthopedic medicine. Advanced coating such as
nanocrystalline diamond are very robust and compatible with the
human body.
There are technological benefits of material advancements
in transportation. Tire rolling, resistance and high traction
compete to hinder fuel performance. Basic science involving
nanomaterials are expected to improve tire performance and are
expected to save maybe $35 million barrels of oil annually.
There are technological benefits of material advancements
in manufacturing, particularly additive manufacturing, which
most here may know as 3D printing, as you heard my predecessor
say. More advanced innovations such as composite materials and
greater materials remain underdeveloped. 3D printers are also
super slow and cannot speed up until fundamental material
science questions are answered.
I would like to address another point: crowdsourced-based
science prize competitions. One of the new successful
strategies for inspiring open innovation and accomplishing idea
mining is science prize competitions. While these can be
exciting, as my team has competed in them, the potential loss
of university IP can in some cases be in danger when the fine
print of such competitions re by entering this competition, we
can use your ideas without permission whether you win or lose.
Normally those are industry-based competitions. The Committee
should employ careful oversight of the non-defense agencies'
ability to initiate competitions that university researchers
perceive as exploitive.
In terms of the merits of university-lab partnerships,
government labs serve many noble purposes for our nation from
an academic viewpoint. First, they provide our government with
research capacity and the personnel and equipment
infrastructure to tackle the nation's most pressing problems.
Second, they provide a rich research ecosystem of researchers
who care about the science of discovery divorced from the
pressures of generating quarterly profits, and third, they
provide collaborative resources in terms of intellectual
capital, equipment and mentorship for young researchers. I work
with different agencies and labs such as NASA Glenn and NETL. I
can honestly say that just like many of my other colleagues who
work with government labs, their support of our research has
been pivotal in helping people like me mature from a young
professor into a leader in my field. Federal labs have even
provided guidance to startup companies such as my own NSF-
funded SBIR company, InnovAlgae. DOE labs such as Inrel have
advised us of the best path toward technology validation
including connecting us to industrial partners that could
benefit commercialization efforts.
There are also merits in university-company partnerships. A
seasoned researcher at a Fortune 500 company once said to me
universities use money to create knowledge but companies use
knowledge to generate money, but these days, many companies are
desperately looking for Ph.D.'s to hire from universities and
yet they spend no money supporting university research. A
perfect storm is being set up where companies expect Ph.D.'s to
just magically be output without anyone making an investment
input. Meanwhile, other countries in Asia and Europe are
strategic, creating a Ph.D. investment training and hiring
cycle that has catapulting their nations over America, the
country I so dearly love. It would be a game changer if
companies tax-incentivized to invest seed money into
university-based research.
And I leave you with the final recommendation for
supporting basic research. If Congress were to inject new funds
into NSF to increase the number of graduate fellowships from
just a factor of two from 2,000 to 4,000, it would be a big
game changer in terms of supporting basic research. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Higgs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Higgs. The Chair now
recognizes himself for five minutes.
Dr. Tirrell, your written testimony touches on an important
quality of the national labs: the core capabilities and user
facilities that allow a single researcher to use a number of
tools at a single lab to make a scientific discovery. What
steps could the department take to better streamline access for
those researchers across the lab complex?
Dr. Tirrell. Thank you. Well, I think we at Argonne have
several major research facilities, as you alluded to, in x-ray
scattering and in computation, also the Center for Nanoscale
Materials. What is really important is the staff scientists
that staff those facilities because users often come with an
idea of how to--of what they want to do but not necessarily how
to do it with our facilities. So we need experts on site really
to try to make the time that they have on the instrument which
sometimes is 24 hours, and it can go from, you know, straight
24 hours the most effective. So you can get there, get in and
get out with the results that you need. But that requires
dedicated and really knowledgeable staff. I think that might be
the principal thing that I would suggest.
Chairman Weber. Okay. So we have to schedule facility
upgrades like the Advanced Photon Source. How important are
those upgrades for providing the tools needed for the materials
research community?
Dr. Tirrell. There's nothing more important than the
upgrade to the Advanced Photon Source, both for Argonne or for
the x-ray scattering community in the United States. It's
really the only state-of-the-art hard x-ray, meaning high-
energy x-ray, facility in the United States that can do certain
things, and many other countries are investing but what we need
is a facility that U.S. scientists can access most effectively.
Chairman Weber. Do you know where we are on that scheduled
timeline?
Dr. Tirrell. Well, a lot of that depends upon the rate of
funding. Right now, we would have, I believe--I hope I don't
misstate it but roughly dark time, meaning that the equipment
would be installed--the new equipment would be installed in
fiscal 2020 and then come up for operation later in fiscal
2023. If the funding that's proposed now is maintained, this
could be delayed by a year or more, so that's the kind of time
scale that we're talking about, and the implications of the
funding profile.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Schwartz, this question is for you. In your prepared
testimony, you talked about a project currently underway at
Ames Lab using caloric materials to improve the efficiency of
heating and air conditioning and refrigeration. Could you
describe what these materials are and how they may change the
industry for us?
Dr. Schwartz. Okay. I'll try and make this relatively quick
and simple. Caloric materials are a type of material that when
you apply a field, a magnetic field, an electric field or a
stress field, there is an internal change in the structure that
creates a significant temperature change. So now you can
imagine having a closed system where you have a warm fluid
coming in, you have your magnetocaloric material, for example.
You apply a field. It changes the temperature. It cools that
fluid coming by and you have a refrigeration system. It won't
use greenhouse gases. It will be environmentally friendly, and
if constructed with affordable, Earth-abundant, easily
manufacturable materials, it could potentially transform the
refrigeration and air conditioning industry.
Chairman Weber. How do you move that fluid? You know, you
use a compressor to remove refrigerant that change the state
twice in the typical refrigeration system, so how are you
moving that fluid?
Dr. Schwartz. I think that would be the same way. You'd
have a pumping system that would either bring in the air or the
liquid over top of the caloric material.
Chairman Weber. So instead of a compressor that compresses
refrigerant from a loosely packed gas into tightly packed
liquid and diffuse it through a metering device and it sprays
out and has a temperature drop, pressure drop and it picks up
heat there, is there a metering device? I don't know how much
work you all have done on this. This is fascinating to me. In
fact, what time is it? We may be here for a day or two. So is
there a metering device in this system? How do you get this
corresponding temperature and pressure drop in that system?
Dr. Schwartz. So our research is focused primarily on
discovering new materials in order to enable this technology to
go forward. And I'd like to point out that the first material
of this type was really invented at Ames Laboratory about 20
years ago. Research was funded through basic energy sciences as
it had been for some time before that. After the discovery of
this material, it wasn't long before industry said hey, we got
this, were going to make something good out of it. As a result,
basic energy science has said okay, industry's got it, that's
out of our realm, we're not going to fund that anymore. Well,
20 years has gone by and industry has not been able to pick up
that technology because of the inability to do the basic
materials research and enable that amazing new material
technology to be implemented into something as impactful as
revolutionizing the air conditioning and refrigeration
industry.
