National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations [1 ed.] 9781617618222, 9781606927274

Citation preview

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE: ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE: ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JERROD W. KLEIKE EDITOR

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA ISBN: 978-1-61761-822-2 (Ebook)

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.  New York

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

CONTENTS Preface

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

vii United States House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology. Hearing of: The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008, Testimony of Andrew D. Maynard Andrew D. Maynard The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, House Committee on Science and Technology, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Act of 2008 Joseph S. Krajcik Statement of Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme, before the Committee on Science and Technology, United States House of Representatives E. Floyd Kvamme

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

1

37

109

119

vi Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Contents Testimony of Sean Murdock, NanoBusiness Alliance, U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 Sean Murdock House Committee on Science and Technology, Testimony on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 Robert Doering Panel to Speak in Favor of the NNI Amendments Act of 2008 Raymond David

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Index

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

131

137

145 149

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PREFACE Nanotechnology has emerged in the last decades of the 20th century with the development of new enabling technologies for imaging, manipulating, and stimulating matter at the atomic scale. The frontier of nanotechnology research and development (R & D) encompasses a broad range of science and engineering activities directed toward understanding and creating improved materials, devices, and systems that exploit the properties of matter that emerge at the nanoscale. The results promise benefits that will shift paradigms in biomedicine (e.g. imaging, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention); energy (e.g., conversion and storage); electronics (e.g. computing and displays); manufacturing; environmental remediation; and many other categories of products and applications. Chapter 1 - Nanotechnology has vast potential to address some of the greatest challenges facing society, including global climate change, poverty and disease. And with this potential comes the possibility of stimulating sustainable economic growth and job creation. The success of nanotechnology however is not a foregone conclusion. Alongside the challenges of developing the underlying science are broader issues that will influence its success or failure: • • •

How can we learn to use such a powerful technology wisely? - Who will decide how it is used, and who will pay the cost? How can innovative science be translated into successful products? And in an increasingly crowded and connected world, how will the supposed beneficiaries of nanotechnology be engaged in its development and use?

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

viii

Preface

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

These questions will not be answered without a clear strategy. And without vision and strong leadership, the future of safe and successful nanotechnologies will be put in jeopardy. This committee should be applauded for having the foresight to author the 21st Century nanotechnology Research and Development Act—an act that has enabled the United States to lead the world in developing research programs to unlock the potential of the nanoscale. Yet as nanotechnology has increasingly moved from the laboratory to the marketplace, the challenges have shifted from stimulating innovative research to using this research in the service of society. This is why it is so important that the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of 2008 builds on the strengths of the 2003 act, and establishes a framework that will support nanotechnologies that can deliver on their promise. In particular, it is vital that the reauthorization addresses the potential for nanotechnologies to cause harm—and how this might be avoided. Real and perceived risks that are poorly identified, assessed and managed will undermine even the most promising new technologies, and nanotechnology is no exception. In this context, the 2008 Act needs to explicitly address five areas if it is to establish a sound framework for enabling safe, sustainable and successful nanotechnologies: 1. Risk Research Strategy. A top-level strategic framework should be developed that identifies the goals of nanotechnology risk research across the federal government, and provides a roadmap for achieving these goals. The strategy should identify information needed to regulate and otherwise oversee the safe development and use of nanotechnologies; which agencies will take a lead in addressing specific research challenges; when critical information is needed; and how the research will be funded. This top-level, top-down strategy should reflect evolving oversight challenges. It should be informed by stakeholders from industry, academia and citizen communities. It should include measurable goals, and be reviewed every two years. 2. Funding for environmental safety and health research. A minimum of 10% of the federal government’s nanotechnology research and development budget should be dedicated to goal-oriented environment, health and safety (EHS) research. At least $50 million per year should be directed towards targeted research directly addressing clearly-defined strategic challenges. The balance of funding should support exploratory research that is conducted within the scope of a strategic research

