Testimony

• Dr. James Roberto, Ph.D.
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Dr. James Roberto, Ph.D.

  Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is James Roberto, and I am the Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL is a Department of Energy multiprogram laboratory managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, a partnership of the University of Tennessee and Battelle Memorial Institute. It is an honor to appear before the Committee in support of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. In my role at ORNL I oversee the physical sciences, including nanoscale science and technology. This includes the development of ORNL's Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences (CNMS), one of DOE's five planned Nanoscale Science Research Centers. The Nanoscale Science Research Centers are state-of-the-art user facilities for nanoscale science and technology that will be located at Argonne, Berkeley, Brookhaven, Los Alamos and Sandia, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Each Center will focus on nanoscale research and development that leverages the unique capabilities of the host laboratory including major synchrotron, neutron, and microfabrication facilities. The DOE nanotechnology centers will help fulfill a Presidential priority of providing American researchers with the foremost capability in this breakthrough technology. Not only will DOE researchers benefit from these centers, but also other agencies, U.S. industry and our universities will benefit from these new capabilities. The excitement surrounding nanoscale science and technology is real. The recent DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers Workshop and National Users Meeting in Washington, D.C., attracted more than 400 scientists and engineers from 94 universities, 40 industries, and 15 federal laboratories. More than 2000 researchers have attended regional and national workshops for the DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers. It is difficult to find a month without a national or international meeting in this field. Nanoscale science and technology crosscuts the traditional disciplines of materials science, chemistry, physics, biology, computational science, and engineering. It occupies the frontiers of these fields and includes some of the most challenging research problems. The solutions to these problems offer a line-of-sight to technical advances of enormous potential in materials, information technology, healthcare, and national security. Many see nanotechnology as the basis of the next industrial revolution. For the Department of Energy, the opportunities provided by nanoscale science and technology are unprecedented. Research on the synthesis and properties of nanoscale systems consisting of tens to thousands of atoms underpins progress in a multitude of high-impact fields including catalysis science, photovoltaics and thermoelectrics, sensor technology, high-performance alloys, advanced materials for fuel cells and hydrogen storage, and membrane technology. Applications include low-cost high-efficiency solar cells, materials 10-100 times the strength of steel at 1/6th the weight, energy-efficient “smart” coatings for windows, high-efficiency solid state lighting devices, and new catalysts for energy conversion and chemical processing. These applications offer enormous energy, national security, environmental, and economic benefits. John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, describes the nanotechnology revolution as one in which "the notion that everything is made of atoms has a real operational significance." This has been made possible by extraordinary tools such as synchrotron light sources, neutron sources, electron microscopes, scanning probe microscopes, and high-performance computers. These tools have enabled the atomic-scale characterization, manipulation, and simulation of complex assemblies of atoms and molecules. This is a "bottoms up" view of the physical world—Mother Nature's view— that embraces breathtaking complexity and seemingly endless possibilities. We are at a crossroads in the physical sciences. The boundaries between scientific disciplines are disappearing at the nanoscale. The study of simple, isolated systems is giving way to complex assemblies. We are moving from atomic-scale characterization to atomic-scale control, from miniaturization to self-assembly. Change is opportunity, and this paradigm shift for the physical sciences rivals other revolutions in science, such as the revolution in biology following the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. It is this opportunity, and the technological impact that will result, that underpin the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. This Act is an important element of the strategy to strengthen the physical sciences in the United States. Other components include The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 766), the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 2003 (H.R. 238) and the Energy and Science Research Investment Act of 2003 (S. 917 and H.R. 34). The traceability of advances in the physical sciences to economic growth, new medical technology, energy independence, and enhanced national security is strong. As you know, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has given high priority to strengthening the physical sciences, including nanoscale science and technology. I appreciate the Committee’s leadership in this area, and I firmly believe that the future of our Nation depends on continued leadership at the scientific and technological frontier, a frontier that includes nanoscale science and technology.

• Dr. Clayton Teague, Ph.D.
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Dr. Clayton Teague, Ph.D.