Chairman Weber. Well, the fact that it's 20 to 25 percent
of energy consumption, as was pointed out, you know, is a
pretty astounding figure, and we could go on for a long time,
but I'm going to go ahead and--who am I yielding to? Marc has
left, so I guess, Daniel, you're up next. The Chair recognizes
you for five minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start out with Dr. Tirrell. Argonne is home to
the Energy Innovation Hub called the Joint Center for Energy
Storage Research, more commonly known as JCESR. It had great
success since 2012, but the Trump budget proposes to eliminate
it.
So I wanted to ask you what would the consequences of
eliminating this Energy Innovation Hub be, and would private
sector be likely to pick up this work?
Dr. Tirrell. Thank you. Well I think it would--the cutting
of JCESR would leave a lot of very promising research results
on the table without further development. There have been
industry involved in JCESR, Johnson Controls, for example,
which is the largest battery manufacturer. But again, it could
be a situation such as Dr. Schwartz described where while the
technology is promising, it's not really sufficiently developed
that a company is able to take it over.
Having said that, it's conceivable that there would be ways
for the Office of Science to continue its investment in energy
storage research at Argonne and elsewhere in the DOE complex.
So we don't view it as a great thing that JCESR may be coming
to an end, but I think that it has already produced a wealth of
results that can be followed up on if additional investments
are made.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, we have to--I think we need to fight
here in Congress to make sure that we don't defund these Energy
Innovation Hubs for what they are doing, where they have gotten
so far in the research and development.
But I think that really leads me to my second question for
Dr. Schwartz first and then Dr. Tirrell. There's this false
boundary that's being claimed between basic research and
applied research, and saying well the federal government--some
will say the federal government should only be involved in
basic research and not applied research. I don't think that
there really is a neat divide here, and Dr. Schwartz, you
mentioned in your testimony your concerns about so much that
would not be done if the federal government just got out of the
development part of the R&D research and development sphere.
Can you tell me why that is and why the government needs to
be involved in the development?
Dr. Schwartz. There is a common view that research from
grand challenge and basic science is just a continuum, and that
once you start on that path of understanding, that that's going
to take you to the logical conclusion that could ultimately be
commercialized.
In my experience, I have never seen anything like that. We
make progress in one area that opens up new doors. We might
explore that path and then have to come back, so there's the
pipeline model of technology development that only applicable a
few percent of the time. There's another model that shows more
of a feedback loop where instead of having just one valley of
death in the commercialization of a product, you actually have
two. One is taking a look at the feasibility of the product or
of the material, and of course, the second is the late stage,
being able to scale up and commercialize it. It is not a linear
path between discovery and implementation. Sometimes, like the
case of the caloric materials that I just talked about, it
looked like it was promising but no one had done the full
development of the materials to make that feasible as a
commercially available material.
So the feedback loop happened. The material was discovered.
Industry thought they were going to pick it up, were not able
to or chose not to invest as much as they needed to to get that
product available, and then now energy efficiency and renewable
energy, through one of its recent energy materials networks,
has picked up that research again to do the foundational
science required to create the new materials that will enable
this technology.
Thank you for your question.
Mr. Lipinski. Dr. Tirrell, anything briefly you want to
add?
Dr. Tirrell. Yes. Certainly I agree with the premise of
your question and some of the things that Dr. Schwartz said. I
used the terms iterative and cyclic and non-linear a couple of
times in my own testimony.
One thing I point to is the Office of Science Basic
Research Needs workshops--there's brochures about them out in
the hallway--where the Office of Science tries to define
important basic research in quantum computing, in water, in
synthesis, based on what's needed to carry these things forward
into practical technology. So I think we all recognize this
interplay between basic and applied research, even just as an
intellectual thing in addition to its practical implications.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dan, I appreciate that. And I do
want to add, though, that we did--House did pass H.R. 589, the
Energy Innovation Program, where all of those hubs are actually
authorized, and unfortunately it's sitting over in the Senate
and we just hope the Senate has enough energy to get something
done. Did I say that out loud?
I now recognize Barbara Comstock for five minutes.
Mrs. Comstock. I don't have a Madonna quote. I'm
speechless.
Dr. Locascio, how does a prize competition like the Head
Health Challenge promote the development of new materials, and
what did NIST learn from participating in this prize challenge?
Dr. Locascio. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about
that. The prize challenge really is just one tool in our tool
kit to leverage federal dollars against private sector dollars,
and I think it's an extraordinarily effective way to do that,
and also to pull in people into an important national problem
that may not have been aware of or how to get involved. And so
I think the prize challenge that we conducted with Head Health,
it's a partnership between NFL and NIST and GE and Under
Armour, has been very successful in attracting new people into
the problem associated with public safety, and in particular,
protective gear.
For instance, we had people competing in the prize
challenge who presented new materials that were additively
manufactured or prepared in the laboratory that were responsive
materials or new types of materials made with new processes
that had never thought before about using them and harnessing
that activity for protective gear.
So I think one advantage is really being able to attract
new people to these new national problems, and our role there
is really to help conduct an unbiased and fair competition, and
we were able to leverage testing equipment that we already had
developed for the purpose of testing headgear for war fighters,
and used that to conduct these tests. And in the same time,
push forward our capabilities even further into new realms to
test these types of materials.
Mrs. Comstock. And how--and maybe some of the others can
add to this, too. How can you--how can we develop more of those
partnerships like that, because I think the synergy is there.
The relationships really cross over so many different
disciplines. It's really exciting. You're getting a lot of
different partners who have a lot of different interests in
this. So how can we build on that model and find some other
areas, and what are some other examples that we might pursue in
this area?
Dr. Locascio. So I'll perhaps start and let others chime
in, but we've learned a lot from NASA, who was conducting prize
challenges about how to leverage the external community and
attract them into these types of prizes.
This was the first one that NIST had conducted and the
first one the Department of Commerce had conducted, and we've
gotten so much out of it that we currently have several others
in the pipeline, current prize challenges that are being
awarded soon.
Dr. Higgs. So I've been actually--I've been on the side
that actually is the competitors for these different
challenges, and I do admit that when these challenges come out,
my students and I, you know, all want to be competitors in some
sense, maybe athletes or something, and we see that as our
opportunity as researchers to compete, and we always think
we're going to win, of course. But these, you know,
competitions have a really good basis for being able to
generate ideas and things, and we love it when the government
labs are involved with doing these as well.