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Preface

ix

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

program. Funding should be assessed according to a top- level, top-down risk research strategy, and be overseen by cross-agency leadership. 3. Leadership for risk research. A cross-agency group should be established that is responsible for implementing a nanotechnology EHS research strategy, and is accountable for actions taken and progress made. A coordinator should be appointed to oversee this group, as well as given resources and authority to enable funding allocations and interagency partnerships that will support the implementation of a strategic research plan. 4. Transparency. Government-funded nanotechnology environment safety and health research investment should be fully transparent, providing stakeholders with information on project activities, relevance, funding and outcomes. 5. Public-Private Partnerships. Partnerships that leverage public and private funds to address critical nanotechnology oversight issues in an independent, transparent and timely manner should be established, where such partnerships have the capacity to overcome the limitations of separate government and industry initiatives. Nanotechnology is a truly revolutionary and transformative technology, and we cannot rely on past ways of doing things to succeed in the future. Without strong leadership from the top, we run the risk of compromising the whole enterprise—not only losing America’s technological lead, but also jeopardizing the good that could come out of nanotechnology for other countries and the world. Already, the hubris surrounding nanotechnology research and development (R&D) funding is giving way to a sobering reality: Based on the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)-identified risk-relevant projects, in 2006, the federal government spent an estimated $13 million on highly relevant nanotechnology risk research (approximately 1% of the nano R&D budget), compared to $24 million in Europe,1 despite assurances from the NNI that five times this amount was spent on risk related research in Fiscal Year 2006.2 Nanotechnology will not succeed through wishful thinking alone. Instead, it will depend on clear and authoritative leadership from the top. If we are to fully realize the benefits of this innovative new technology, we must bridge the gap between our dreams and reality. When I look back on the origins of the NNI, I am impressed by the foresight and quality of leadership exerted by congressional visionaries from both sides of the aisle, the president and executive branch, scientists and engineers, businesspeople, and educators.3 Perhaps because of the tremendous successes

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

x

Preface

achieved in the laboratory since its creation, we risk losing sight of the importance of meeting the challenges involved in taking the NNI to the next level of research, education, governance and commercialization. It is my belief that with the proposed act—and with the continued vigilance of this committee—this will not happen. Chapter 2- The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-153) calls for a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) to periodically review the Federal nanotechnology research and development (R&D) program known as the National Nanotechnology Initiative (N NI). The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is designated by Executive Order to serve as the NNAP. This report is the second NNAP review of the NNI, updating the first assessment published in 2005. Including the NNI budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2009 of $1.5 billion, the total NNI investment since its inception in 2001 is nearly $10 billion. The total annual global investment in nanotechnology is an estimated $13.9 billion, divided roughly equally among the United States, Europe, and Asia. Industry analysis suggests that private investment has been outpacing that of government since about 2006. The activities, balance, and management of the NNI among the 25 participating U.S. agencies and the efforts to coordinate with stakeholders from outside the Federal Government, including industry and other governments, are the subject of this report. The first report answered four questions: How are we doing? Is the money well spent and the program well managed? Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks? How can we do better? That report was generally positive in its conclusions but provided recommendations for improving or strengthening efforts in the following areas: technology transfer; environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research and its coordination; education and workforce preparation; and societal dimensions. Since the first report, increasing attention has been focused on the potential risks of nanotechnology, especially the possible harm to human health and the environment from nanomaterials. In this second assessment, the NNAP paid special attention to the NNI efforts in these areas. During its review, the NNAP obtained input from various sources. It convened a number of expert panels and consulted its nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (nTAG) and the President’s Council on Bioethics. NNI member agencies and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) also provided valuable information.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Preface

xi

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The NNAP finds that the United States remains a leader in nanotechnology based on various metrics, including R&D expenditures and outputs such as publications, citations, and patents. However, taken as a region, the European Union has more publications, and China’s output is increasing. There are many examples of NNI-funded research results that are moving into commercial applications. However, measures of technology transfer and the commercial impact of nanotechnology as a whole are not readily available, in part because of the difficulty in defining what is, and is not, a “nanotechnology-based product.” Chapters 3-6 contain testimony and statements submiited to the U.S. House of Representatives.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