  Chairman Allen, Senator Wyden, members of the Committee, I am pleased and honored to have this opportunity to appear before you today in behalf of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). I, and all agency representatives on the NSET Subcommittee, believe strongly in the tremendous potential and importance of nanotechnology for the security, economic prosperity, and general welfare of our nation. We also share this Committee’s belief that Federal support for nanotechnology R&D is essential for efficient development of the scientific understanding, advanced facilities, education, and standards necessary for timely translation of R&D in nanotechnology into true economic development. As the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has defined it, nanotechnology is the ability to work – to see, measure, and manipulate - at the atomic, molecular, and supramolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1-100 nm range, with the goal of understanding and creating useful materials, devices, and systems that exploit the fundamentally new properties, phenomena, and functions resulting from their small structure. So, nanotechnology is not just the study of small things. Nanoscale research and development is the study of materials, devices, and systems that exhibit physical and chemical properties quite different from those found in larger scale systems. Take the semiconductor cadmium sulfide as an example. In its large-scale form, it is typically used as a material for constructing detectors of light. But, when it is formed as small crystals of less than 10 nm – termed quantum dots – the material as a nanostructure has the property of fluorescing with a color dependent on the size of the crystal. In a demonstration accompanying this testimony, I would like to show the Committee this nanoscale size-dependent phenomenon. When illuminated with near-ultraviolet light, five vials of liquid containing cadmium sulfide quantum dots ranging in size from 3 nanometers to 7 nanometers will be shown to fluoresce with colors ranging from blue to red, the blue light being produced by the 3 nanometer quantum dots and the red light being produced by the 7 nanometer quantum dots. Such size-dependent quantum dots and nanorods promise to have a wide range of applications in improved solar cells, biological imaging of cells, and faster DNA testing. This NSET focused definition of nanotechnology, along with the NNI vision and program elements, were carefully prescribed in the basic research directions document for the NNI, drafted in 1999. The definition, vision, and program elements have served the program as guiding principles for the NNI since that time. More than thirty other countries have also modeled their nanotechnology programs on the NNI. As a scientist who has worked for over twenty-five years in some of the fields now included in nanotechnology, I’d now like to offer my perspective on how this technology is developing. Then, I’ll describe plans for the NNCO and the interactions underway between the NNCO, the NSET Subcommittee, and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). I had the privilege early in my career of observing the phenomenon of quantum mechanical tunneling between two small gold spheres spaced about one nanometer – ten atomic diameters - apart. In classical physics no current flow would occur between metals not touching. But in quantum mechanics, the electrons “tunnel” through this potential energy barrier produced by the physical gap. With a small voltage applied between the spheres, changing the spacing between them by only one atomic diameter would cause the current flow to change by a factor of ten, an extraordinarily large change. This characteristic of quantum mechanical tunneling between two closely spaced metals – known and predicted by theory - proved to be the basis for the totally unexpected discovery later by Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rhorer that by carefully moving a sharpened metal tip about one nanometer above a surface one could resolve and draw images of the individual atoms constituting the surface. For the first time in scientific history, we could virtually reach down and touch the very rudiments of all matter – the atoms! Nothing in my career has generated as much sustained excitement and stirred as much imagination and creativity as did this discovery. That was twenty years ago, and I still marvel at the beautiful and refined images of atoms obtained with this instrument, the scanning tunneling microscope. About ten years later, Don Eigler and colleagues demonstrated that using a scanning tunneling microscope they could not only reach down and touch the atoms but, in addition, could controllably move individual atoms around on a surface and build atomic structures they designed – atomically precise letters of the alphabet and quantum corrals for electrons. There have been many other developments since then leading to the current rapid development of nanotechnology, but these two demonstrations are clearly the events that energized the scientific community to begin thinking seriously about the real possibility of atom-by-atom structuring of matter. Parallel to these developments in the direct mechanical manipulation of atoms with the scanning tunneling microscope, similar exciting things were taking place in other fields now included in nanotechnology. The discovery of fullerene molecules – buckyballs and nanotubes - sprang from the study of small clusters of carbon; ultra miniaturization of microelectronics produced the burgeoning field of thin film superlattices and quantum dots; DNA and other biomolecules emerged from biotechnology as unique building blocks; the study of very large or supramolecules produced surprisingly efficient catalysts. This is only a small number of the fields overlapping with the field now termed nanotechnology; each has its own exciting story of discovery and rapid development over the last ten years or so. With all these approaches and processes, just imagine the astounding number of structures one can build with the 91 atoms of the periodic table. The rich possibilities may be appreciated by considering the large number of atoms in typical nanoscale sized structures. Nanoscale structures with dimensions of 1 nanometer can contain up to about 100 atoms; those with dimensions of 2 nanometers, up to about 1000 atoms; and those with dimensions of 100 nanometers, up to about 100 million atoms. The number of possible structures within this nanoscale size range isn’t infinite but it is huge. The structures that we can build will be limited more by our creativity and imagination than by the ultimate bounding of possibilities posed by the laws of physics. So where are we in our abilities to realize all these wonderfully rich possibilities, and why is there a need for so much research and development? First, even with the rapid progress made in scanning probe techniques for assembling atoms, the first assembly of atoms involving true molecular bonding was only achieved in 2000 and that was assembling a three-atom structure. Currently, we have an inadequate degree of control at the nanoscale and our tools and processes for assembling atoms are very slow. We still do not have the understanding, the tools, and processes for the full control of assembling reasonably large numbers of atoms into desired structures. As an example, we cannot form single wall nanotubes with a known twist or chirality. This is critical because depending on the twist of the nanotubes; they may be metals or semiconductors. Speed in forming a macroscopic quantity of these nanostructures, say enough for a drug tablet, is critical because it requires assembling about a million, billion, billion, atoms! Innovative combinations of top-down tools such as lithography with methods of directed self-assembly of atoms and molecules have provided means to overcome some of the speed limitations yet with some resultant loss in ultimate control of the atomic and molecular form of the resulting structures. This gives you a sense of the task remaining before us and the amazing potential for making new materials, devices and systems as we continue to engage the challenges. In the Marketplace Today Relative to the long-range potential just outlined, nanotechnology is truly in its embryonic stage of development. Yet, many important nanotechnology-based products are already in use today. Few people are aware of these first commercial nano products because they are more incremental than revolutionary. Some applications of nanotechnology have been in use for many years, and we can now begin to appreciate their economic impact. The U.S. oil industry saves an estimated 400 million barrels of oil each year, representing some $12 billion, through the use of nanoparticles called zeolites, which act as molecular sieves. Zeolites extract up to 40 percent more gasoline from crude oil than the catalysts that were previously used. Recently, the automotive industry was able to substantially reduce the amount of precious metals used in its catalytic converters and extend the longevity of the converters, in part due to advancements in nanostructured catalysts. These examples show how significant a contribution nanotechnology can make to our economy, environment, and natural resources management. Other nanotechnology based products that have become available over the last year or two include: · Nanoparticle filters for removing viruses, bacteria, and protozoa such as hepatitis A, E?coli and giardia from water · Nanocomposites in running boards and bumpers on automobiles to decrease weight and improve corrosion resistance · Thin layers engineered at the nanoscale to produce protective and glare-reducing coatings for eyeglasses and cars · Transparent sunscreens with superior UV protection · Longer-lasting tennis balls due to decreased gas permeability of nanoclay coatings · Stain-free clothing and mattresses due to nanostructured fiber coatings In addition, exciting new applications are in the product pipeline, with patents already licensed, and partnerships sealed between product developers and manufacturers. But these near-term applications are modest in comparison to the potential applications of research now being conducted under the auspices of NNI funding. Examples include the following: · Microcantilever arrays incorporating nanostructured coatings that will enable detection of multiple chemical warfare agents, explosive vapors, and biological agents on a single chip (A. Majumdar, U.C. Berkeley) · Dip-pen Nanolithography: Use of atomic force microscopes as "ink pens" for use in nanolithography for low-cost, ultra high resolution chip manufacturing (C. Mirkin, Northwestern University) · A variety of potential applications of carbon nanotubes, including electrical interconnects for nanoscale electronics, hydrogen storage, and even structural applications such as nanotube-reinforced composites (R. Smalley, Rice University) · Digital logic and memory devices manufactured on the molecular scale from rotaxane molecules using nanowire interconnects (J. Heath, Caltech) · Novel antibiotics based on peptide nanotubes that punch holes in bacterial cell walls (A. Olson, Scripps Research Institute) · Low-cost, ultra lightweight, and flexible nanorod-polymer photovoltaic cells (P. Alivisatos, UC Berkeley) · Metallic iron nanoparticles for low-cost, high-efficiency remediation of groundwater contaminated with heavy metals (W. Zhang, Lehigh University) Nanotechnology is highly interdisciplinary. It is not just chemistry, molecular biology, medicine, physics, engineering, information science and metrology; it is all of these fields at once. R&D efforts, accordingly, require extraordinary coordination and cooperation within the scientific community, among Federal, state, and local agencies, and with industry. Further collaboration with industry in particular is necessary to commercialize scientific discoveries. Technology transfer and commercialization have been key elements of the NNI plan from its inception. NSET member agencies have responded to this challenge by designing industry outreach activities into many of their funding programs within the NNI. Some examples are included below: 1. Several agencies (e.g., NIH, NSF and DOE for example) have put out special nano SBIR solicitations or have included language specifically encouraging nanotechnology-related SBIR proposals. NSF hosted an NNI SBIR workshop in March 2002 reporting on the results of initial FY '01 SBIR funding in nanotechnology. Six agencies (NSF, NIST, NIH, USDA, EPA, and NASA) presented information on nanotechnology-related SBIR funding activities at that workshop. In data later provided to NNCO, these agencies reported a total of over 65 nano-related SBIR awards made in fiscal year 2001, with a total funding of over $11 million. This figure is not known in fiscal years '02 and '03, but the overall NNI budget has grown dramatically since FY 2001. 2. While some NSET agencies are restricted from funding R&D activities in companies (SBIR excepted), other agencies do not have such restrictions. Within the NNI, agencies that primarily fund academic research are partnering with agencies that can fund industrial development to assure the timely transfer of basic research developments into industry. For example, the Department of Defense plays a key role in carrying nanotechnology innovations all the way from basic research funded at agencies such as ONR and DARPA into industrial practice. Thus, ONR was able to accelerate the application of wear-resistant nanostructured coatings developed under its basic research funding, and these coatings are now deployed in some Navy ships, reducing wear in turbine shaft bearings, in turn reducing the need for major propulsion systems overhauls, and thus reducing costs and increasing readiness of the Navy fleet. DOD research agencies frequently work with NSF and other basic research agencies to co-fund promising academic research, and DOD can pick up the results and promote the accelerated development of military applications through development work funded at major defense contractors. 3. The Department of Energy's Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) are designed to be "user facilities" open to researchers from U.S. industry. Depending on intellectual property rules the industry researchers may be working under, the use of the DOE facilities may be free, or may entail the payment of a modest fee. DOE held a large meeting on Feb. 26-27, 2003, to formally initiate the NSRC program; the first annual users' meeting was held on Feb. 28. Members of Congress, nanotechnology researchers, and industrialists participated in the meeting, which was designed to highlight the opportunities that the new DOE facilities will afford to researchers from both academia and industry. 4. Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers funded by NSF require industrial interest and effective plans for cooperation with industry. The focus for FY 2003 is on manufacturing processes at the nanoscale, so industrial participation is all the more important as NSF reviews the new proposals that will be submitted in response to this year's solicitation. 5. Industry participation is required in the NSF program entitled, "Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI)." Several of the GOALI awards that were made by NSF in FY '02 were closely related to nanotechnology. 6. The U.S. Army's Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at MIT reflects a partnership among MIT, the Army, and private industry. Currently active industrial partners include Dupont and Raytheon. 7. Similarly, the DARPA/DMEA Center for Nanoscience Innovation for Defense (University of California at Santa Barbara) maintains close industrial ties, with industry representation on the technical advisory committee and with participation by Rockwell Scientific and Motorola. 8. NSF's National Nanofabrication Users' Network (NNUN) provides nanofabrication and other research infrastructure at 5 universities around the country, available for use by either industrial or academic researchers. Each year industry researchers conduct hundreds of research projects that involve use of NNUN facilities. NSF plans to re-organize and roughly double the size of the NNUN program in the coming year. 9. The Department of Commerce has assisted the NNI in organizing workshops in Los Angeles and Houston aimed at building local and regional alliances between researchers, local businesses, and entrepreneurs and investors to promote the commercial development of nanotechnology. Additional workshops are planned in the coming year for the Boston and Chicago areas. Reports from these and many other nanotechnology-related workshops are available at http://wtec.org/nanoreports/. 10. NSF held a special workshop for public and industry outreach at the Reagan Bldg. in Washington, DC on March 19, 2002. Entitled, "Small Wonders: Exploring the Vast Potential of Nanoscience," the meeting featured presentations on promising applications of nanotechnology in a wide variety of economic sectors, including materials, medicine, instrumentation, and electronics. Industrial participation included representatives from IBM, Lucent, Eastman Kodak, the Semiconductor Research Corporation, Motorola, the California Molecular Electronics Corporation, and Digital Instruments. 11. For the past two years running, the NNI has co-sponsored a large annual NNI meeting at which representatives of NSET agencies have explained the NNI programs, and at which leading NNI-supported researchers present their most promising findings. There has been significant industry participation in these meetings, which have provided yet another forum for building connections between researchers and industrial practitioners. 12. NNCO is now planning a workshop to enhance coordination between Federal NNI and state and regional nano initiatives that target economic development and commercialization. Key objective of this workshop are to find ways to better promote economic development through commercialization of nanotechnology breakthroughs, and to leverage the expertise and resources of existing state and local nanotechnology efforts. Another objective is to assure the broadest possible geographical distribution of the benefits of nanotechnology development -- the meeting will feature presentations from states that have established nanotechnology initiatives for the benefit of states and local governments that are hoping to establish such programs in the future. We have been working closely with Dr. Nathan Swami of the Virginia Nanotechnology Initiative, Sean Murdoch of Atomworks, and Mark Modzelewski of the Nanobusiness Alliance to plan and carry out this activity. 