Certainly, we would just caution that, you know, sometimes
when industry is involved with these competitions, they--I've
been with several colleagues and you write a proposal and at
the end of it, it will say any idea that you submit, we can
actually take. You're giving up your rights to that particular
situation. So I would just say make sure there's oversight,
certainly, when there's industry there, because we don't want
an awesome idea to be used as a way to backdoor and take IP
from universities that could generate revenues to do other
important things with basic science.
So love the competitions, but we'll just say some oversight
when the industry is involved, making sure that IP is not given
up in the wrong way.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Weber. Thank the gentlelady, and Mr. Veasey, you
are now recognized.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for
Dr. Schwartz.
Dr. Schwartz, in the fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, Ames
Laboratory did not fare well. If this budget were enacted, it
looks like your capabilities and scientific workforce would be
decimated. I was wondering if you could lay out the
consequences of this budget proposal for Ames Laboratory, and
if enacted, do you have an estimate for how this would impact
your workforce?
Dr. Schwartz. Thank you for your question. The proposed
budget that I've seen for Ames Laboratory proposes a 58 percent
decrease in the budget between the fiscal year 2018 request and
the fiscal year 2016 enacted. Clearly, a 58 percent decrease in
the overall budget is going to have an impact on our staff, and
it is also going to have an impact on our ability to meet our
mission to create materials and energy solutions.
Mr. Veasey. How would this budget proposal impact materials
research at Ames and, you know, largely how would it affect it
in the U.S. as well?
Dr. Schwartz. The work that is going on at Ames Laboratory,
other national laboratories, universities, NIST is successful
because of the long-term sustained federal investment. Science
is something that progresses continuously, sometimes quickly.
More often, not so quickly. Interruptions to that flow of
science would be significant. Decreases in scientific staffs at
the national laboratories certainly slows down projects, if not
stops them. It makes it more difficult to pick it up.
In addition, the potential decrease in funding in the
materials areas sends a message to high school students,
college students, early career researchers at universities, and
assistant professors, and I'm not sure that's a message that we
want to send. Materials research has been demonstrated to
provide economic value, energy security value, national
security value. I would like to see that progress continue at a
rapid pace.
Mr. Veasey. This is sort of regarding the first question
I'd asked you about your workforce. Could you be specific about
exactly how many people would be laid off or what numbers your
workforce would be reduced with these budget cuts?
Dr. Schwartz. We have done an estimate based on that 58
percent decrease from the '18 proposed to the '16 enacted
budget, and assuming that we do not use funds that are carried
over from existing what we have now, we're looking at a
decrease in the overall staff approaching 40 percent.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
This message is for Dr. Tirrell. I know that the drastic
cuts proposed to the budget would have major consequences for
our Argonne National Laboratory. I was wondering if you could
also walk us through the impacts that this budget proposal
would have on the capabilities and workforce of Argonne if it
were enacted.
Dr. Tirrell. Yes. Obviously if those cuts are enacted, the
capabilities in the spirit of Chairman Weber's question about
how we could staff user facilities may be affected. Cuts will
affect our capabilities and workforce. Partly as a measure to
protect morale, we haven't made public statements of, you know,
exact estimates because we don't know for sure what's going to
happen. There was a, you know, a business newspaper in Chicago
that suggested that the cuts would be something like 700
combined across Argonne and Fermi lab, but that's an
independent estimate that we are not part of. But clearly, it
will impact our capabilities and workforce.
And you know, a thing that's important to recognize, and
it's true of national labs, university labs, and industrial
labs, they're much easier to tear down than they are to build
back up after that, so it's an important step to think about.
Mr. Veasey. And also I wanted to just ask you specifically
about your portfolio of material research at Argonne. Can you
just very quickly say how that would be impacted?
Dr. Tirrell. Well as I mentioned in my own testimony, we do
span in several areas such as energy storage from electro
chemistry to battery prototypes. As I understand, the budget
proposal would be hit more heavily on the applied end of that,
so how well we could get things to the point that the
commercial implementation, I think, would be the place where
the pressure would be applied by these budget cuts.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Dr. Tirrell.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my balance of the time.
Chairman Weber. All right, thank you, Mr. Veasey. We now
recognize Mr. Dunn for five minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Chairman Weber. Good morning to the
panel. My name is Neal Dunn. I'm a medical doctor recently
turned Congressman from Florida, so the chance to listen to so
many great scientists is a real pleasure for me. This is my
only dose of science I get, really, up here in Washington, so
thank you very much.
In our district, we have Florida State University, one of
the preeminent research universities in the country. We have a
new material science and engineering program there that is
rather large, but perhaps most famously includes the National
High Field Magnetic Lab. I suspect maybe you collaborated with
them from time to time, and I'd like you to keep that in mind
as I make the comments and ask my questions.
I'd like to start with Dr. Higgs. First, Dr. Higgs, I want
to encourage you to think of your sojourn in Texas as
temporary. I know that----
Chairman Weber. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Dunn. The sugar white sands are calling to you even as
we speak.
You actually said something very important, especially in
this time of compressed budgets, and it was about the
university IP. So historically, I think universities, as you
say, they turn money into knowledge and they may spend $100
million in a year and then on royalties they'll get $1 million
back. Well that's a very poor return on investment. I think we
all recognize that. Now there's many universities, I'm sure
some of the leading ones that you deal with have adopted newer
techniques, but it's important, I think, that we push this out
into the labs as well, these partnerships, because you're
right. Your faculty and your post-grad students take with them
IP into the private sector, and they try to monetize that. And
I think we can keep them in the faculty, keep them in the
labs--your labs if we share the IP, the ownership of the IP in
a more intelligent fashion. I think you're doing that. Am I
right? Answer that, Dr. Higgs. It sounded like you have some
familiarity with how to parcel out the IP--the rights of the IP
so that you kept the talent and the ideas still got to market.
Dr. Higgs. Right, good question.
So first of all, I want to say I'm originally from
Tallahassee, Florida, so your district, and I did participate
in pre-college engineering programs that motivated me to pursue
a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. It was at the Florida State
University and Florida A&M University, minority introduction to
engineering.
Mr. Dunn. Come on back. The water's fine.
Dr. Higgs. Right. It was at this program where I had the
sophistication to realize that a terminal degree was the way to
go, so I thank your district for supporting young dreamers like
me.
Certainly we, you know, we have a responsibility to our
employer, the university, that whenever we generate an idea
that the idea belongs to them because of the Bair-Dole Act,
and--but we are really most interested in working in basic
science. But we're in a capitalistic society, so these things
have to be funded. And you're right, some companies fund us and
we do the research. The companies will ultimately get our
students there. The IP that's in the university, the whole goal
of it is to actually get into the market to help----
Mr. Dunn. Chairman Weber is going to cut us off quickly, so
I'm going to say that I encourage all of you to think of it as
public-private partnerships and really help--that helps
monetize your lab--monetize the ideas, but also keep the people
in your lab where you want them.