In: National Nanotechnology Initiative Editor: Jerrod W. Kleike, pp. 1-36

ISBN 978-1-60692-727-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. HEARING OF: THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008, TESTIMONY OF ANDREW D. MAYNARD* Andrew D. Maynard ABSTRACT Nanotechnology has vast potential to address some of the greatest challenges facing society, including global climate change, poverty and disease. And with this potential comes the possibility of stimulating sustainable economic growth and job creation. The success of nanotechnology however is not a foregone conclusion. Alongside the challenges of developing the underlying science are broader issues that will influence its success or failure:

*

Excerpted from United States House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, dated April 16, 2008.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

2

Andrew D. Maynard •

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

• •

How can we learn to use such a powerful technology wisely? - Who will decide how it is used, and who will pay the cost? How can innovative science be translated into successful products? And in an increasingly crowded and connected world, how will the supposed beneficiaries of nanotechnology be engaged in its development and use?

These questions will not be answered without a clear strategy. And without vision and strong leadership, the future of safe and successful nanotechnologies will be put in jeopardy. This committee should be applauded for having the foresight to author the 21st Century nanotechnology Research and Development Act—an act that has enabled the United States to lead the world in developing research programs to unlock the potential of the nanoscale. Yet as nanotechnology has increasingly moved from the laboratory to the marketplace, the challenges have shifted from stimulating innovative research to using this research in the service of society. This is why it is so important that the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of 2008 builds on the strengths of the 2003 act, and establishes a framework that will support nanotechnologies that can deliver on their promise. In particular, it is vital that the reauthorization addresses the potential for nanotechnologies to cause harm— and how this might be avoided. Real and perceived risks that are poorly identified, assessed and managed will undermine even the most promising new technologies, and nanotechnology is no exception. In this context, the 2008 Act needs to explicitly address five areas if it is to establish a sound framework for enabling safe, sustainable and successful nanotechnologies: 1.

2.

Risk Research Strategy. A top-level strategic framework should be developed that identifies the goals of nanotechnology risk research across the federal government, and provides a roadmap for achieving these goals. The strategy should identify information needed to regulate and otherwise oversee the safe development and use of nanotechnologies; which agencies will take a lead in addressing specific research challenges; when critical information is needed; and how the research will be funded. This top-level, top-down strategy should reflect evolving oversight challenges. It should be informed by stakeholders from industry, academia and citizen communities. It should include measurable goals, and be reviewed every two years. Funding for environmental safety and health research. A minimum of 10% of the federal government’s nanotechnology research and

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

United States House of Representatives Committee …

3.

4.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

5.

3

development budget should be dedicated to goal-oriented environment, health and safety (EHS) research. At least $50 million per year should be directed towards targeted research directly addressing clearly-defined strategic challenges. The balance of funding should support exploratory research that is conducted within the scope of a strategic research program. Funding should be assessed according to a top- level, top-down risk research strategy, and be overseen by cross-agency leadership. Leadership for risk research. A cross-agency group should be established that is responsible for implementing a nanotechnology EHS research strategy, and is accountable for actions taken and progress made. A coordinator should be appointed to oversee this group, as well as given resources and authority to enable funding allocations and interagency partnerships that will support the implementation of a strategic research plan. Transparency. Government-funded nanotechnology environment safety and health research investment should be fully transparent, providing stakeholders with information on project activities, relevance, funding and outcomes. Public-Private Partnerships. Partnerships that leverage public and private funds to address critical nanotechnology oversight issues in an independent, transparent and timely manner should be established, where such partnerships have the capacity to overcome the limitations of separate government and industry initiatives.