13. Industry leaders are participating in a series of workshops being organized this year by the NNCO to help establish detailed research plans corresponding to the NNI's nine grand challenge topics. One example is a workshop held in September of 2002 entitled, "Vision 2020 for the Chemical Industry." A chemical industry group manages the Vision 2020 exercise in cooperation with the DOE/Office of Industrial Technologies. This workshop was particularly targeted at identifying nanotechnology research opportunities that would benefit the chemical industry. Not all of the grand challenge workshops planned for the coming year will be industry-led in the way Vision 2020 was, but all will include representation from key companies in the relevant industries affected by the respective grand challenge topics. 14. A new research and education theme on "manufacturing at the nanoscale" has been added to the NSF's Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE) program solicitation in fiscal year 2002, and the program element "Nanomanufacturing" has been established in the Directorate for Engineering. NSF invested about $22 million in manufacturing research and education in fiscal year 2002, and two Nanoscale Science and Engineering centers with a focus on nanoscale manufacturing will be funded in fiscal year 2003. Also, SBIR nanotechnology investment has reached $10 million in fiscal year 2002. Because of the complexity, cost and high risk associated with nanotechnology research, the private sector is often unable to assure itself of short- to medium-term returns on R&D investments in this field. Consequently, industry is not likely to undertake the basic research investments necessary to overcome the technical barriers that currently exist. The traditional government role of supporting basic research is thus particularly important in this case. Additional basic research will be needed to make these innovations ready for industry to develop and market. The National Nanotechnology Initiative The National Nanotechnology Initiative is a critical link between high-risk, novel research concepts and new technologies that can be developed by industry. Since the creation of the NNI in October 2000, Federal funding for nanotechnology has been coordinated through the NNI. The NNI has continued to the present time as a successful interagency program that encompasses and promotes relevant nanotechnology R&D among the participating Federal agencies. The Federal agencies currently participating in the NNI research budget are as follows: · National Science Foundation · Department of Defense · Department of Energy · National Institutes of Health · Department of Commerce · National Aeronautics and Space Administration · Department of Agriculture · Environmental Protection Agency · Department of Homeland Security · Department of Justice Funding for the NNI provides support for a range of activities, which include: basic research on fundamental nanoscale science; focused efforts aimed to achieve major, long-term objectives of high significance—so-called “grand challenges;” and building research infrastructure (instrumentation, equipment, facilities) and centers and networks of excellence (larger, centralized facilities intended to provide sites for cooperative and collaborative efforts among distributed networks and groups of researchers at multiple affiliated institutions). Depending on the agency, funding supports research and applications of nanotechnology in support of the respective agency missions, research at national laboratories, and research at academic institutions and other research institutes. A portion of the funding is also dedicated to addressing non-technical research problems in a broader context, including societal implications and workforce and training issues. The NNI has benefited and grown under this Administration’s strong commitment to furthering nanotechnology research and development. Support for the NNI is evidenced by significant funding increases for this interagency initiative in each of President Bush’s proposed budgets. That trend continues this year, with a 10% increase over last year’s request for nanotechnology (to $849 million) in the President’s FY 2004 Budget. In addition, last year the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and OSTP Director Marburger issued a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies identifying nanoscale science and technology as one of six interagency research and development priorities. Nanoscale Science and Engineering Technology Subcommittee The research agenda for the ten agencies currently participating in the NNI is coordinated by the NSET Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). As you know, the NSTC is a cabinet-level interagency body through which interagency science and technology issues are discussed and coordinated. The NSET Subcommittee is staffed by representatives of the participating agencies, OSTP, and OMB. It also includes other Federal agencies that do not fund nanotechnology R&D but nevertheless have an interest in these technologies—agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of the Treasury. There are now 17 agencies participating in the NSET Subcommittee. NSET members meet on a monthly basis to measure progress, set priorities, keep abreast of nanotechnology R&D being proposed and conducted in the agencies, plan and organize workshops, and plan for the coming year. The agency representatives to the NSET, typically program officers, and researchers, have extensive knowledge of and experience with nanoscale R&D. This expertise has been of critical importance to the success of the initiative, providing a necessary link to nanotechnology researchers in industry and academia. Because the cost of nanotechnology instrumentation, equipment and facilities is rather high, government funding of such research infrastructure can provide a great benefit to both academic and industrial research. An important focus of the NNI, for instance, is to develop measurements and standards, research instrumentation, modeling and simulation capabilities, and R&D user facilities. Current examples of how this type of funding is used are the National Nanofabrication Users Network (NNUN), the modeling and simulation Network for Computational Nanotechnology sponsored by NSF, and a group of five user-facility Nanoscale Science Research Centers being created by DOE. The need for this type of infrastructure is so great that Federal agencies are committing additional resources to support the NNI’s efforts. These include a dedicated nanoscience facility at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and portions of the new Advanced Measurement Laboratory at the NIST. The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) assists NSET-participating agencies by: (1) serving as secretariat to the NSET Subcommittee, providing technical and administrative support, (2) supporting the NSET Subcommittee in the preparation of multi-agency planning, budget, and assessment documents, (3) acting as the point of contact on Federal Nanotechnology activities for government organizations, academia, industry, professional societies, foreign organizations, and others for technical and programmatic information, and (4) developing and making available printed and other communications materials concerning the National Nanotechnology Initiative including maintaining a Web site for the Initiative. As part of this support, the NNCO produces annual supplements to the President’s Budget explaining the NNI portion of the budget request. It also coordinates and assists in the conduct of regular workshops based on grand challenge areas. The NNCO assists and coordinates the conduct of regional workshops that explore commercialization opportunities for nanotechnology discoveries. These conferences bring together scientists, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and large businesses for discussion and exploration of partnerships. Reports produced by the NNCO provide a permanent record of conference proceedings and are used by those not in attendance to learn more about developments in the field. Under the auspices of the NSTC, the NNCO also contracts for periodic program reviews to provide feedback on the NNI. The annual budget of the NNCO is approximately $1 million. Three years ago, the NSET subcommittee and NNCO coordinated the efforts of six agencies involved in nanotechnology R&D. Today, through the NNI, the NSET and NNCO coordinate the efforts of 17 participating agencies. The scale of the workload for the NNCO parallels this increase in participating agencies. The NNCO staff is coordinating an increasing stream of workshops proposed by the agencies, and prepares the post-conference reports. Planning and administrative functions have expanded, as will reporting requirements resulting from the pending legislation. With an increased number of discoveries and acceleration of commercialization activities here and abroad, staff tracking and reporting to the scientific community and government agencies must keep pace. Increased activity at the state and regional levels has brought welcome support for commercialization and another level of involvement for the NNCO. Current high-priority NNCO projects include the following: a) NNCO is working with OSTP and OMB to finalize a supplement to the President’s FY 2004 Budget to explain the NNI activities within the request. b) NNCO will follow this with a more detailed report this year, the revised Implementation Plan for the NNI. This will be an update of a similar detailed plan that was submitted in July of 2000. c) An interagency workshop being led by the Environmental Protection Agency will address environmental implications as well as applications of nanotechnology. The purpose of this September workshop is to define the future research agenda for EPA and other agencies in the NNI that support nanotechnology research aimed to enhance environmental quality through pollution detection, prevention, treatment, and remediation. d) The National Institutes of Health is taking the lead in organizing a workshop to explore opportunities for supporting more research at the intersection of nanotechnology and biology, as recommended in the NRC report. This is tentatively scheduled for October. e) Another workshop scheduled for September will facilitate collaboration and best practices among state and regional initiatives. f) NNI and the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) are organizing a workshop this Fall on nanoelectronics. g) A workshop is tentatively scheduled for this December to assess broader societal implications, including ethical, economic, education/workforce, medical, and national security implications. This is follow-on to a workshop held in September 2000 on these same subjects. h) A project is underway to produce a brochure for industry, explaining the state of nanotechnology, R&D opportunities and resources toward commercialization of nanotechnology discoveries. i) Following from all the above activities, NNCO will be coordinating a large workshop in early 2004 to integrate inputs from all the grand challenge workshops, PCAST suggestions, new legislation, and recommendations of the NRC report and produce a new “crisp, compelling plan” for the NNI. This will be a reprise and 5-year update of the January 1999 workshop that produced the first detailed technical plan, the report entitled, Nanotechnology Research Directions. Recognizing the growing complexity of this multi-agency effort, OSTP asked me to begin serving on April 15 of this year as the full-time Director of NNCO. (In the past, Dr. James Murday had served as the Director of the NNCO in a half-time capacity.) Among my specific charges are increasing communications between the OSTP, NNCO and the NSET; promoting a higher level of coordination of nanotechnology R&D among the Departments and agencies participating in the NSET; and providing an increased level of support for the NSET Subcommittee in preparation of planning, budgeting, and assessment documents. Recognizing the increasing need for public outreach for greater understanding of nanotechnology and its societal implications, the NNCO has hired a full-time communications director and will be undertaking an array of communication tasks, including enhancing the NNI Web Site. NSET and NNCO Interactions with PCAST Relevant to the legislation before the committee is the report of the National Research Council (NRC) following their study of the NNI. Entitled Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the report, published in the summer of 2002, highlighted the strong leadership of the NNI, praised the degree of interagency collaboration, and lauded the early successes of the research programs. As you know, the National Research Council (NRC) recommended that the federal nanotechnology research program would benefit from an outside review. As noted in the President’s FY 04 Budget, the Administration concurs that an independent review is warranted, and has asked the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) to undertake this effort. PCAST has already begun its work in this regard, and the NNCO staff is excited to be working with the PCAST membership on this task. PCAST is well suited to conduct this review, as its members have extensive experience and expertise in technological developments, how Federal R&D programs operate, and how R&D effectively translates to the economy. This type of broad experience offer perspectives on how nanotechnology can address key issues facing industries today (e.g., the "red brick wall" referred to in the recent "International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors" report). The preliminary PCAST work plan for its role in advising the NNI, approved at the March 3 PCAST meeting, sets out as one of its first tasks the review and assessment of the NNI's "grand challenges" -- the nine areas where nanotechnology can make significant contributions to national goals and priorities outlined in the current NNI program plan. The industrial backgrounds of many PCAST members are particularly appropriate to this role, providing a broader perspective beyond laboratory research. PCAST also offers the benefits of timeliness and effectiveness. PCAST already exists, and has already begun its nanotechnology work with the intent on providing some recommendations by late summer, in time for the FY05 budget process. Importantly, too, PCAST is an established and well-regarded entity within the Administration. Its advice will be well-received. The PCAST review of the NNI will be an ongoing project that provides continuing recommendations to the President on how to improve the program. PCAST will work in coordination with the National Science and Technology Council, as well as the NNCO. PCAST’s initial effort will be assisting in the development of a crisp, compelling and overarching strategic plan, and refining the list of specific "grand challenge” topics to guide the NNI program. NSET and NNCO are working with OSTP already in organizing a series of workshops aimed at setting specific objectives within those grand challenge topics and clarifying the research agendas for NSET member agencies that will lead to the achievement of those objectives. PCAST then intends to explore additional issues, such as program metrics, and also to monitor the response to the guidance it provides. To assist in these activities, PCAST has formed three internal task forces – one on materials, electronics and photonics, one on energy and the environment, and one on medical, bio and social issues. In addition, PCAST is forming an external technical task force to gain input on technical nanotechnology issues as may be needed. Additional consultations will naturally occur as well. At its March 3rd meeting, for example, PCAST met with three leading nanotechnology scientists – Richard Smalley, Richard Siegel, and Samuel Stupp (who led the NRC review). PCAST co-Chair Floyd Kvamme also met with the NSET members at NSETs last meeting in early April and I, as the new NNCO coordinator, have already met with Mr. Kvamme as well. The NNCO is pleased to have PCAST’s experience available for counsel, and looks forward to working with PCAST in the months and years to come. In another structural change, the OSTP has proposed that the NSET Subcommittee be re-constituted with higher level agency membership to enable enhanced coordination and priority setting. We at the NNCO recognize the importance of high-level agency involvement in the NNI. For the active support of planning and conducting workshops and generally tracking technological innovations, we will rely on the current membership of the NSET, which under the OSTP plan would be re-formulated as an interagency working group. The members’ extensive knowledge of and experience with nanoscale R&D has been and will continue to be of critical importance to the success of the initiative, providing a necessary link to nanotechnology researchers in industry and academia. Summary and Final Comments In summary, nanotechnology is still at a very early stage of development, and there are many challenges and opportunities before us. The NNI has for almost five years now served as a very effective means for coordinating Federally funded activities in nanotechnology. As this initiative matures and grows in scope and scale, the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office is also scaling up to meet the additional responsibilities that this entails. We greatly appreciate the endorsement of the NNI’s achievements and future potential implicit in the language of the proposed 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you again for your support. The NSET, NNCO staff and I look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff to refine and improve the program and the legislation currently under consideration.