Dr. Schwartz, regarding your caloric material on
refrigeration. You have a cooling source we have in Tallahassee
a company that manufactures a frictionless bearing. It's a
magnetic bearing, no lubrication, and they turn in 20, 25
percent savings on industrial HVAC units. I think, you know,
we've got a marriage here. I'm playing matchmaker. So I think
you've got--you put those two things together. Somebody removed
the fluid or the air in Tallahassee. In fact, my staff will no
doubt share with you the name of that company so that you can
work with them.
In the 30 seconds remaining to me, Dr. Locascio, how do you
define success when you're looking at grant applications? What
makes you find a great grant?
Dr. Locascio. So we go through a peer review process for
all of our grants. It's a very well-structured process, and
it's pretty common across----
Mr. Dunn. There's no hook right now? You're in a low
monetary budget kind of finance. What do you do? What are you
looking for?
Dr. Locascio. Oh, how are we pursuing grants? Are we going
to continue to pursue grants?
Mr. Dunn. Well, our time expired, but--and I've already
tested the Chairman's patience, so----
Chairman Weber. No, go ahead. I'm interested in her answer.
Dr. Locascio. So we will continue to put out grants to
universities. Obviously, we've had very hard decisions to make
as well with regard to the budget, but one of the things that
we've thought about is really protecting the future. And
protecting the future means also protecting our abilities to do
the greatest advances in measurement science that you can
possibly do. And that honestly requires the universities. We
have to collaborate with the smartest minds in the United
States and pair them with the smartest minds in the federal
government, and we do that to great benefit. So we'll continue
to put out grants.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Weber. You bet.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Foster for five minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I return to
this--today's symposium theme on magnetocaloric refrigeration,
I would like to make just a few comments about, you know, the
elephant in the room here which is the proposed draconian
budget cuts to the entire laboratory system.
Earlier this month I was joined by 55 of my colleagues in
sending a letter to the heads of all seven science agencies,
asking about the impact of our Republican President's budget
request on jobs, not only at our national laboratories, but at
our universities that rely on federal funding to train the next
generation of scientists. We have yet to receive any response
to this, and I think that, you know, despite the risks that
have been mentioned to the morale of everyone involved, I think
it's important that we look this dragon in the eye and make
sure that all Members of Congress who claim that they support
science speak up at times when science funding is at this kind
of threat.
So without objection, I ask unanimous consent to submit
this letter to the record.
Chairman Weber. So ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix I]
Mr. Foster. Now to get back to the fun stuff.
Materials science, you know, like many other disciplines,
has benefited very greatly from R&D funding. And so actually,
I'll return to Dr. Schwartz for a second, despite the fact that
you do not--you're not part of my constituency as Dr. Tirrell
is.
You know, you mentioned a 40 percent--40 percent is a rough
estimate for the layoffs. When that sort of thing happens to a
technical staff, if future administration or future Congress
decided to just restore that, can you just throw a switch and
immediately regrow the technical expertise that's been lost, or
is it more complicated than that?
Dr. Tirrell. I think it would be much more complicated than
that. Scientists who either choose or are forced to leave their
jobs will look for others. I don't believe that private
industry is going to be able to pick up all the researchers
that would become available through this budget. They would
then search to change their fields. We have many researchers at
Ames Laboratory and across the National Laboratories system who
have come from foreign countries. There would be a significant
risk that many of those scientists would return to their home
countries. They would take their education, their experience,
all of the investment that we have placed in them, free of
charge, back to their country. Right now, we are trying to
extend our global leadership in materials research. I think
slowing down that progress and then restarting it later would
be quite a challenge.
Mr. Foster. And is--maybe someone else on the panel could
comment on the effect that that would have on the morale of
younger students coming into the field or post-docs coming into
the field when they see, you know, massive layoffs in their
often very focused field of expertise? Dr. Higgs?
Dr. Higgs. Well that's what my notes were actually saying.
That's a very perceptive question. I mean, if you think of a
lab like, say, Ames or Argonne in particular, Argonne has
some--in my area, they have some very prominent tribologists,
and essentially what happens is if the tribologist is just a
little known, once they are removed and someone says hey, you
know, this particular scientist no longer has a job, then the
entire community goes what does this mean for tribology? Should
we all try to head for Silicon Valley? Should we all do
something with the right now implication as opposed to a long-
term implication, which is what research science has? And then
the younger students, we have to give a speech to encourage
them to stay the course, but yet we're uncertain as well.
So definitely, even though we're in a university
environment, whenever there's a cut to a prominent area or
prominent scientist, once they're removed from the equation,
there's a lot of questions that we have to answer as
academicians and the students are asking about that. Excitement
and morale definitely takes a hit.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. I think that's a very important
thing for Congress to understand, that this is not at all like,
say, starting and stopping a highway construction project. You
can't just throw the switch and recover the damage that was
done.
Sorry. Now let's see. I have a little bit of time left, so
I'm going to return to magnetocaloric refrigeration. It's my
understanding that the fluid--the working fluid that's here is
largely just a heat transfer fluid. There's no phase change
involved, and the compressors involved are a small fraction of
the total power to do--perform the refrigeration. Is that a
correct understanding, or is it more subtle than that?
Dr. Schwartz. There are lots of details on how you would
implement a solid state magnetic or electric or stress-induced
cooling system. Our focus right now is the very, very early
stages. Can we develop the materials in order to--that
demonstrate, that have those large temperature change. At that
point, we will turn it over to our mechanical engineering
friends who will then design the system, optimize the fluid
flow, heat transfer, and others. Right now, our focus is really
on creating those materials that will enable the transformation
in air conditioning and refrigeration.
Mr. Foster. And the rest of the problem, just the getting
the heat transfer fluid across the plates or whatever they are,
is a--it's closer to being a solved problem and an engineering
optimization. The magic is the material that you have to make
work and at high efficiency, high lifetimes, all the
challenges?
Dr. Schwartz. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Foster. Okay, good luck. I really look forward to
having refrigerators that don't rattle in the middle of the
night.
Dr. Schwartz. And last much longer. Thank you for your
question.
Chairman Weber. If you'll quit getting snacks out of the
doors at midnight, then you won't hear that rattling.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Marshall for five minutes.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Both Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Higgs mentioned 3D printers.
Chairman Lamar Smith and I recently got to go to Wichita State
University and see the largest 3D printer in the world, about
1/3 the size of this room, and we'd love to invite you all to
come see what they're doing there on their innovation center,
always believe it's opportunities to promote each other and
work together.