Nanotechnology is a truly revolutionary and transformative technology, and we cannot rely on past ways of doing things to succeed in the future. Without strong leadership from the top, we run the risk of compromising the whole enterprise—not only losing America’s technological lead, but also jeopardizing the good that could come out of nanotechnology for other countries and the world. Already, the hubris surrounding nanotechnology research and development (R&D) funding is giving way to a sobering reality: Based on the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)-identified risk-relevant projects, in 2006, the federal government spent an estimated $13 million on highly relevant nanotechnology risk research (approximately 1% of the nano R&D budget), compared to $24 million in Europe,1 despite assurances from the NNI that five times this amount was spent on risk related research in Fiscal Year 2006.2 Nanotechnology will not succeed through wishful thinking alone. Instead, it will depend on clear and authoritative leadership from the top. If we are to fully realize the benefits of this innovative new technology, we must bridge the gap between our dreams and reality.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

4

Andrew D. Maynard

When I look back on the origins of the NNI, I am impressed by the foresight and quality of leadership exerted by congressional visionaries from both sides of the aisle, the president and executive branch, scientists and engineers, businesspeople, and educators.3 Perhaps because of the tremendous successes achieved in the laboratory since its creation, we risk losing sight of the importance of meeting the challenges involved in taking the NNI to the next level of research, education, governance and commercialization. It is my belief that with the proposed act—and with the continued vigilance of this committee—this will not happen.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION I would like to thank Chairman Bart Gordon, ranking Republican Ralph Hall, and the members of the House Committee on Science & Technology for holding this hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. My name is Dr. Andrew Maynard. I am Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Through my research and other activities over the past 15 years, I have taken a lead in addressing how nanotechnologies might impact human health and the environment, and how we might realize the benefits of these exciting new technologies without leaving a legacy of harm. I was responsible for stimulating government research programs into the occupational health impact of nanomaterials in Britain towards the end of the 1990’s. I spent five years developing and coordinating research programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that address the safety of nanotechnologies in the workplace. While at NIOSH, I represented the agency on the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), and was co-chair of the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group from its inception. In my current role as Chief Science Advisor to PEN, I work closely with government, industry and other groups to find science-based solutions to the challenges of developing nanotechnologies safely and effectively. PEN is an initiative launched by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts in 2005.4 It is dedicated to helping business, government and the public anticipate and manage the possible health and environmental implications of nanotechnology. As part of the Wilson Center, PEN is a non-partisan, non-advocacy policy organization that works with

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

United States House of Representatives Committee …

5

researchers, government, industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and others to find the best possible solutions to developing responsible, beneficial and acceptable nanotechnologies. In this testimony, I will lay out essential components of an overarching framework to cultivate the growth and innovation of the emerging field of nanotechnology while providing safeguards for environmental, health and safety (EHS) and comment on the extent to which the current draft of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 addresses these components. The two aims of stimulating innovation and avoiding harm need not be, nor should be, mutually exclusive. A successful strategy of scientific and technological innovation, integrated with EHS research, will ensure that the promised benefits of such a technology are not thwarted by potential EHS disasters. With nanotechnology, we have the opportunity to do things differently. It is my belief that the proposed reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) will redefine how emerging technologies are developed successfully and safely.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

UNDERPINNING SUSTAINABLE NANOTECHNOLOGIES The Promise of Nanotechnology Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize the world as we know it. The increasing dexterity at the nanoscale provides opportunities to greatly enhance existing technologies and to develop innovative new technologies. When you couple this capability with the unusual and sometimes unique behavior of materials that are engineered at near-atomic scales, you have the basis for a transformative technology that has the potential to impact virtually every aspect of daily life. Some of these emerging technologies will benefit individuals, while others will help solve pressing societal challenges like climate change, access to clean water and cancer treatment. And many will provide companies with the competitive edge they need to succeed. In all cases, nanotechnology holds within it the potential to improve the quality of life and economic success of America and the world beyond.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