• Dr. James Murday
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Dr. James Murday

  Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss Nanotechnology Research. You and the other members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation have been leaders in calling attention, both nationally and in the Department of Defense, to the importance of funding basic research and to bringing new technology quickly from the scientist’s bench to our Sailors and Marines. Department of Defense Interest in Nanoscience The Department of Defense (DoD) has been investing in fundamental nanoscience research for over 20 years. For instance, one of the early programs dating into the 1980s was Ultra-Submicron Electronics Research (USER). In 1997, the DoD identified several Science & Technonlogy (&T) topics with the potential for significant impact on military technology; nanoscience was selected as one of those special research area (SRA) topics (see Table 1 for illustrative impact examples). A DoD Nanoscience SRA coordinating committee was established; its current membership is: Dr. Gernot Pomrenke, Air Force; Dr. John Pazik, Navy; and Dr. William Mullins, Army. Further, each Service has a coordinating group to guide its nanoscience program. Nanoscale Opportunities with Potential Major DoD Impact (Table 1) Nanoelectronics/Photonics/Magnetics · Network Centric Warfare· Information Warfare· Uninhabited Combat Vehicles· Automation/Robotics for Reduced Manning· Effective Training through Virtual Reality· Digital Signal Processing and Low Probability of Intercept Nanomaterials “by Design” · High Performance, Affordable Materials· Multifunction Adaptive (Smart) Materials· Nanoengineered Functional Materials (Metamaterials)· Reduced Maintenance (halt nanoscale failure initiation) BioNanotechnology – Warfighter Protection · Chemical/Biological Agent detection/destruction· Human Performance/Health Monitor/Prophylaxis Since the DoD nanoscience programs are some 20 years old, one might expect to see transition successes. One example from each Service is illustrated here. Under Army funding Dr. Chad Mirkin, Northwestern University, has invented a way to utilize nanoclusters of gold for the sensitive, selective detection of DNA. This technology has been demonstrated to work for anthrax, has been commercialized by a start-up firm Nanosphere, and is under clinical evaluation. The Air Force is funding Triton Technologies Inc. under an Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to insert nanostructured clay particles in polymers. One benefit of this composite is reduced gas permeability. This new material was marketed by Converse in athletic shoe heels with greater elasticity (He gas bubbles trapped by the low permeability polymer composite); the reduced permeability is also of interest for packages containing food, beverages and pharmaceuticals. The Navy is interested because nanoclay particles increase the fire resistance of organic composite materials for ship applications. Under Navy funding Inframat has developed a thermally sprayed coating of alumina/titania nanopowders. The properties of this coating are far superior to the micropowder equivalent; this product was one of the R&D Magazine selections as an R&D 100 award for the year 2000. The coating is presently under field evaluation on Naval ships. Each Service has its own laboratory nanoscience programs. The Army efforts in nano-electronics, nano-optics, organic light emitting diodes and displays, sensors, and Nano-Electromechanical Systems (NEMS) are centered at Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Adelphi; the work on organic nano-materials is largely at ARL Aberdeen. The Army's Natick Soldier Center (NSC) also invests in innovative nanotechnology initiatives, including projects in nano-photonics, nano-composites, nano-fiber membranes and photovoltaics. The Air Force nano-materials program is largely centered at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton. It has work on nano-composites, inorganic nano-clusters, nano-phase metals and ceramics, nanotribology, nanobiomimetics and nanoelectronics. The Navy program is centered at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington DC. NRL has created a Nanoscience Institute with the goal of fostering interdisciplinary research that cuts across the NRL organizational structures. A new NRL Nanoscience Building will come on-line in the fall of 2003; it has been specially designed to minimize those noise sources that would limit the precision of nanostructure measurement / manipulation. To fully exploit this new building capability, NRL will welcome collaborations with external researchers. In 2002, the Army established a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN), at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), awarding a 5-year $50M contract for the development of nanoscale technologies for soldier performance and protection. ISN works in partnership with industry to produce revolutionary technologies to enhance soldier survivability in the battlespace. The industrial partners working with the ISN provide needed core competencies, expertise in transitioning technologies from the laboratory to the real world, and cost sharing. DoD contributions to National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Planning/Reporting The DoD has been an active participant in the initial Interagency Working Group on Nanostructures and its successor body, the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) committee. I, while a staff member at the Naval Research Laboratory, served as the first director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. In addition, several workshops have been executed by DoD scientists/engineers in support of revisions to the NNI implementation plan. Nanoscience shows great promise for arrays of inexpensive, integrated, miniaturized sensors for chemical / biological / radiological / explosive (CBRE) agents, for nanostructures enabling protection against agents and for nanostructures that neutralize agents. The recent terrorist events motivated accelerated insertion of innovative technologies to improve the national security posture relative to CBRE. Since DoD has considerable experience in this topic, DoD scientists led the effort to redefine a NNI Grand Challenge to address this important topic. They also organized an AVS (formerly the American Vacuum Society) hosted workshop on Nanotechnology for CBRE Protection and Detection. The report for that workshop is available at: http://www.wtec.org/nanoreports/cbre/ In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003, Section 246, addressed the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program. It states that the Secretary of Defense shall carry out a defense nanotechnology research and development program. The purposes of the program are stated as: (1) To ensure United States global superiority in nanotechnology necessary for meeting national security requirements. (2) To coordinate all nanoscale research and development within the Department of Defense, and to provide for inter-agency cooperation and collaboration on nanoscale research and development between the Department of Defense and other departments and agencies of the United States that are involved in nanoscale research and development. (3) To develop and manage a portfolio of fundamental and applied nanoscience and engineering research initiatives that is stable, consistent, and balanced across scientific disciplines. (4) To accelerate the transition and deployment of technologies and concepts derived from nanoscale research and development into the Armed Forces, and to establish policies, procedures, and standards for measuring the success of such efforts. (5) To collect, synthesize, and disseminate critical information on nanoscale research and development. The report directs the DoD Director of Defense Research and Engineering to submit to the congressional defense committees an annual report on the program. The report shall contain the following matters: (1) A review of— (A) the long-term challenges and specific technical goals of the program; and (B) the progress made toward meeting those challenges and achieving those goals. (2) An assessment of current and proposed funding levels, including the adequacy of such funding levels to support program activities. (3) A review of the coordination of activities within the Department of Defense, with other departments and agencies, and with the National Nanotechnology Initiative. (4) An assessment of the extent to which effective technology transition paths have been established as a result of activities under the program. (5) Recommendations for additional program activities to meet emerging national security requirements The DoD will prepare these reviews, assessments, and recommendations in conjunction with the related efforts for the NNI as a whole. In closing, the Department of Defense investment in basic research over the last 20 years is paying off in transformational capabilities to the DoD. I have mentioned only a few examples within the DoD nanoscience Science & Technology program. I believe the Department of Defense successes in nanotechnology are significant, and I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to tell you about them. Thank you.