I should ask Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Higgs both what they
see--what's next for 3D printers, specifically, you know,
what's going to be a game changer? What type of more viable
mass do we need? What do you see next for 3D printers? Dr.
Higgs, do you want to go first?
Dr. Higgs. Very good. Thank you for the question.
I mean, definitely if you think about it, when you look at
Star Trek you don't see really big engineering manufacturing
labs. You just see something very small, and they ask for the
product to be developed. And so that's kind of where attitude
would have to hit. So you would want essentially to be able to
additively manufacture anything, and that means that you have
to be able to work with multiple materials. Right now you see a
beautiful 3D printer, but it only prints a limited amount of,
say, materials that are there. So this big one that you talked
about is probably a metal printer, and if it is, it's a limited
set of materials. But if you want to print something that's,
say, biocompatible, then you may not be able to use steel or
gold or something like that, and so you need to be able to
change out the different materials. If you want them additive,
you can build them part by part. You want the mechanical
properties to change as you want them to, then that means you
have to have a functionally graded material, which means that
it may start one mechanical property at one end, and be another
at the other end. Right now that can't be done, and so there's
some important material science questions that have to be
answered.
But the point is that you want to print anything as you
want as it could occur. Additive can do that in principle, but
the basic science questions have to be answered to unveil that
to the society.
Mr. Marshall. Dr. Schwartz, anything to add?
Dr. Schwartz. That's an excellent question, and to me, the
key to successful deployment of additive manufacturing in this
growing industry in the U.S. is all about understanding the
materials properties. Researchers have been trying to
understand details of steel, aluminum, titanium alloys for
decades, if not centuries, and they still don't have full
understanding. Now we want to make additively manufactured
parts out of the same materials, but the process is so much
different. The composition will change as you melt and re-melt
as you make the powders.
Right now, I believe the key is getting a fuller
fundamental understanding of--starting at the very beginning,
developing the metal powders. Without the metal powders, none
of the metal additive manufacturing happens. Those powders have
to be pure. They have to be spherical. They have to flow
nicely. They have to have the right surface conditions, and all
of this is based--we need that basic research understanding to
get there. No one has ever looked at laser melting of particles
in great detail. This is a brand new field. Ames Laboratory is
working with SLAC and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
and using one of the national user facilities, Stanford
Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory, in order to understand that
the early stage materials melting and resolidification and
development of that most important internal structure that's
going to control the properties. It's a very exciting time.
Mr. Marshall. It is. One of the exciting things I saw was
they build you to take away from the product that it's printing
and telling the machine to maximize it, so they were doing wing
replicas and trying to have a stronger wing for airplanes, for
jets, but yet lighter, and to see that technology come forward.
So it is very exciting as a physician to see what they're doing
in joints, to think that instead of having your choice of hip
joints as small, medium, or large, you can actually make one
that fits your joint is exciting.
Last question for Dr. Higgs. I see that you won the NSF
Career Award, so congratulations. Professors at Kansas State
University, which is the champion of the Texas Football League
this past year, having defeated----
Chairman Weber. This gentleman's time is also expired.
Mr. Marshall. --Texas A&M, TCU, and Texas Tech. Anyway,
professors at Kansas State University, Wichita State
University, and University of Kansas have all won that
recently. Tell us a little bit about that and what you're doing
with that foundation grant, please.
Dr. Higgs. Very good. So I had an NSF Career Award. It's
supposedly given to the nation's youngest--best young
researchers. And I do want to say that the research from that,
which was actually to develop slurry technology, was about five
years after that grant. It became an NSF SBIR company,
InnovAlgae, that I now have. And so it's making it back up to
the marketplace because of the basic science research that's
now translated into a small company. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Bonamici is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of the witnesses for being here today.
I want to start by aligning myself with Dr. Foster's
comments about education and the message that these budgets
cuts send, both to students who are contemplating graduate
school or students who are in undergraduate trying to decide
their career path. I just came from the Education and Workforce
Committee on which I serve, and have as a priority wanted to
make sure that we are educating people here in the United
States for the jobs of tomorrow. I am very concerned about the
sort of shift in the message that we're sending.
There was a time when federal funding for research and
development was growing and graduate students were optimistic
about careers in research. We need to get back to that message
to our students and our potential new scientists across the
country, and I'm very concerned about that, and our leadership.
And I just point out as one recent--very recent example that
disappointing decision to exit the Paris Climate Accord, and
then immediately France started recruiting our scientists. We
need to have U.S. leadership here and maintain that leadership,
and I'm, again, very, very concerned and share the concerns of
others about what these budget cuts--what the message is to
students and to the rest of the world.
I'm--Congress really needs to think holistically and long-
term about supporting the sciences. I'm concerned about multi-
year projects which Mr. Foster mentioned, and I've heard from
scientists in Oregon who are very concerned about the lasting
effects of these cuts to their research, to the country, to our
leadership, and the global community.
Dr. Higgs, could you speak briefly about the concerns of
your students when they're considering continuing careers in
research? How do you advise them about their future careers in
light of these uncertainties and proposed budget cuts? And I do
want to save time for another question.
Dr. Higgs. Very good question. So we definitely are always
trying to aim them at going to academia, a government lab, or
an industry. We would really like to work on basic science,
because we know fundamentally that will translate into anything
there, but you become more constrained as cuts come. Cuts
usually--government cuts usually mean that basic science is
out, so then we have to work on some specific problem, and so
then we become people who are out looking for funding all of
the time, rather than educating, because we have these young,
bright minds we really want to go through and get a Ph.D.
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
Dr. Higgs. So we look at mentoring them. Government labs we
work with, they also mentor our students as well.
Ms. Bonamici. Right. We want them to get their Ph.D. and
stay here.
So in the President's--this is Dr. Schwartz. In the
President's budget proposal, the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy would receive a 70 percent cut. The
Renewable Energy and Sustainable Transportation portfolio, 70
percent reduction. Energy efficiency, 80 percent cut. This is
concerning. Clean energy jobs are an important driver of our
economy and the research helps advance these industries. In
fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that wind turbine
service technicians--it's one of the fastest growing
occupations. Many of those jobs are in rural areas. How would
these massive cuts to EERE affect materials research at your
labs and in the clean energy industry, and how would they
affect the growing--rapidly growing clean energy job sector?
Dr. Schwartz. Specifically for Ames Laboratory, we have
really four main projects that are funded through Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The Critical Materials
Institute, one of the four energy innovation hubs, a very
important scientific endeavor, early stage basic research that
is supplying critical options for the United States moving
forward with regard to rare earths and other critical
materials.
Just last week the only mine in the United States that was
producing rare earth materials was sold. We now have no
capability to mine rare earths. That's a big concern for me in
terms of economics and in terms of national security.