6

Andrew D. Maynard

Unconventional Behavior The benefits of nanotechnology, however, will not be realized by default. Nanotechnology is taking our understanding of what makes something harmful and how we deal with that, and turning it upside down. New engineered nanomaterials are prized for their unconventional properties. But these same properties may also lead to new ways of causing harm to people and the environment.5 Research has already demonstrated that some engineered nanomaterials can reach places in the body and the environment that are usually inaccessible to conventional materials, raising the possibility of unanticipated harm arising from unexpected exposures. And studies have shown that the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials is not always predictable from conventional knowledge.6 For instance, we now know that nanometer sized particles can move along nerve cells; that the high fraction of atoms on the surface of nanomaterials can influence their toxicity; and that nanometer-diameter particles can initiate protein mis-folding, possibly leading to diseases.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Need for Foresight Moving towards the nanotechnology future without a clear understanding of the possible risks, and how to manage them, is like driving blindfolded. The more we are able to see where the bends in the road occur, the better we will be able to navigate around them to realize safe, sustainable and successful nanotechnology applications. But to see and navigate the bends requires the foresight provided by strategic science. With over 600 products currently listed on the PEN’s Consumer Products Inventory7 and with hundreds more commercial nanotechnology applications on the market or under development, the question is no longer whether nanotechnologies will impact society but how significant the impact will be. The question for policy makers is how these impacts will be manifest, and how we will manage the consequences.

Avoiding Harm Central to developing sustainable nanotechnologies is an understanding of how new materials and products may harm people and the environment, and how possible risks may be avoided or otherwise managed.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

United States House of Representatives Committee …

7

Everything has the potential to cause harm. If we are smart, we learn how to avoid harm. And if we are very smart, we work out the rules of safe use ahead of the game. In a world of more than six billion people, everything that occurs has an impact on some place and someone. And as a result, each emerging technology forces us to think harder about what the consequences might be, and how to avoid them. Ignoring the signs of adverse consequences will only result in poor decisionmaking by governments, business and individuals. While nanotechnology undoubtedly has the potential to do great good, the consequences of getting it wrong could be devastating. Already, research is indicating that many nanomaterials behave in unusual and unconventional ways that may lead to human and environmental harm if not addressed early on.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A New Mindset for a New Technology Twenty-first century technologies like nanotechnology present new challenges to identifying and managing risks, and it would be naïve to assume that twentieth century assumptions and approaches are up to the task of protecting health and the environment in all cases. In the case of engineered nanomaterials, the importance of physical structure in addition to chemical composition in determining behavior is making a mockery of our chemicals-based view of risks and regulation. As a simple example, imagine picking up two common kitchen implements— a skillet and a knife. Each can be used for very different purposes—for instance, the knife for slicing an onion and the skillet for frying it. Likewise, each implement can cause harm in different ways. Yet the chemical makeup of each implement is very similar—it is predominantly iron. The very different rules for safe use are intuitive, because one can see how the different shapes of the implements influence behavior. Nanomaterials are the same, in that how they behave—for good or bad— depends on their shape as well as their chemistry. But this is where nanotechnology becomes counterintuitive. Because we cannot see these intricate nano-shapes unaided, we forget that they are important. If one were to hold up a jar of nanometer-sized titanium dioxide particles all that would be seen is a white powder, indistinguishable from many other powdered materials. Yet the potential for this material to be used in new applications, and possibly to cause harm in new ways, lies within the nanoscale structure of the material that can only be seen using advanced microscopy techniques.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