Witness Panel 2

• Dr. Jun Jiao, Ph.D.
  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Dr. Jun Jiao, Ph.D.

  Click here for a PDF version of Dr. Jiao's testimony.

• Dr. Davis Baird, Ph.D.
  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Dr. Davis Baird, Ph.D.

  Oral Testimony I wish to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify about the need for research on the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. At the University of South Carolina I am leading a broadly interdisciplinary team of researchers working in cooperation with the USC NanoCenter. Our mission is to examine the societal implications of nanotechnology. It is a topic I feel strongly about, and I am happy to speak to you about it. My primary point: It is essential that research into the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology be undertaken. It is essential because nanotechnology presents itself as a transformative discipline. Consider the words of the 2002 NNI report: “The impact of nanotechnology on the health, wealth, and lives of people could be at least as significant as the combined influences of microelectronics, medical imaging, computer-aided engineering, and man-made polymers developed in the century just past.” We would be foolish not to investigate human implications of such a fundamental technology. Research into societal and ethical implications is essential also because of the—nano—size we are dealing with. Immediately privacy issues come to mind. There also are important concerns about toxicity, about environmental uses and abuses of nanotechnology. Possible military uses of nanotechnology raise additional concerns. Beyond concerns about specific nanosize products, we also need to think carefully about how nanotechnology is framed. Ray Kurzweil, in testimony to the House on their version of the bill you are considering, speaks of conquering aging. Were we to do so, it would be a societal nuclear bomb. We need to think this through! Ideas about nanotechnology come to the public through two main avenues, science fiction—Michael Crichton’s Prey, for instance—and “science faction” (meaning more than fiction, less than fact)—for instance, Bill Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” If we are not careful we’ll have a real political football on our hands. Already resistance is building. For all these reasons, and others as well, it is imperative that we undertake research on the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. Targeted Funding Necessary: Funds for research on the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology need to be targeted to those with the expertise, training and interest to focus on these issues. If they are not, the funds will be gobbled up by hungry scientists and engineers. This much has been said by the National Research Council’s 2002 review of the NNI. Center for Research Necessary: In order for the promise of the work on the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology to have a significant impact, the work needs to be concentrated in one—or preferably more—centers. There are numerous science and technology centers, a veritable juggernaut. Such centralization is needed for the societal and ethical voice to be heard above the roar of the scientific and technological excitement. In addition, a center can help to coordinate and assess the various approaches to these problems that we attempt. Section 4, C, 5 of the bill you are considering, S. 189, is important. Interdisciplinary Approach Necessary: This research must be done in a broadly interdisciplinary way. We need to draw on the full spectrum of voices—the humanities, arts, social sciences, the legal and medical professions, and the scientists and engineers. Productive work on societal implications needs to be engaged with the research from the start. Ethicists need to go into the lab to understand what’s possible. Scientists and engineers need to engage with humanists to start thinking about this aspect of their work. Students need training now that will take their understanding of nanotechnology from laboratory to society. These students today, trained in the right interdisciplinary setting, will become a cadre of scientists, engineers and scholars used to working together, thinking about the societal and technical problems side-by-side. Only thus, working together in dialog, will we make genuine progress on the societal and ethical issues that nanotechnology poses. We have a real opportunity here. Instead of calling on ethicists to patch things up as best as they can after the fact, if we start now, bringing social scientists and humanists to the table, our understanding of the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology can co-evolve with the technology itself. This will make for better, more socially responsive work in nanotechnology, and for fewer problems to patch up later. Nanotechnology can avoid the fate most recently of genetically modified organisms. Thank you for considering my testimony. In my written comments I map out in somewhat more detail the kind of interactive interdisciplinary model that we are building here at USC. I should note similar work being done at the University of Virginia. But there is a big country and lots to do. I welcome any questions you may have. Written Testimony I wish to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify about the need for research on the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. At the University of South Carolina I am leading a broadly interdisciplinary team of researchers working in cooperation with the USC NanoCenter. Our mission is to examine the societal implications of nanotechnology. It is a topic I feel strongly about, and I am happy to speak to you about it. I have one primary point, and three follow-up clarifications. Primary point: It is essential that research into the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology be undertaken. Targeted Funding Necessary: Adequate funding for this research must be specifically targeted for investigating nanotechnology‘s societal and ethical dimensions. Center for Research Necessary: It would be more productive for some of the research to be concentrated in one—or preferably more—centers. Interdisciplinary Approach Necessary: This research should be conducted in a broadly interdisciplinary way that includes humanists, social scientists legal and medical professionals and nano scientists and engineers. Primary point: Research into the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology is essential for many reasons: (1) Nanotechnology presents itself as a fundamentally transformative technology, with changes promised in nearly every important sector of human endeavor. According to the 2002 report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative: “The impact of nanotechnology on the health, wealth, and lives of people could be at least as significant as the combined influences of microelectronics, medical imaging, computer-aided engineering, and man-made polymers developed in the century just past.” We would be very foolish not to research carefully the potential societal and ethical consequences of nanotechnology. (2) In virtue of its defining characteristic—nano size—nanotechnology immediately raises several social and ethical concerns. Privacy comes quickly to mind, but also the human and environmental toxicity of manufactured nanoparticles. Nanotechnology will be important for other environmental issues including waste disposal and the remediation of natural sites. Potential military uses of nanotechnology raise concerns. (3) Beyond concerns about such concrete products of nanotechnology, we need to consider how the goals of different segments of society for the use of nanotechnology are framed. In oral testimony to the House of Representatives Ray Kurzweil said, “Nanotechnology and related advanced technologies of the 2020s will bring us the opportunity to overcome age-old problems, including pollution, poverty, disease, and aging.” Problem or not, “overcoming” aging would be a societal nuclear bomb. Such goals need careful reflection, not “damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead” technical pursuit. (4) Information about nanotechnology is coming to the public through two main avenues science fiction—Michael Crichton’s Prey—and, what I call “science faction” (more than fiction, less than fact)—Bill Joy’s “The Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Without some serious reflection on the genuine opportunities and risks posed by nanotechnology, this field could very easily become a political football. Already one can see resistance building in, for example, the efforts of the ETC group. For all these reasons, and others as well, it is imperative that we undertake research on the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. Targeted Funding Necessary: Funding for this research needs to be specifically targeted to societal and ethical work. When this doesn’t happen hungry scientists and engineers—reasonably and appropriately enough—gobble up all the funds. They may add some words to a largely scientific or engineering grant application that suggest an interest in societal implications, but if the work is not organized and led by those for whom societal and ethical concerns are the focus, the words will only be window dressing. This much has been reported in the National Research Council’s 2002 review of the NNI. Philosophers, ethicists and social scientists are trained—variously in different ways—to think through ethical and social issues. Furthermore, they are well situated to mediate between the scientists and engineers working on nanotechnology and the broader public. Center for Research Necessary: In order for research on the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology to have significant impact, some of this research needs to be concentrated in a center—or better several centers. Already there are numerous well-funded state and university centers for the pursuit of the scientific and technical challenges posed by the nanoscale. NSF has funded six nanoscale science and engineering centers [NSECs]. Similar centers have been funded by NASA, DOE and DOD. There is a scientific and engineering juggernaut here, and some concentration will be necessary for the societal and ethical dimensions voice to be heard. Section 4, C 5 of the bill you are considering, S. 189, is important. Interdisciplinary Approach Necessary: Investigations into the ethical and societal implications of nanotechnology must be done in an interdisciplinary collaborative way, drawing into dialog the full spectrum of perspectives on this work—the humanities, arts, social sciences, the professions and, of course, the various scientific and engineering disciplines that are jointly pursuing nanoscale research. Productive and useful social and ethical considerations of nanotechnology cannot occur outside the research and development itself. We will be much better off integrating such concerns into the research from the ground up. To do this we need to establish channels of communication between and among the various stakeholders in nanotechnology. We need to bring humanists and social scientists into the lab so they can begin to grasp what is genuinely possible at the nanoscale, and then it will be possible for the scientists and engineers to hear and to begin to engage social and ethical concerns. Students, who will be developing the nanotechnology for the next generation need to be broadly educated now in the whole picture of nanotechnology, laboratory to society. None of these groups has a monopoly on what is right and true, and only through careful open dialog can we hope to make meaningful progress reconciling different viewpoints and building societal and ethical concerns in at the beginning. Let me close by saying we have a real positive opportunity here. In contrast to the typical case where ethical and social consequences are dealt with after the fact, patching up problems as best as we can, in this case research into the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology can co-evolve with the technology itself. This will make for better, more socially responsive work in nanotechnology and for fewer problems to patch up. Nanotechnology can avoid the fate of genetically modified organisms. Thank you for considering my testimony. In my written comments I sketch out in somewhat more detail the kind of interactive interdisciplinary model I have in mind. I would be happy to entertain any questions you may have. Appendix 1: USC NIRT “From Laboratory to Society: Developing an Informed Approach to Nanoscale Science and Technology” as a Model for Developing a Center of Ethical and Societal Implications of Nanotechnolgy 1. Background On June 15, 2001 the NanoCenter at the University of South Carolina was founded. But the pursuit of nanoscale research here—and elsewhere—takes on a particular intellectual risk. Gary Stix characterizes it in a recent issue of Scientific American: “Any advanced research carries inherent risks. But nanotechnology bears a special burden. The field’s bid for respectability is colored by the association of the word with a cabal of futurists who foresee nano as a pathway to a technical utopia: unparalled prosperity, pollution-free industry, even something resembling eternal life.” Caught between nano-visionaries and nano-skeptics, “the nanotech field struggles for cohesion” and a clear definition. Even serious publications and reports about the totally new promise of research at the nanoscale echo many of the nano-visionaries’ predictions. Though they indirectly profit from, and are to some extent inspired by the “hype” surrounding nanotechnology, the serious scientists at USC need to distance themselves from such overreaching claims. They need to do so not only for reasons of intellectual honesty, but also because overstated technological promise has a flipside: It can easily engender irrational fears that undermine public acceptance. The field’s bid for respectability therefore concerns not only its standing in the larger scientific community but also its perception by those who shape public understanding of science and technology. In July 2001, a number of humanities scholars at the University of South Carolina formed a Working Group for the Study of the Philosophy and Ethics of Complexity and Scale [SPECS]. Their goal is to develop a scientifically, philosophically and ethically informed understanding of the critical developments of the sciences and technologies that are set to define and transform the 21st century: nanoscience and nanotechnology, robotics, genetic engineering, earth systems science, the study of complex and autocatalytic systems. One of the group’s first topics for discussion was Bill Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.” Joy moves far too hastily from contentious predictions to a sweeping call for a moratorium on many kinds of basic research. Nonetheless, his dystopian vision should stimulate careful scrutiny of how basic research takes shape in the wider context of the university, the economy, and contemporary culture. This is SPECS’s task. A search of databases in the history and philosophy of science and technology revealed that nanoscale science and technology had received only limited attention. This also held in the area of legal studies. The March 2001 NSF report, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, produced a template for discussion but left particular investigations for the future. SPECS was therefore the first university-based interdisciplinary initiative to bring close scrutiny to this new area of science and technology. In August 2001 SPECS received seed funding from USC’s Office of Research for AY 2001/02. By December 2001 SPECS had consolidated as a Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team, and had submitted an application to NSF for a NIRT grant. Our NIRT grant was partially funded for 2002/03, and we were encouraged to reapply in 2002 for a full four-year award, which we did with a research proposal entitled “From Laboratory to Society: Developing an Informed Approach to Nanoscale Science and Technology.” The final decision is still pending, but we are optimistic that our project will be recommended for an award. In the following I provide an outline of our research fields as well the infrastructure that we use to perform research in a truly interdisciplinary manner, with currently 17 faculty members from 10 departments involved. I suggest that this might be taken as the beginning structure of a model for a Center of Ethical and Societal Implications of Nanotechnolgy. 2. Research Fields Our interdisciplinary research team is divided into four smaller sub-teams, each devoted to a specific Task Area of research. These Task Areas are structured to focus attention on how our understanding and control of nanotechnology moves from the laboratory to society. Before we debate the ethics of “assemblers,” for example, we should be clear just how understanding and control is achieved at the level of basic research, and then how this hard-won mastery can structure and inform a broader public and political understanding and control of nanotechnology. Three kinds of collaboration result from the manner in which we have structured these research Task Areas: (1) collaborations among the members of each Task Area as they prepare joint seminar presentations, workshops, publications; (2) collaborations between these sub-teams and members of USC’s NanoCenter; and (3) the collaboration among the participants of all four Task Areas as the results of various researches are brought together and presented for general discussion. Underlying the research in all of these Task Areas is an interest in working out a shared language, a joint appreciation of the scientific and cultural/societal issues involved, and a desire to articulate the background assumptions and models used to address these issues. Task Area 1: Ideas of Stability and Control in the Theory and Practice of Nanoscale Research Otávio Bueno (Philosophy, USC) joins Davis Baird (Philosophy, USC) and R.I.G. Hughes (Philosophy, USC), who continue here an earlier collaboration. They undertake a systematic philosophical examination of nanoscale research. To this end, the projects in this task area examine nanoscience from three different philosophical perspectives. Two projects provide complementary analyses of nanoscale research as it is currently practiced. Baird examines the instruments that allow nanoscience to exist, and Hughes the theoretical tools that the science employs. What Ian Hacking said about science in general applies also to nanoscience in particular: “In nature there is just complexity, which we are remarkably able to analyze. We do so by distinguishing, in the mind, numerous different laws. We also do so by presenting, in the laboratory, pure, isolated phenomena.” In other words, as the sciences mature, theory and instrumentation work together to produce stable facts and a stable grasp of the facts. Stable facts trump fantastic visions and defeat skeptical doubts. In their collaboration (which involves close interaction with the scientists at USC’s NanoCenter) Baird and Hughes explore the various ways in which nanoscale research can itself become the inherent source of stability and trust. In contrast, Bueno’s project deals with one of the forerunners of nanoscience, John von Neumann. Not only does it add a historical dimension to our understanding, but it also provides an exploration of the limits of physical and mathematical possibility within nanotechnology. The members of task areas engage in a close collaboration with Alfred Nordmann and his collaborators at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany. Together they produce a monograph on “The Philosophy of Nanoscience.” This includes chapters on (1) nanoscale research between science and technology, (2) the role of instrumentation in the development of nanoscale research, (3) experimental and technological control of interventions at the nanoscale, (4) historiography and the self-definition of the nanoscale research community, and (5) disciplinary issues of nanoscience. This collaboration furthers the establishment of the Center for the Philosophy and Ethics of Complexity and Scale [CPECS] at the University of South Carolina and a corresponding program on the Philosophy and History of the Technosciences at the Technical University of Darmstadt. The long-term