Another big project, the caloric materials consortium that
we've spent a little time talking about today, that is also
funded by EERE. The powder synthesis work that we are doing,
trying to create optimized metallic powders to enable the 3D
printing industry, that is also funded by EERE. All of those
are in jeopardy if this budget goes through.
Ms. Bonamici. And in my remaining time, could you, Dr.
Schwartz, address--the President's budget declared some
research at an early stage worthy of federal support, and other
activities as later stage research that should be immediately
eliminated, given that the private sector is supposedly better
equipped to carry them out. I'm very concerned about this,
because the Administration confirmed that they did not engage
with the private sector. So in your experience, are the cuts
proposed in the budget research areas--is the private sector
willing to simply start funding if the federal government cuts
these?
Dr. Schwartz. I shouldn't be speaking for the private
sector. I gave one example earlier of when Ames Laboratory
developed a new material, industry says okay, we got it. They
didn't get it, and about 20 years later, we are
reinvestigating. We are pursuing that path again. I am sure
there are cases where private sector can pick some of it up. I
don't think that that's going to be sufficient.
Ms. Bonamici. I see that my time is expired, but I would
like to follow up on that later.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
Mr. Webster, you are up for five minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to focus
in on one thing, and that is a couple years ago there was sort
of the storm of the century in the Northeast, and there was
about $50 billion it cost the federal government to pay for the
damages that were done there. Also back a few years ago--I have
relatives in Chicago and in Oakridge, and I've toured both the
national laboratories there. It seems like maybe one, maybe
both were working on some fiber for composite material that
would be way less expensive than what it is at that time, and
that was--I was interested mainly in the construction industry
because of resilient construction. I've been trying for a few
years here--I did finally get resilient construction defined,
so now we have it defined, and yet I could see the real
potential with composite materials and construction areas, not
only from a light weight, but also a durability so that when we
have these storms, you know, our loss may have been in the
hundreds of millions, but not $50 billion.
Could someone talk about--maybe Dr. Tirrell--of what's
going on at the national laboratories in that research area?
Dr. Tirrell. Thanks for that question. There's--that's one
of many kinds of efforts in composite materials, some of which
are based on additive manufacturing, some of which are based on
new polymerization methods. Many of these things have organic
plastic components to them. That's where the light weight comes
from.
Mr. Webster. Would that also--can I ask----
Dr. Tirrell. Sure.
Mr. Webster. Would that facilitate using these 3D
printers----
Dr. Tirrell. Yeah.
Mr. Webster. Yeah.
Dr. Tirrell. Yeah, that's what I was getting at, and I
did--I wanted to say something earlier, too. I think there's
huge frontiers on 3D printing. As 3D printing developed, it
really wasn't 3D printing in a way. It was 2D printing over and
over again. But now by the application of other kinds of fields
of light and so on--I'm a polymer scientist myself, so I'm
thinking more about the organic materials than the metals, but
one can make very spectacularly different 3D shapes than could
be made in the early days of 3D printing of polymers. There's
startup companies in this area--but anyway, at Argonne, which
is what I'm representing today, we're trying to open up a field
that we call manufacturing science.
Mr. Webster. By the way, Dr. Don Hillebrand gave me the
tour.
Dr. Tirrell. Good. Well he's the director of our energy
system division.
Manufacturing science refers to the new science questions
that come up. When you try to take something from the
laboratory into larger scale production, you're doing it
bigger, faster, cheaper, and the materials just don't behave
the same way at that scale and at those time scales as they did
in the lab. So Argonne is trying to be a leader in, as I said,
what we're calling manufacturing science, which is new basic
science applied to a manufacturing scenario.
Mr. Webster. Are you familiar with the term resilient
construction?
Dr. Tirrell. Yes.
Mr. Webster. The whole idea is that you can use the
building the next day----
Dr. Tirrell. Right, yeah.
Mr. Webster. --once the wind comes or whatever comes.
Dr. Tirrell. Yeah, resilience in general is a big focus at
Argonne which extends beyond material science, but we're on
materials here today, so----
Mr. Webster. Well in other--along those same lines in
science, there is--matter of fact, it seems like there's a
couple universities offering corrosion engineering as a
graduate degree, and it just seems like that--the construction,
especially in maybe the realm of steel or other things where
there's so much corrosion that there would be some usefulness
in that.
Dr. Tirrell. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that's a huge
economic drain. I mean, so far we've lived with it, but the
point is if you could stop that or make materials last longer--
and there are various centers of excellence. It's not a
particular focus at Argonne.
Mr. Webster. Great.
Dr. Higgs, too, I'd like to say to you come back to Georgia
Tech. I just did the commencement exercise there here a few
weeks ago, but you were a great contributor at that time. It's
been a while.
But anyway----
Dr. Higgs. Thank you.
Mr. Webster. I--when I graduated as an engineer, my mom
gave me a card that said four years ago, I couldn't even spell
engineer. Then you open it up, on the inside it said now I are
one, so----
Dr. Higgs. Right.
Mr. Webster. --I still are one, even though I've got a
different profession now.
I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Did she ask for any repayment of the money
back?
Mr. Webster. She should have.
Chairman Weber. I understand. Our parents give us a lot,
don't they?
Ms. Esty, you're now recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to encourage
my friend, Daniel Webster, to join the Corrosion Prevention
Caucus with me and Pete Olson, and the Resiliency Caucus,
because we are very interested in these issues, and again, I
think this is an area where basic research can save money, save
lives, and would encourage that to be part of sort of our
national initiative, and particularly with a move to pull us
out of the Climate Accords. Climate is going to do what it's
going to do. We need to be prepared, so I would encourage all
my colleagues to do that.
I had a couple things I wanted to quickly go through in the
limited time I have. First was just give an example that
illustrates what many of my colleagues have talked about. I
represent Connecticut. U-Conn has the Materials Genome
Initiative funded through NSF. They're deeply worried. They
came to meet with me a couple of weeks ago, and are very
concerned about what these proposed cuts would do to their
program, and many of those issues you've discussed about not
only losing those particular projects, but in so doing, lose
the talent pool, lose the grad students, lose the entire lab.
And so I just think we really need to understand the
implications. It's not a one-year cut. We actually risk losing
them to other countries. We risk American competitiveness. So
that's one. I just want to lend my voice to others.
The two other topics I want to quickly touch on, one is on
ARPA-E, and the other is on STEM diversity and diverse
workforce, which many of us are pretty passionate about.
Dr. Tirrell, I know that you've--the Argonne lab has done a
lot of work on ARPA-E. If we're going to look at advanced
materials and energy efficiency, it's incredibly important.