8

Andrew D. Maynard

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Leadership In thinking through how the potential risks of nanotechnologies can be proactively addressed and the technologies can be developed safely, some things are clear. Safe nanotechnologies will not happen without help—nanotechnologies are simply too unconventional and counter-intuitive. Neither will safe nanotechnologies emerge if the promoters of the technology are calling all the shots. And in a similar vein, safe nanotechnologies will not come about through wishful thinking and “spin”. Instead, there needs to be strong independent leadership, and a framework within which safe and sustainable nanotechnology can be developed. These must ensure adequately funded research is targeted towards understanding and addressing counter-intuitive behavior, that the process of developing safe and sustainable nanotechnologies is transparent and inclusive, and that activities are coordinated and directed towards developing solutions to developing and using nanotechnologies as safely as possible. Only then will it be possible to develop the foresight necessary to ensure emerging nanotechnologies are as safe and as useful as possible. Having set the pace of nanotechnology development in the U.S. through the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, the House Committee on Science & Technology now has the task of ensuring these emerging nanotechnologies deliver on their promise; benefiting society without causing harm.

TAKING ACTION Risk Research Strategy We are unlikely to arrive at a future where nanotechnology has been developed responsibly without a strategic plan for how to get there. Like all good strategies, this should include a clear idea of where we want to be, and what needs to be done to get there. A top-level, top-down strategic framework should be developed that identifies the goals of nanotechnology risk research across the federal government, and that provides a roadmap for achieving these goals. The strategy should identify information needed to regulate and otherwise oversee the safe development and use of nanotechnologies; which agencies will take a lead in addressing specific research challenges; when critical information is needed; and

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

United States House of Representatives Committee …

9

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

how the research will be funded. It should reflect evolving oversight challenges; be informed by stakeholders from industry; academia and citizen communities; include measurable goals; and be reviewed every two years. Developing an effective roadmap to addressing these challenges is not as simple as prioritizing research needs. As I discovered while developing recommendations on research strategies in 2006,8 it is necessary to work back from what you want to achieve, and map out the research steps needed to get there. This inevitably leads to complex and intertwined research threads. Yet if this complexity is not acknowledged, the result is simplistic research priorities that look good on paper, but are ineffective at addressing specific aims. And without a clear sense of context, it is all too easy to highlight research efforts that appear to be strategically important, but are in reality only marginal to achieving the desired goals. The bottom line is that for such a strategy to be effective, it will require topdown leadership. Establishing provisions for an effective nanotechnology risk research strategy to be developed, funded and implemented in the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of 2008 will be essential to underpinning the success and safety of current and future nanotechnologies, as well as ensuring America’s continued leadership in this area.

Funding for Environment, Safety and Health Research To be effective, a nanotechnology risk-research strategic framework needs adequate funding to support proposed research, as well as sufficient expert personnel to oversee its development and implementation. In 2006, the U.S. spent an estimated $13 million on highly relevant research addressing the impacts of nanotechnology on human health and the environment.9 By comparison, European countries invested approximately $24 million, including $13 million from the European Union as a central funding organization. But these figures fall far short of what is needed to address even the most urgent nanotechnology EHS questions. In my testimony to this committee on September 21, 2006,10 and more recently on October 31, 200711, I made the case for a minimum of $50 million annually to be spent on targeted nanotechnology risk research within the U.S. This was based on an assessment of critical short-term research needs, and only covered highly-focused research to address these needs.12 This estimate still stands. However, I must be clear that such an investment would need to be directed towards addressing a very specific suite of problems that regulators and industry need answers to as soon as possible. This is not envisaged as a general