interdisciplinary collaboration between these two Centers serves researchers and students alike. (1) Extending Eyes and Hands to the Nanoscale: Bringing previous experience developing a philosophy of scientific instruments, Davis Baird (Philosophy, USC) here focuses on the instruments used in nanoscience, in particular on the scanning tunneling and atomic force microscopes [STM and AFM]. These instruments establish a central node in a network of relations between scientists and engineers from various disciplines. USC’s NanoCenter represents one such network, but the USC Electron Microscopy Lab represents a different node. Baird investigates how data are produced in these overlapping networks and how data are then differently interpreted in their various “home disciplines.” To borrow a metaphor from Peter Galison, data move in and out of “trading zones,” they are framed differently by people working in different institutional and disciplinary contexts. But the instabilities produced by these differences are counterbalanced by the stability of the phenomena observed and produced by these instruments. Baird is pursuing three specific areas of research. (1) According to a widely reported “standard story,” nanoscience has been propelled by improvements in microscope technology, in which early electron microscopes were supplanted by STM and AFM. This story is examined to see if it is accurate and, if not, why it remains so compelling. (2) How has the commercialization of the STM and the AFM impacted their development? (3) The relation between two different kinds of imaging used in nanoscience—electron microscopy and probe microscopy—is explored. One is analogous to seeing, the other analogous to feeling—though even in the latter case the data obtained is made to yield a visual representation (see also Task Area 2). (2) The Disciplinary Reconfiguration of Nanoscience: Having recently finished a manuscript on theoretical practice in science, R.I.G. Hughes (Philosophy, USC) adopts a complementary approach. Instead of focusing on instrumentation and experimentation, he considers how theoretical representations are reconfigured in the newly emerging “trading zone” of nanoscale science and engineering. Theoretical practice at the nanoscale uses a great diversity of theoretical tools. The NSF description of them lists “techniques such as quantum mechanics and quantum chemistry, multi-particle simulation, molecular simulation, grain and continuum-based models, stochastic methods, and nano-mechanics,” and there is no reason to think that this list is exhaustive. Investigators study: (1) the tasks that these various tools perform, and the sub-disciplines within nanoscience that employ them; (2) the extent to which different theoretical approaches are integrated, and the problems that can make such integration difficult; (3) the interaction between theoretical and experiment work; and (4) the narratives that nanoscientists employ, and which make interdisciplinary communication possible. Additionally, (5), the topic of theoretical representation provides a bridge to Task Area 2. (3) Precursors to Nanotechnology, Feynman and von Neumann: Otávio Bueno (Philosophy, USC) focuses on the forerunners and immediate antecedents of nanoscale research. He is investigating the limits of both physical possibility and mathematical possibility in this domain, examining how the interaction between what is physically and mathematically possible has shaped the constitution of nanoscale phenomena. In “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,” Richard Feynman outlined a vision for the development of nanoscience, advancing for the first time the idea that it should be possible to build objects atom-by-atom. Not surprisingly, the nanoscience community has taken this work as a founding document. In it Feynman was concerned with what it was physically possible to do at the nanoscale, and he outlined the benefits that should be expected from such a research. In contrast, in a series of seminal papers on the theory of automata, John von Neumann explored what was mathematically and logically possible—but also what was mathematically impossible—to do in the process of building reliable organisms from unreliable components. Although there has been a considerable amount of research on Feynman’s contribution, especially by those in the nanoscience community, von Neumann’s work has received significantly less attention. A focus on von Neumann’s contribution sheds light on nanoscience in two ways. (1) It provides a better understanding of the emergence of the theory of automata and self-reproduction, and in this respect, Bueno’s work connects with the work undertaken in Task Area 3. (2) It allows a new perspective on the role played by this theory in the constitution of the field. Task Area 2: Imaging and Imagining the Nanoscale: From Atomic Force Microscopic Topographies to Science Fiction Utopias and Dystopias Task Area 2 aims at developing a comprehensive understanding of how images and imaginings of the nanoscale work, and how they might work better. How we see the nanoscale, both with our (aided) eyes and in our mind’s eye, has a powerful impact both on the science and technology of the nanoscale and on the public reception to nanoscale research and its fruits. Indeed, it is widely argued that the development of our ability to produce images of nanoscale objects has been the sine qua non of any serious understanding and control of the nanoscale. The concerns of Task Area 2 thus reflect back on those of Task Area 1. But our ability to image and imagine the nanoscale drives more widely held popular understandings—and misunderstandings—of the nanoscale, and it is here that debate over the societal impact of technology takes place. For this reason Task Area 2 concerns also reflect forward to the concerns of Task Areas 3 and 4. It is through the images and imaginings of the nanoscale that understanding and control of the nanoscale moves from the laboratory to society. The issues raised in Task Area 2 do not fit any single discipline, and our approach to these issues is multi-disciplinary and collaborative. Five team members work in Task Area 2, two philosophers, Davis Baird and Otávio Bueno (both Philosophy, USC), an engineer, Richard Ray (Civil Engineering, USC), an expert on science fiction, Steven Lynn (English, USC) and a conceptual artist, Chris Robinson (Art, USC). Together they examine the variety of ways we image and imagine the nanoscale. They approach the concerns that Task Area 2 embraces in four areas of study. (1) A Taxonomy of Kinds of Representation of the Nanoscale: The first area of study, fundamental to the rest, aims at articulating the nature and domain of application of the various different kinds of representation of the nanoscale. Furthermore, it aims to identify the gaps that exist between the different levels of representation: · Quantum mechanical representations of individual atoms; · Molecular models (of various sorts); · STM/AFM/EM images of nanoscale material; · Scientific representations of bulk matter; · Nano-visionary designs (e.g., for “molecular assemblers”); · Artist renderings of the nanoscale; · Science fiction that uses textual descriptions of the nanoscale; · Creative works of art inspired by the nanoscale. These different ways of representing the nanoscale differ from one another, both logically and rhetorically, and these differences need to be articulated. Only then can we begin to appreciate how different ways of representing the nanoscale should be used in the various contexts in which they are needed, how, for example, an image of the nanoscale developed for one context may be misleading or ineffective in another context. Work at this first stage, crossing as it does from largely technical issues—about quantum mechanical and molecular models of atoms—to largely cultural issues—about science fiction and visual art—involves a collaboration of all Task Area members. Bueno brings a background in the philosophy of physics to bear on quantum mechanical and molecular models of atoms. Baird brings a background in the philosophical study of scientific instrumentation to bear on the STM/AFM/EM images of the nanoscale. Ray, with a background in computer-aided design for structures, joins Baird and Bueno to examine how scientific representations of bulk material can work with nano-visionary designs. Robinson, with a background as a creative artist, and Lynn, with a background in the study of science fiction, contribute an understanding of how these more popular genres draw from and contribute to the scientific and technological images, and how the more popular understanding of the nanoscale is thereby established. (2) Better Images: The second area of study aims at improving images of the nanoscale. The images that we use to “see” the nanoscale are produced using a variety of different technologies. Sometimes the same image combines data from (e.g.) atomic force microscopy, quantum molecular simulations and artist’s renderings. These different visual techniques work differently, and these differences need to be appreciated, and ultimately deployed to make better images. Drawing on the work done at the first stage, our team works with scientists and science journalists to develop better images, images that communicate without misleading, and that can do so while moving from one context of use to another. Robinson leads work on this stage, bringing his expertise as a visual and conceptual artist to bear on developing better ways to use the visual medium to communicate ideas. (3) Scaling Up, Images Crossing from the Nanoscale to the Macroscale: The third area of study examines, first, the gap between the possible manipulation of matter atom-by-atom as it is painstakingly done in the laboratory and as it is rather more easily imagined by nano-visionaries, and, second, the unavoidable engineering difficulties that scaling up to humanly useful dimensions encounters. Here we confront the differences between representations that work in the laboratory and those that work for manufacturing. Ray, with his expertise in computer-aided design for structures, leads work on this stage. (4) The Nanoscale in Art: The fourth area of study both examines and produces art inspired by the nanoscale. Lynn, with a background in the study of science fiction, examines the history of the incorporation of nanotechnology into science fiction, and relates this history both to simultaneous developments in scientific research at the nanoscale and to cultural aspirations for and concerns with this research. Robinson creates and exhibits visual artworks inspired by his encounters with the research done by members of USC’s NanoCenter. This work is open for public viewing, and serves to provoke its viewers to think about how nanotechnology will impact their lives and society. Task Area 3: Problems of Self-replication, Risk, and Cascading Effects in Nanotechnology: Analogies between Biological Systems and Nanoengineering Another area of collaboration, involves Robert Best (School of Medicine, USC), George Khushf (Philosophy & Center for Bioethics, USC), Loren Knapp (Biological Sciences, USC), and Walter Piegorsch (Statistics, USC), and explores the models and cultures that inform risk assessment of nanotechnology. In both the visionary and dystopian literature are arguments that nanotechnology, genetics, and robotics, when taken together, involve new ethical issues, qualitatively different in scope and character from those associated with previous technologies. The visionaries highlight the potential and promise, and suggest there is an ethical obligation to accelerate development. The anti-utopians argue for a moratorium, fearing a “brave new world.” At the heart of the more negative assessment is the assumption that these technologies can produce “cascading effects,” which have the potential to alter the environment on a massive and unprecedented scale. The fear is that a new technology such as nanotechnology will introduce a precursor stimulus or hazard, which will lead to other more substantive hazards, and thence to detrimental hazards, catastrophic hazards, on and on. In “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Bill Joy speaks for all those who are worried that we will always be one step behind in our capacity to respond. In order to properly put these concerns into perspective, Task Area 3 team members engage with team members working in Task Areas 1 and 2. Our ability to produce new nanoscale phenomena in the laboratory may unleash a cascade of irreversible hazards that spiral out of control. Task Area 1 considers how stable phenomena and a stable understanding of the phenomena might serve as a deterrent to such risks. Task Area 2 considers how our abilities to image and imagine the nanoscale provide the tools to consider these risks. Members of Task Area 3 take these considerations further to consider the management of risk in three clusters of investigation. (1) Models of self-replication and self-regulation: Most important is the need to articulate the range of meanings encompassed by self-replication and self-regulation, from a simpler, bench-oriented model to the vision associated with assemblers, and everything in between. Nanoscientists have already developed a variety of new materials that show promise for nano-engineered products—nanotubes, electrically conducting compounds, quantum dots, etc. Now, they need ways to organize these materials into larger structures that might be useful to society. In order to do this, they have focused upon mechanisms of replication and the regulation of these mechanisms. But, as the complexity of a self-replicating process increases, the possibility of an undesirable medical or environmental outcome seems likely to increase as well, and there are additional concerns about potential mutations of the original process. In order to help anticipate and prepare for such possibilities, Task Area 3 team members seek to identify the multiple models and meanings of self-replication and self-regulation, ranging from current techniques (e.g., for growing nanotubes) to universal assemblers. In between, we consider possibilities on the near horizon (e.g., the use of viruses to engineer at the nanoscale) and the more distant horizon (e.g., limited assemblers, the stated goal of the company Zyvex). Task Area 3 members approach this work by drawing on analogies between these engineered mechanisms and those found in natural biological systems. In order to appreciate the challenges involved in designing and manufacturing nano-structures capable of self-replication and correction without loss of control, they examine the properties of natural self-replicating systems. What methods does nature use for self-replication? Will nanotechnologies resemble genetic systems in such a way that an understanding of the natural principles governing the latter might guide the development and application of the former in safe and controllable ways? In what ways will they differ? Armed with this understanding we will be able to explore the philosophical and ethical implications of aspects of self-regulation. (2) Taxonomy of Risk Assessments for Nanotechnology: Scientists know that complex, non-linear, self-replicating systems can produce unanticipated medical and/or environmental harm. In some cases statisticians can quantify risks associated with such systems, but in many other cases the uncertainty is too great, and the best that can be done is to provide a less precise qualitative analysis. Along these lines, Task Area 3 team members develop a taxonomy of the kinds of risk assessment that could be used in ethical debates on nanotechnology. They do so in the following manner. First, they identify risk paradigms for possible medical and environmental outcomes (e.g., the way a new virus can pose a public health risk). Then they consider whether the associated risks could have been anticipated and quantified in a risk analysis. They examine cases where established methods of quantifying risk worked well and cases where the outcomes could not have been anticipated and quantified. Next they draw on their earlier work, developing the analogy between engineered and natural nanosystems, and they extend this analysis to consider the possibilities of quantifying risks associated with the types of self-replicating, artificially engineered nanosystems identified earlier. The goal is to identify and structure the variety of cases posed by nanotechnology in terms of the degree to which the risks can or cannot be quantified. Finally, within this structure they consider how such risks can and should be incorporated into ethical analysis and communicated to the public. (3) The literature and culture informing ethical analysis of nanotechnology: There are several new areas of research that involve significant challenges to our understanding of ourselves and our prospects in the world. These include, (1) robotics/cybernetics, (2) genetics, and (3) nanotechnology. In most of this literature, these three technologies are considered in isolation. However, some of the most troubling ethical issues occur where all three technologies intersect. Task Area 3 members explore analogies, similarities, and differences between the ethical discussions in each of these areas and then consider how their combination could raise issues that have been insufficiently considered when viewed in isolation. The focus here is not only on the substance of the issues, but also on the climate and culture that frames the way the issues are addressed and resolved. All phases of work in Task Area 3 is fully collaborative, bringing together the science (Best and Knapp), probability theory (Piegorsch), and the philosophy/ethics (Khushf). Best is trained as a toxicologist, with research in environmental hazards and genetics; he currently directs USC’s program in clinical genetics. Knapp is a developmental and evolutionary biologist. Together with faculty in the USC NanoCenter, they identify the paradigm medical/environmental cases, explore the analogies between natural and artificial nanosystems, and provide the scientific expertise to assure that the statistical and ethical analysis is appropriately scientifically informed. Piegorsch has extensive practical experience in quantitative risk analysis, including work in environmental hazards and toxicology. He directs the development of taxonomies of risk, assessing the degrees to which quantification is possible. Khushf guides the review of the literatures and cultures informing ethical analysis of nanotechnology, exploring the ways risk analysis is integrated into ethical and policy debate, and addressing the conceptual and philosophical issues of complexity, scale, and self-replication. Task Area 4: Moving Nanotechnology into the Public Sphere At the end of the day, all the advances in our understanding of nanotechnology that work in Task Areas 1-3 provide are of little value if they are not integrated into the public, political and legal discussions of nanotechnology. Task Area 4 is concerned both with developing models for how to accomplish this, and with bringing the insights from all Task Areas to the public sphere, drawing on the collaborative infrastructure established by our project (see below). In this way Task Area 4 ties together all of the separate strands of work that make the project a conceptual whole. The first stage of this work is itself conceptual. Each of the five members of Task Area 4 considers how nanotechnology might best be brought to the public. Each of them comes at this issue from a different point of view, and as their collaboration develops over the course of the project, these differences inform each other, as together they model the various ways nanotechnology can be taken up by the public sphere. (1) Rhetorical Analysis: David Bérubé (English, USC) focuses on the analysis of the structure of discourse about nanotechnology. He brings an extensive background in debate and a long-running interest in the visionary rhetoric found in some work on nanotechnology. He pursues two projects. The first, building on earlier work, is an analysis of the rhetorical place of nanovisionary contributions, mostly that of Eric Drexler and the Foresight Institute, in the development of nanotechnology. The second is an empirical study of how the inclusion into USC’s NanoCenter of scholars with a primary focus on the philosophical and societal impact of nanotechnology—the members of our team—alter the structure of discussions at the