You've done a lot of important work. We're looking at, you
know, dramatic basically elimination of that. Could you talk a
little bit about whether you think the private sector can fill
in that gap, you know, the difference between who does basic
research and who doesn't do basic research? I appreciate the
mention, Dr. Higgs, of SBIR and that translation from basic
research into commercial exploitation, but the basic research
still has to be done. Dr. Tirrell, if you could talk a little
bit about that.
Dr. Tirrell. Well it does turn out that I am part of an
ARPA-E project based at Argonne that has to do with how to
improve the both acoustic and thermal insulation of windows
with polymer coatings, and as I mentioned, I'm a polymer
scientist. And so, you know, with a very well-defined need
specified, we'd like to have this much insulation for sound and
this much insulation for heat, and by the way, you can't make
the windows foggy or anything like that. We're trying to design
some polymers that will do that. So it's a good example of use-
inspired basic research.
I also pointed earlier on to the basic energy science basic
research needs workshops that in some ways frame things like
that. They look at what an area of technology needs, and then
talks about where we're missing out in basic research.
On the EERE or the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
I think within that, there are great ways of advancing U.S.
energy competitiveness. There's the Advanced Manufacturing
Office, which relates to some of the things I was saying to
Representative Webster about manufacturing science. So you
know, I think these are valuable programs. I'll just leave it
at that. They do things in a special way and produce good
results.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much.
Dr. Locascio, I know you've recently blogged about
diversity and science in your son's pride, and you being a
scientist, and I was just with my big data son early this
morning and thought about the importance of modeling that. And
Dr. Higgs, you're noted for your efforts as well.
Quickly, for both of you, what can we do? What can the U.S.
Congress do that would help ensure we are actually opening up
that pipeline for each and every young person in this country
to understand these are exciting fields? And we need their
talent. We need their life experience. We need their input and
their energy. Thanks.
Dr. Locascio. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about
this. I'm so passionate about it as well, so I appreciate that.
Yes, so there are several things that you talked about.
First, getting people into the workforce is very difficult, and
as you said, getting females or attracting females into the
STEM research fields is very difficult. So given the fact that
there could be changes in the way that we're recruiting and
attracting people, at this particular time and in the budget, I
think it makes it even more difficult. But the second part is
retaining them, and then the third part is elevating them to a
stature of leadership.
And so that's something that I have really thought a lot
about. How do we make sure no matter what you look like or
where you come from, what your cultural background is, we need
you at the table in order to get the best people and the best
ideas out there and supported for the sake of science in the
United States. And so mentoring, guiding people, trying to make
sure that we have adequate salaries to recruit them and retain
them, they're all important facets of the equation. But then
just making sure that we elevate them and promote them fairly,
equally, and then showcase their talent in front of people so
that they can be seen, I think is critical.
Dr. Higgs. Very good question.
So I will definitely say that we like to produce a diverse
number of scholars. A lot of you all have met goals because
you've seen people that look like you, and it's the same
dynamic that goes on with young people. I myself graduated from
a historically black college and university. I saw people that
looked like me had Ph.D.s and so I wanted to do that. I see my
friend over here, Chris Jones, just got his Ph.D. from MIT.
He's a graduate of Morehouse College as well. He saw people
that looked like him, and he wanted to go and be an astronaut
and do other things, like Mr. Webster become a politician and
engineer as well. So it's a very important part of producing
the nation's next generation of scientists and engineers. Thank
you.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much.
Chairman Weber. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hultgren for
five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all so much
for being here. This is really important, something we're
passionate about, I'm passionate about, and research and
development is so core, and especially that basic scientific
research is something we've got to make sure funding is
continued to remain, something the private sector can't do.
It's something we're going to continue to fight with the
current Administration and also fought the past Administration
oftentimes where they were pushing certain types of projects
and away from basic research. And so I want you to know there's
strong voices on both sides of the aisle that have--continue
that commitment and will continue to fight.
Also, I share my Illinois colleagues to thank Argonne.
Thank you, Dr. Tirrell and the great work that Argonne is
doing. We're so proud of you, so proud of what's happening at
Argonne. But also at a time when there's not a lot to brag
about in Illinois, we can brag about our research and so proud
of Argonne and Fermi. You look at the data, the Elsevier and
the Illinois Science and Technology Coalition. Rankings
recently put Illinois ranking at 94th percentile in publication
impact for material science fields, 86th percentile in
publication volume. That's very impressive and something we
absolutely are proud of. And I think a large recent we got that
big impact is because the national labs accessibility certainly
to students, but also as user facilities they are crown jewels
in our research ecosystem. And that gives access to researchers
throughout the country to high-end tools which no one
university or business could ever maintain or have access to.
So thank you. Keep up the great work. We're here to support
you.
These user facilities are also proposed in a well thought
out manner where the research community must set goals through
the advisor committee process, and base these facilities on
long-term needs. The 2016 BSAC report called the advanced
photon source upgrade ``absolutely central'' to contribute to
world leading science and ready to initiate construction.
Dr. Tirrell, I wonder if you could explain to the Committee
why this facility upgrade is absolutely central to contribute
to world leading science. Also, could you describe who the
users are at such a facility? Where will this research be done,
if not here in the United States?
Dr. Tirrell. Thank you very much.
Yes, there's over 5,000 users every year of the advanced
photon source. The upgrade is really necessary to keep it at
the state of the art or push the state of the art. And by that,
what we mean is intensity and coherence of the x-ray beam, and
the more intense and the more coherent, the better--the more
like a really infinitely powerful microscope the x-ray source
becomes. So it sort of changes its nature a bit from a
scattering tool to an imaging tool.
Investments are being made in Europe and in Japan, and
they're pushing the frontiers too, but the APS upgrade will
land us in 2025 with the best hard x-ray source in the world,
and that will keep not on the U.S. science community strong
itself, but it will keep people from all over the world coming
here because we are the best. That's very enriching.
Mr. Hultgren. It is, and that's, I think, the point that we
always have to continue to come back to, remind ourselves
certainly the value of these 5,000-plus users, the access that
they have, the multiple impact on our economy for new
discoveries there. I've heard about some amazing things that
are coming out that really could be game changers for the world
as far as energy goes, but also economic impact. So it is
really important.
The other point you bring up is this research likely is
going to happen, if not here, somewhere else. A lot of other
countries are aggressive. They're not where we are. They're not
able to lead right now, but if we fail, they're willing to step
in. But we're also recognizing for us to be a part of
important, big, groundbreaking, earth shattering research,
collaboration likely is going to have to be a part of that.
Reaching out and bringing other countries is part of that. I
wonder if you could just talk a little bit about that, looking
for solutions to new problems like new materials for batteries,
or solving other problems in material science, how
collaboration works within our own country. So Fermi Lab
working with Argonne and University of Chicago at the Institute
of Molecular Engineering for the Chicago Quantum Exchange,
talking a little bit about these hubs, but then also how that's
a draw on the international stage as well.