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

10

Andrew D. Maynard

pot of money to be assigned to research that does not address specific and urgent nanotechnology risk goals. In other words, this is an investment that needs to be directed towards the right research. What is more, such an investment would not necessarily generate more general knowledge to effectively address emerging nanotechnology EHS issues. For this, an additional investment is needed in goal-oriented exploratory research—both specifically focusing on aspects of nanotechnology that might lead to harm, and bridging the worlds of applications and implications research. To address both targeted and exploratory research needs, a minimum 10% of the federal government’s nanotechnology research and development budget should be dedicated to goal-oriented EHS research. A minimum of $50 annually should go to targeted research directly addressing clearly-defined strategic challenges. The balance of funding should support exploratory research that is conducted within the scope of a strategic research program. Funding should be assessed according to an interagency risk research strategy, be overseen by crossagency leadership and tied into the strategic research plan. Targeted research primarily should address specific questions where answers are urgently needed to make, use and dispose of nanotechnology products as safely as possible. I would envisage that much of the necessary research would be funded by or conducted within mission-driven agencies, such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, we must ensure that regulatory agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), either have access to resources to fund regulationrelevant research, or input to research that will inform their decision- making. There will also be a role for science-oriented agencies such as the National Institutes for Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) in funding targeted research, where the missions of these agencies coincide with research that informs specific oversight questions. For example, these two agencies are ideally positioned to investigate the science behind nanomaterial properties, behavior and biological interactions in a targeted way, with the aim of predicting health and environmental impact. But ensuring that targeted research conducted within these agencies is relevant to addressing risk identification, assessment and reduction goals will be critical, and underscores the need for a robust cross-agency, riskresearch strategy and pool of designated funds. Exploratory research, on the other hand, primarily would be investigatordriven (within determined bounds), and so would preferentially lie within the remit of NSF and NIH. However, in ensuring effective use of funds, it will be necessary to develop ways of supporting interdisciplinary research that crosses the

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

United States House of Representatives Committee …

11

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

boundary separating these agencies, and combines investigations of basic science with research into disease and environmental endpoints, with the goal of informing oversight decisions. Exploratory research should not be confined to these two agencies alone, as there will be instances where goal-oriented but exploratory research will fit best within the scope of mission-driven agencies, and will benefit from research expertise within these agencies. For example, researchers at NIOSH are currently engaged in exploratory research that is directly relevant to identifying and reducing potential nanotechnology risks in the workplace.13 At present, there is no pot of “nanotechnology” money within the federal government that can be directed to areas of need. Rather, the NNI simply reports what individual agencies are spending. Yet if strategic nanotechnology risk research is to be funded appropriately, mechanisms are required that enable dollars to flow from where they are plentiful to where they are needed. Extremely overstretched agencies like NIOSH and EPA cannot be expected to shoulder their burden of nanotechnology risk-research unaided, and agencies such as FDA and CPSC currently have no listed budget whatsoever for nanotechnology EHS research. If the federal government is to fully utilize expertise across agencies and enable effective nanotechnology oversight, resource-sharing across the NNI will be necessary.

Leadership for Risk Research Without clear leadership, the emergence of safe nanotechnologies will be a happy accident rather than a foregone conclusion. This is a collection of technologies that is counter-intuitive and as a result, safe and sustainable nanotechnologies will not emerge without help. Accepted mechanisms of technology development and transfer—including investigatordriven research, generation of intellectual property, knowledge diffusion and market-driven commercialization—will not ensure the information and approaches needed to proactively ensure the safety of emerging nanotechnologies on their own. Instead, clear and authoritative top-down leadership is needed to enable the generation and application of information that will support safe nanotechnology development. As a result, it is recommended that a cross-agency group be established that is responsible for implementing a nanotechnology EHS research strategy, and is accountable for actions taken and progress made. A coordinator should be appointed to oversee this group, and given resources and authority to enable