NanoCenter. This work is pursued in a process of cooperative inquiry aimed at uncovering the dynamics of an organizational culture that facilitate or impede communication across disciplines, and it starts with the assumption that communication between members of the NanoCenter changes when the members our team are part of the mix. The procedure begins with a Likert scale (e.g., 1. Agree; 2. Somewhat Agree; 3. Not Sure; 4. Somewhat Disagree; 5. Disagree) survey of NanoCenter members on a series of questions concerning the societal place of nanotechnology to establish a baseline. As the work proceeds Bérubé develops analyses of communication protocols, observing and recording outcomes. His findings, following the protocols of cooperative inquiry, are added to the dialog among members of the NanoCenter. Follow-up data accumulation may include collection at locations beyond USC and with different populations. Quantitative and qualitative findings will be published. (2) Science Journalism: Lowndes Stephens (J. Rion McKissick Professor of Journalism, USC) pursues an experimental study of ways to improve science journalism, particularly that covering nanotechnology. The experiment will be conducted during summer 2004 on a group of experienced science writers who have a weeklong training course in Newsplex, a $2 million state-of-the-art multi-media, micro newsroom laboratory at the University of South Carolina. Using information from other team members and from members of USC’s NanoCenter, the subjects will be asked to research, source and write news stories on several significant advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology. The subjects and their stories will be examined both before and after their experience in Newsplex, as a way to determine the degree to which this experience improves their ability to write about nanotechnology. Results will be analyzed during summer 2005. The project contributes to our understanding about how recommendations in the academic literature might be used to improve the quality of science reporting. An important possible outcome of this work may be that we can train journalists in the manner used during the week at Newsplex to improve the accuracy of media portrayals of the flaws and promises of scientific innovations in nanoscience. (3) Politics: Ed Munn (Philosophy, USC). As nanotechnology emerges into the public’s consciousness, discussions about the desirability of emerging technologies that nanotechnology is making possible become more common and tendentious. Within a democratic society these discussions are pivotal in setting both public policy and the social and ethical guidelines for the use and pursuit of nanotechnology. Munn studies the emergence of these discussions using the approach favored by the proponents of deliberative democracy. Richard Sclove writes, “If citizens ought to be empowered to participate in determining their society’s basic structure, and technologies are an important species of social structure, it follows that technological design and practice should be democratized.” Munn explores what this view of democracy implies for the development of nanotechnology. In particular he looks at the role of “the expert” in both communicating and guiding the development of nanotechnology. Munn argues that the expert’s appropriate role is as a facilitator for the creation of an analogue to Jurgen Habermas’ ideal speech situation that allows for effective citizen participation in decisions about nanotechnology. (4) Law: Robin Fretwell Wilson (School of Law, USC) is an expert on the regulation of new technologies. She brings her experience in health law and biomedical ethics, areas in which new technologies challenge traditional notions of regulating behavior, to develop a model for how best to facilitate nanotechnology. The aim is to do so while preserving a role for the incorporation of democratic values input into this emerging technology, and in doing so allowing for appropriate state oversight. Consistent with her examination of past efforts to regulate emerging technologies—ranging from our experiences with allocation of scarce life-saving technologies, like organs, to mapping the human genome and human cloning—she draws on and integrate all of the various insights produced by other members of her Task Area, and those from the other Task Areas into discussions in the policy forum. Because the best possible course for the regulation of nanotechnology necessarily requires deliberative and engaged debate between all the stake-holders involved—journalists, educators, industrialists, scientists, funding and government agencies and citizens‚ groups—the policy forum brings together these stakeholders and members of the nanotechnology community. Here, then we reach the second stage of Task Area 4’s work: Actually engaging the public sphere in discussions of nanotechnology. The first stage provides three conceptual and two empirical studies of how to take nanotechnology into the public sphere. The results of these studies may differ, but the fundamental assumption of our interdisciplinary research team is that only by bringing such divergent approaches to the study of nanotechnology are we able to find a model for constructive debate concerning nanotechnology in the public sphere. But a model for debate is not enough. Our project aims to produce informed constructive debate itself, and here the key element is the active participation of all the members our project’s research team, the members of the NanoCenter, and other members of USC’s faculty, student body and staff. The divergent contributions of the members of Task Area 4 are essential to developing genuinely useful discussion of nanotechnology, a discussion that is particularly important in the final conference planned for the project, “Nanotechnology in the Legal and Political Sphere.” Wilson will organize this conference. She will structure discussion between national, international and local stakeholders by acting as a reporter for the conference participants, circulating drafts, and mediating between academics and other stakeholders. With this conference we will have taken our understanding and control of nanotechnology from laboratory to society. 3. The Collaborative Infrastructure A variety of events and publications stimulate informed and integrative dialogue about the significance of nanoscale research, and thereby promote the goal of what we call, “the nano-literate campus.” I. Annual Summer Workshops These weeklong workshops bring together all investigators. They are joined by scientists at USC’s NanoCenter, graduate and undergraduate students, as well as a small group of interested academics and non-academics. Each workshop features contributions by invited experts on various aspects of nanoscience and nanotechnology; these contributions serve to structure the task-oriented collaborations of all participants. Our inaugural workshop took place on August 5-9, 2002: “Reading NanoScience.” The next four workshops (2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006) are organized around selected research questions from the four Task Areas: 2003 [TA 2]: “Imaging and Imagining NanoScience,” 2004 [TA 1]: “Self-Assembly and the Construction of Nanostructures;” 2005 [TA 3]: “Biological Machines, Genetic Engineering, and Nanobiotechnology;” 2006 [TA 4]: “Nanotechnology and Its Publics.” II. Annual Spring Conferences & Monthly NanoCulture Colloquia Series Spring Conferences: The Spring Conferences aim at promoting dialogue between national and international scholars. Since our interdisciplinary research team raises new questions for science and technology studies, these conferences are to foster disciplinary interest in these questions. The first of these, “Discovering the Nanoscale,” was held on March 20-23, 2003. Its discussions will be deepened and continued on October 10-12, 2003 in Darmstadt, Germany. Together, both meetings feature about 40 presentations that will be collected in a volume of proceedings. The conferences are free and open to the public. Plans for future conferences are as follows: 2004, organized by Davis Baird: “Tools for Imaging and Imagining the Nanoscale;” 2005, organized by George Khushf: “The Philosophy and Ethics of Emerging Technologies: Nanotechnology, Cybernetics, and Genetics;” 2006, organized by David Bérubé: “Visionary Rhetoric Confronts Real Science;” 2007, organized by Robin Wilson: “Nanotechnology in the Legal and Political Sphere.” NanoCulture Colloquia Series: Each semester our group organizes and hosts a series of colloquia featuring issues associated with our project’s four Task Areas. The NanoCulture Colloquia Series is open to the public, but our target audience includes scientists at the NanoCenter, other USC faculty, and interested graduate and undergraduate students. Their themes are generated as research on the four task areas progresses. III. Educational Outreach Research Based Learning: In coordination with USC’s Honors College, Loren Knapp (Biological Sciences, USC), with the cooperation of other team members, develops a research-based learning course for undergraduate honors students at USC. In a case-oriented manner, it explores the relations between what is theoretically possible, technologically feasible, and ethically defensible. Historically, how has this balance been struck? In the case of a newly emerging science and technology, such as nanotechnology, how can it be found? The course focuses on biological systems and biotechnology as they become fused in the concept of biological machines. It therefore considers how nanoscale science and engineering challenges the traditional separation of nature and culture by using biological systems and processes as models for engineering. Along with an extant course on “Ultramicroscopy,” this new course will be part of our Honors College “Nano Semester” (see below). In addition it will afford several undergraduate research assistants the opportunity to gain the technical skill and theoretical perspective required to produce a research-based Honors Thesis. Textbook, Understanding Nanotechnology: This volume is aimed at introducing an undergraduate audience to the full spectrum of societal issues raised by nanoscience and nanotechnology. It consists of selected primary readings, with substantial introductory essays for each section, and brief introductions for each essay. Team member, Steven Lynn (English, USC) coordinates the editing of the volume drawing on the efforts of other team members to write all introductory material. The volume has the following structure: Section 1, Nano Fundamentals: Background readings explaining what nanotechnology is, what its current state of development is, and what it may make possible; Section 2, Nano Science: Annotated excerpts from science journals that show how the science of nanotechnology is being conducted; Section 3, Nano Fiction: Short stories that indicate how nanotechnology has been represented in science fiction; Section 4, Nano Publics: Readings and illustrations from newspapers and magazines that show how nanotechnology is being presented to the public; Section 5, Nano Politics: Readings the engage the ethics and politics of potential uses and abuses of nanotechnology. Nano Semester: During the spring of 2005, the Honors College will host a collection of coordinated, interdisciplinary courses, each concentrating on a different aspect of nanoscience and nanotechnology. These will follow the pattern of previous semesters fielded by the Honors College—spring 1999: “Darwin across the Disciplines,” spring 2003: “The Sustainable Futures” (on environmentalism).” Catherine Murphy, working in cooperation with other team members, will coordinate this set of courses. In addition to the Research Based Learning course (see above) planned courses include “Ultramicroscopy,” “Chemistry and nanotechnology,” “Post-humanism and nanotechnology,” “Philosophy at the nanoscale: Creating a new reality.” In addition, we will use one or more of these courses to help us develop our reader, Understanding Nanotechnology, on the multiple aspects of the cultural significance of nanoscale research. IV. Publications, Website and Archive All of the various collaborative ventures involve an exchange of ideas and manuscripts among investigators. These culminates in a collection of papers that brings together the work of the research on the four Task Areas that we will publish in a peer-reviewed academic press. As a matter of course, the preparation of scholarly manuscripts and the participation in the workshops and colloquia leads to a variety of other publications in peer-reviewed academic journals and in other outlets, aimed at a more general readership. Given the current state of the field, we expect the collection of papers that flow out of this project to provide a foundation for this emerging important field of research. The project’s webmaster manages the website and archive of our research team . This website features the general outline, scheduled events and specific projects included in this proposal. It includes a searchable and expanding database of abstracts of research materials for people interested in doing research on the societal implications of nanotechnology. Links to each investigator provide access to their research projects. Website also points to a moderated listserv on the philosophical and social dimensions of nanoscale science and technology, with about 200 subscribers from all over the world. The listserv also allows investigators to present new ideas and arguments for consideration by this audience. The website also includes a collection of “works in progress,” available for further public consideration and comment. One team member, Ed Munn, is fluent in Spanish, and is translating much of the website to make our work accessible in Spanish. V. Engaging USC’s NanoCenter At every stage of our research, we are looking for ways to integrate our critical reflections with the interests and concerns of the scientists and engineers at USC’s NanoCenter. Over the course of the grant, the science/humanities collaboration between the NanoCenter and our research team takes a variety of forms: (1) NanoCenter scientists are instructing humanities scholars in the fundamentals of nanoscience and engineering; (2) members of USC’s NanoCenter have introduced members of the team to the instruments on which their work relies; (3) the opinions and contributions of NanoCenter researchers are solicited at monthly colloquia; (4) members of the NanoCenter have helped us to compile a collection of classical readings, used in our August 2002 workshop: “Reading Nanoscience.” Similar collaborations are envisaged for the future. In addition, (5) claims about the philosophical significance of bottom-up nano-engineering are checked against the insights and assessments of engineers themselves; (6) the laboratory work and disciplinary interactions at the NanoCenter are observed by members of our team; (7) all research produced by the team are made available to the scrutiny and criticism of NanoCenter researchers; (8) members of the NanoCenter are invited to participate in our listserv discussions; (9) in the annual assessment phase, members of the NanoCenter are asked to comment on our activities and to suggest future activities or topics for discussion; (10) Richard Adams, Director of the NanoCenter, is a member of our Advisory Board. Finally (11) we aim to encourage the scientists and engineers at the NanoCenter to more fully examine the hidden societal assumptions behind their research, and to see how the research projects they pursue may be integrated into the broader society they serve. Appendix 2: Ethical and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology: A Research Agenda Reflecting the goals of nanotechnology Nanotechnology is frequently presented as improving wealth, health, environment, and security. While all these four values are, each in their own way, compelling, detailed studies need to analyze (1) if there are possible conflicts between these values, (2) if there are conflicts with other culturally embedded values, and (3) if there are consequences that may arise when the goals would be really achieved. For instance, creating a perfect health control system by nano-bio-information technology may raise issues of privacy and informational autonomy. Or, improving health condition to the state of overcoming aging, as some have promised, would cause radical societal and cultural changes and would also require rethinking individual life plans. Identifying possible moral issues Moral issues of new technologies usually arise (1) if the applications have either unintended bad consequences or (2) if the benefits are distributed unjustly. For instance, new kinds of risks might arise from nanoparticles if they have unpredictable catalytic effects in the human body or the environment, or if their built-in capacities to self-assembly or to replicate get out of control. Or, new nanotechnologies, because of their improvement of human performances, might cause or increase a social divide between the privileged and skilled who can use these technologies and the underprivileged and less educated who are not able to use them. Identifying possible gaps in the legal regulation of nanotechnology Once moral issues of nanotechnology are identified, juridical analysis is required to check the present regulation system whether it is sufficient to cope with them or not and to develop suggestions for additional regulatory instruments. Distinguishing the critical from the uncritical fields of nanotechnology Current definitions of nanotechnology are so broad and vague that a vast field of hardly related scientific and engineering research is included and, given the present trend, much more will be included in the future. Should public concerns about single moral issues ever grow to the condemnation of whatever is labeled nanotechnology, the effect on science and technology could be disastrous. It is imperative, therefore, to clearly distinguish between critical and uncritical fields of nanotechnology and to mediate this distinction to the public. Analyzing the implicit moral messages of metaphors and images From media reports to visual images and fiction writing, representations of nanotechnology convey implicit values and moral messages that can powerfully shape the public opinion. It is therefore important to analyze the metaphors and visual images used in communications about nanotechnology, with respect to their normative implications, the fears and hopes they raise, and their cultural roots. Studying how ideas about nanotechnology transform cultural belief systems The promises and far-reaching scenarios of nanotechnology, from longevity/immortality to the intimate entanglement of the human body with machines and computers, are able to undermine and transform traditional cultural belief systems, regarding the physical, mental, and social nature of human beings, and the distinction between nature and technology. It is important to study this interaction in order to understand the public reception of nanotechnology, either as extremely conservative reluctance or as quasi-religious embracement, such as in “transhumanism” or “extropianism.” Observing the public attitudes toward nanotechnology In the long run, nanotechnology will flourish only if the public supports it. It is therefore imperative to understand not only the public concerns but also on what moral basis such concerns are grounded and whether conflicts can be reconciled or not. To that end, a detailed apparatus for sociological investigations needs to be developed and applied, from classical instruments such as questionnaires and oral interviews to more participatory models such as consensus workshops or science cafés. Studying how nanotechnology transforms the traditional scientific landscape Nanoscale research is currently about to transform the traditional scientific landscape, in which researchers as a subsystem of the society are involved. The success of nanotechnology will essentially depend on the researchers’ willingness to take an active part in that process. The transformation particularly regards the disciplinary structure of the sciences, the science-technology relationship, research values, and methods. Since it is likely that these changes affect our scientific and educational infrastructure overall, it is important to study these impacts in detail and to understand its positive and negative consequences as well as potential obstacles.