Dr. Tirrell. Yeah, thanks very much.
You know, back on the thing that you said about Elsevier, I
was actually contacted by a writer from Nature magazine who
wants to write a story about material science in Northern
Illinois, which is something I have been hoping for----
Mr. Hultgren. Fantastic.
Dr. Tirrell. --for a while. The Chicago Quantum Exchange is
an effort to merge our resources among the institutions in
Northern Illinois and in the Chicago area to lead in the next
phase of what might be called post--computing, and that's,
again, you know, a very, very competitive situation.
I have in front of me two weeks ago Science magazine that
touts the Chinese communication satellite that demonstrated
quantum communication between a satellite and Earth. You know,
the world--the United States, you know, just went into really
overdrive when Sputnik was launched in the '50s. That was
launched by a country that was our adversary, but not in any
kind of economic shape to drive developments. China is a whole
different story. They are.
Mr. Hultgren. They are, sir, right, and I think that is
something that will be continuing to be motivating for us as
Members of Congress, but also I think this Administration, that
we can lead. We need to lead. We should lead. We're in the
right spot, but we got to make sure that we're following it up
with the proper support there.
I could go on for another 20 minutes. Thank you all for
being here. We're so proud of you. Dr. Higgs, just want to give
a shout out that grateful for your research, your work. I would
say you're certainly an inspiration to many, and I would say--
you talk about people who look like us, but I would say to all
of us, all of you are inspirations. I just want to thank you
for your great work. It is so important for us to inspire that
next generation that science and discovery is still important,
and it can happen here in America. So thank you. Keep up the
great work. Let us know how we can help.
I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman surfer
from California is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you for acknowledging my great
achievement. All right.
Chairman Weber. It's the one time he can wax eloquent.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There you go. Oh, that's good. I like
that.
All right. Okay, first of all, let us know we wouldn't be
on this Committee if we didn't believe in basic research. I
mean, that's Republican, Democrat, we all are on this
Committee; however, we are also Members of the House that have
to deal with budgets, and it's great idealism. I happen to
believe in limited government, and I believe how we can make
sure that government doesn't grow out of proportion is making
sure that science develops alternatives so that we can solve
vexing problems through science rather than through
bureaucracy. So nothing--let me just note, nothing should say
that we are not united in that, but let me just note that when
you're dealing with budgets, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle lament that we got out of the Paris Treaty, which
really cost us billions of dollars, billions. That was the
purpose of it was to redistribute wealth from us to other
countries that weren't quite so well off. Now whether we like
that or not, the fact is that means those billions wouldn't be
available for us for scientific research. And so when we're
talking about this, let's keep that in perspective, that there
are other things people are complaining about, trying to have
to deal with budgets across the board, which we try to do, that
you can't ask for billions more to be spent on the Paris Treaty
and expect to have full funding for these projects.
Let me ask, how do we get more money in from--we conferred
to this with the space program about two decades ago when I was
very involved in this Committee on that, and I--we figured out
we couldn't put more money in and balance the budget in terms
of the space program, and I'm very proud that I worked on the
Commercial Space Act and with that Space Act, we laid the
foundation for billions of dollars of private sector
involvement in space. And that was the new resource that we had
coming in. And is there some way that, number one, we can get
the private sector--for example, right now these studies that
you do and the information that you come forward with, the new
materials that you're talking about that play such a vital role
in progress, companies actually utilize this to build products
that help our lives. But they also make a big product--I mean,
a big profit in making those products. Do we have now a
situation where those companies that are profiting by using
your direct research in some way are paying a payback to the
federal government or to this--our science community?
Dr. Tirrell. The short answer is yes, they are, but not as
much as they might.
In some ways, universities and national labs have filled in
the gap for what used to be much more vigorous and extensive
industrial research labs in the chemical industry, in the
electronics industry, in the computer industry and so on, so
you know, I think companies do, obviously, what's in their
interest. That's what they're supposed to do. But I think it
would be in their interest to invest more in collaborations
with universities and national laboratories.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah. When I was young, my dad took me to
that laboratory there in Dearborn, Michigan, and it was
Edison's lab up there and it was really very impressive for me
to see that. We went to--also next door to where they were
developing new things for the cars. That was private funding,
and I think Edison's was privately funded as well, come to
think of it. Should--is there--we need to make sure that we do
not encourage our industry to continue to be subsidized like
this. If there is a way that someone is using the research,
should we not try to make further demands on people? If they're
going to make a profit from what you're researching, shouldn't
they be paying more then for the use of that, instead of having
the taxpayers having this as a hidden subsidy?
Dr. Tirrell. Well I think, you know, it's a complicated
situation. I don't think--at least I couldn't tell you what the
right formula would be there. I would just express an overall
hope that there would be more collaboration.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well if we do it for free, we can't blame
the companies for taking it free. And we have a patent system
in our country. Isn't--couldn't we then--is there a way that we
could expand the protection of the patent so that materials
that are developed in the public sector are--or even in the
private sector, but mainly what you're doing with public money,
that that has to be repaid to the owner of the patent, which
would be the government in that case?
Dr. Tirrell. Well generally speaking, at universities or at
national labs, the owner of the patent is the university or the
national laboratory, and then licensing fees are paid. And
Argonne gets millions of dollars a year in licensing fees. So
that kind of thing is happening----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Tirrell. --and you know, I think it is a matter of
developing a good system and figuring out if the balance is
right there.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well let's see if we can do that. That's
an avenue--we shouldn't just look at scientific basic research
as simply it's going to be part of the federal bureaucratic
programs that we--let's see if we can make things more
efficient by making sure that the people in the private sector
who profit from what you're doing are maybe paying a little
higher share, but also, that will encourage them to be doing
research as well.
So with that, thank you very much for all the good work
you're doing. I certainly wish you success in coming up with a
material that's going to make us cool in the summer and warm in
the winter. That's great. Thank you very much.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony
and the Members for their questions today. The record will
remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written
questions from the Members.
I do want to end by saying that this Committee and the full
Science Committee obviously is committed to research. Chairman
Smith has been a staunch advocate of it, both sides of the
aisle. And so we look at this budget and we say that is simply
a submitted budget, but I'm going to encourage and I think
we're going to continue to be able to help with research as
much as absolutely possible. We are holding--trying to do a lot
of things, spinning a lot of plates. If you all could quickly
come up with a material to make those plates lighter, you know,
it would make our job easier.
So I want to say thank you for being here today again. You
all have--we could have gone on for a long time. This is very,
very interesting. We appreciate what you guys do.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]