• Mr. James R. Von Ehr II
  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Mr. James R. Von Ehr II

  INTRODUCTION Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee for allowing me to address you on S.189. I am Jim Von Ehr, Chief Executive Officer of Zyvex Corporation. I started Zyvex to develop molecular nanotechnology and revolutionize how we make physical goods. Today, we offer the promises of nanotechnology to our nation through tools, materials, and nanomanufacturing. As the founder of one of the first nanotechnology businesses, I am honored to share my unique perspective. First, I commend you for your leadership on this important legislation. It is leaders like United States Senator George Allen who make a difference by taking the time to really understand the issues and ensure the success of our nation by meeting with and listening to leading nanotechnology small businesses. Senator Allen, and other members of this committee know that we are at a pivotal moment that will decide whether thirty years from now, it will be the United States or another country that will be a world leader in science, manufacturing, and technology. S.189 shows that our nation’s leaders understand the benefits of nanotechnology and the need to educate more scientists and engineers. However, it is also vital that we more effectively commercialize university research. International competitors are aggressively developing their own nanotechnology industry, quite often based on discoveries first made in our own university labs here in the United States. We want a healthy manufacturing sector in the United States to assure good jobs for these newly educated technologists. Thanks to my previous, significant business success, I’ve been able to generously fund Zyvex myself. Today, we employ over 50 people and are one of the few nanotechnology companies with revenue. I’ve also given nearly $4M of my own money to a number of universities to help them enter this field. With this experience, I feel entitled to comment on technology transfer and commercialization—the two most important aspects of this legislation. As my friend, Nobel Laureate, Professor Rick Smalley says, “Nanotechnology is the art and science of building stuff that does stuff on the nanometer scale. The ultimate nanotechnology builds at the ultimate level of finesse—one atom at a time—and does it with molecular perfection.” I started Zyvex seven years ago to commercialize that level of control and perfection. The current Bill calls for an Advisory Panel staffed by academic and government scientists. The voice of business is missing, and I’m concerned about that. As you know, our nation’s record of commercializing research from universities and government labs is good in the biosciences, but disappointing in most other areas. The National Nanotechnology Initiative is inspiring competitive programs worldwide. The societal benefits of the NNI will come in the form of products. The role of business is to develop and sell products in a capital-efficient manner. We must have a business focus to ensure that the research we develop is commercialized in the United States. Therefore, I strongly recommend that representatives from both large and small businesses be included on the Advisory Panel. COMPETITION Competition is a key reason U.S. business is the most competitive in the world. Competition is also important to science. Peer review is a powerful approach to filtering out junk science, but it also can filter out novel ideas from young researchers. We need ways to differentiate scientifically crazy ideas like building time machines from delightfully wild ideas like sequencing the human genome in three years. Of course, when Craig Venter decided that such a sequencing timetable was achievable, it probably would not have passed muster with a conservative peer review committee. He properly framed the issue as a business problem—not a scientific problem—and solved it. Our most competitive industries are also our least regulated—semiconductors, personal computers, software, and the Internet, to name just a few. S.189 has a light regulatory touch, and I urge you to follow the example of the Internet, and avoid premature regulation while the industry develops. There will be pressures from the usual anti-technology voices to ban or limit nanotechnology, but we should continue on the path of progress that has always been our nation’s strength. We also need to inject private sector competition into our nanotechnology program. The current Bill calls for significant funding for government labs to build new user facilities. Providing shared access to exotic equipment is a smart way to stretch funds and accelerate overall development. These facilities will not be available for at least five years. This is too long to wait in this dynamic field. Awarding competitive contracts or grants to the private sector to upgrade and reopen surplus or shuttered facilities could achieve faster deployment at a lower cost. BARRIERS TO INDUSTRY Applied Research While fundamental long-term research is a vital component of this legislation, nowhere is there a mention of the importance of funding applied research. I urge this committee to consider this issue very carefully. Without a commercialization focus, other nations may surpass us and become a dominant force in the global economy. Specific technology, such as a molecularly precise nanomanufacturing system, in the hands of another nation would be disastrous from the standpoint of national defense and economic competitiveness. Technology Transfer The technology transfer programs at our nation’s leading universities have produced dismal results. The barriers for small and large industry to commercialize this “long-term” research performed under federal dollars have brought very little economic benefit to the American Public. Stan Williams of Hewlett Packard has addressed this issue in previous testimony, so I won’t belabor the point. Funding I used to oppose any government funding for any industry. The private sector is the most efficient way to make investment decisions. However, our private sector has gone global and can invest anywhere. The short-term economic decisions that make sense for a particular company might not be the best long-term decisions for our country. Perhaps it is reasonable for the government to encourage economic competitiveness for national security reasons. While I worry about the “industrial policy” implications, I worry even more about losing nanotechnology to nations able to invest for periods longer than two to three years. Nothing makes this point clearer to me than a recent trip to Taiwan where I witnessed, ITRI, a government/industry partnership staffed with 6,000 researchers developing an advanced technology base and focused on industrial competitiveness. Funding is vital for any enterprise. Private equity funding today is short-term oriented. Taking research from the lab into the marketplace is a long-term endeavor. The gap between lab and market leads to the “valley of death” funding crisis—it is rare to find investors willing to take the risk of an investment lasting five years or more. Today, it is more difficult for small technology businesses to secure acceptable funding. Small businesses employ 39% of high tech workers and are responsible for 45% of the jobs in our nation. Small business produce 13–14 times more patents per employee than large firms. These patents are also twice as likely to be among the 1% most cited.1 The Commerce Department has the NIST Advanced Technology Program, which has been instrumental to Zyvex in overcoming this funding gap. It helps fund high-risk, high-reward projects, evaluating commercialization plans as a venture capitalist would. The NIST-ATP program requires, in many cases, including ours, cost sharing by the company. The ATP helps put small companies on a more even research and development footing with large companies. The program wisely recognizes that small businesses are unable to afford the kind of R&D of an IBM or Lucent, yet are responsible for a majority of our nation’s innovations and technical advancements. Thanks to our ATP, we will have hired fifteen new employees in 2003; we also support researchers at two universities in Texas and one university in New York. We are developing a new manufacturing technology that will drive innovation in the silicon micromachine domain. The impact of parallel microassembly on the broader economy will be in the billions of dollars and will ultimately create thousands of jobs here in America. We should consider a nanotechnology initiative with a greater balance between university long-term fundamental research and applied research and industrial development. The Advanced Technology Program should take on a larger role, similar to the role of the NSF. It could be elevated to an office within the Technology Administration in the Commerce Department. Outside venture capitalists with a longer-term viewpoint would help review competitive business plans. The program would focus on commercializing nanotechnology research. More nanotechnology dollars should be allocated to flow through the SBIR program, which will also help accelerate the innovation and commercialization of nanotechnology. COMPONENTS TO OUR SUCCESS AS A NATION Society Studying the impact nanotechnology may have on the world is vital, and S.189 addresses this issue head-on. Those of us in the field believe that we will be able to manufacture products in a clean, environmentally sound manner, and welcome qualified people to review our technology. Three years ago, I founded the Texas Nanotechnology Initiative®, a non-profit organization whose goal is to establish Texas as a world leader in the discoveries, development, and commercialization of nanotechnology. TNI has become a model for the NanoBusiness Alliance and other regional initiatives. We want to develop a nanotechnology cluster as an economic engine for the region. Good jobs are at stake here. While TNI is working to assure many of them are in Texas, it is our duty as Americans to do all we can to assure that they are in the United States. High tech private sector jobs benefit the economy, with a return of $3.32 for every dollar invested in research. 2 Funding and support for these statewide initiatives needs to be addressed in the Bill. GRAND CHALLENGE You already know that we have a problem in the number of Americans pursuing study in science and engineering. To turn this around, we need to get government, universities, and industry to work in partnership to achieve the great promises of nanotechnology. This would be a grand challenge similar to the “man on the moon” challenge. The National Nanotechnology Initiative defines nine “grand challenges,” but it is difficult to focus on nine things with undefined outcomes. What if we had one or two grand challenges? And what if these grand challenges were to solve serious problems for our nation? Such as how we reduce our dependence on imported energy. Or how the United States can regain our position as the world leader in manufacturing. Nanomanufacturing could be part of the solution to both of these problems. Energy With a major nanoenergy program—on the order of ten to twenty billion per year—we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuel by 50% over the next fifteen to twenty years. That would pay benefits of several hundred billion per year. It is hard to calculate the security benefits of being less dependent on energy imports. The nanotechnology that would come out of this program would provide multiples of that benefit in all the other areas identified as priorities.3 Nanomanufacturing Nanotechnology isn’t just about making small “stuff,” but includes interfacing that “stuff” to the real world. We must be able to manufacture with molecular precision at all length scales—from molecular to the size of a jumbo jet. A nanomanufacturing program would be complementary to the energy program, and would also result in technologies that could be applied to materials, medicine, and computing. Conclusion Much vision and foresight is at the core of this legislation. To truly ensure the success of our great nation, we must now have the courage and perseverance to take such visionary steps. Long-term fundamental research alone will not guarantee commercialization of nanotechnology. It requires a balance of applied and fundamental research, support for our regional initiatives, a constant voice from industry, and a competitive process for awarding federal dollars. I once again applaud your vision and foresight to ensure that the United States is the nation that brings this powerful technology to the world. The legacy you leave now will be remembered by all our future generations. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee—thank you for your time and for this honor.

• Dr. Kent A. Murphy, Ph.D.
  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Dr. Kent A. Murphy, Ph.D.

  Click here for a PDF version of Mr. Murphy's testimony.