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

12

Andrew D. Maynard

funding allocations and interagency partnerships that will support the implementation of a strategic research plan. A key role for this coordinator would be to ensure agencies are motivated and able to work within their missions and competencies toward a common set of established goals. They would also provide leadership to the broader stakeholder community involved— both nationally and internationally—in developing safe nanotechnologies.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Transparency Without transparency, effective development, implementation and review of a strategic research framework will be hampered, stakeholder engagement will be impossible, and trust in the government to underpin safe nanotechnologies will be severely compromised. As a result, it is recommended that government-funded nanotechnology EHS research should be fully transparent, providing stakeholders with information on project activities, relevance, funding and outcomes. Activities to date within the federal nanotechnology initiative have been less than transparent, to the detriment of an effective strategy for nanotechnology development and use. For example, a PEN analysis of current research projects listed in the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s “Strategy for NanotechnologyRelated Environmental, Health, and Safety Research” found that only 62 of the 246 projects listed were highly relevant to addressing EHS issues (the remaining projects had some relevance, but in general were focused on exploiting nanotechnology applications).14 These 62 projects accounted for an estimated $13 million in research and development funding for 2006—a far cry from the $68 million cited by the NNI document as being focused on EHS research.15 Each of these 246 projects has some relevance to addressing nanotechnology safety, and the NNI was right to list them. But by not categorizing the relevance of the research or including funding figures for each project, the stated $68 million being invested has little credibility—and as has just been shown, is indeed highly misleading. Lack of transparency such as this can only hinder the development of new knowledge that is essential to ensuring safe and successful nanotechnologies. This is such a critical issue to underpinning progress towards safe and successful nanotechnologies that I would suggest any assessment of research investment, relevance or direction that is not backed up by publicly accessible project-specific data is worthless. It is for this very reason that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Party on Manufactured

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

United States House of Representatives Committee …

13

Nanomaterials is developing a soon-to-be-launched comprehensive database on risk-relevant nanotechnology research around the world.16

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Public-Private Partnerships Often, partnerships between public and private organizations have the capacity to address critical challenges in a manner that is beyond the scope of either partner in isolation. To expedite progress towards ensuring the safety of emerging nanotechnologies, it is recommended that partnerships are established that leverage public and private funds to address critical nanotechnology oversight issues in an independent, transparent and timely manner and to overcome the limitations of separate government and industry research. Where research needs fall between the gap of government and industry (because of their different goals), public-private research partnerships provide an important mechanism for bridging the gaps. Industries investing in nanotechnology have a financial stake in preventing harm, manufacturing safe products and avoiding long-term liabilities. Yet many of the questions that need answering are too general to be dealt with easily by industry alone. Perhaps more significantly, the credibility of industry-driven risk research is often brought into question by the public and NGOs as not being sufficiently independent and transparent. For many nanomaterials and nanotechnologies, the current state of knowledge is sufficient to cast doubt on their safety but lacks the certainty and credibility for industry to plan a clear course of action on how to mitigate potential risks. Getting out of this “information trap” is a dilemma facing large and small nanotechnology industries alike. Cooperative science organizations like public-private partnerships provide one way out of the “trap” where they are established to generate independent, credible data that will support nanotechnology oversight and product stewardship. Such organizations would leverage federal and industry funding to support targeted research into assessing and managing potential nanotechnology risks. Their success would depend on five key attributes: Independence. The selection, direction and evaluation of funded research would have to be science-based and fully independent of the business and views of partners in the organization. Transparency. The research, reviews and the operations of the organization should be fully open to public scrutiny.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

14

Andrew D. Maynard

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Review. Research supported by the organization should be independently and transparently reviewed. Communication. Research results should be made publicly accessible and fully and effectively communicated to all relevant parties. Relevance. Funded research should have broad relevance to managing the potential risks of nanotechnologies through regulation, product stewardship and other mechanisms. As I discussed in my comments to the House Committee on Science & Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education last October,17 a number of research organizations have been established over the years that comply with many of these criteria. One of these is the Health Effects Institute (HEI),18 which has been highly successful in providing high-quality, impartial, and relevant science around the issue of air pollution and its health impacts. The Foundation for the National Institutes for Health19 also has been successful in developing effective public-private partnerships, and the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON)20 is a third model for bringing government, industry and other stakeholders to the table to address common goals. The PEN is currently exploring these and other models as possible templates for public- private partnerships addressing nanotechnology risks. Irrespective of which model is the best suited for nanotechnology, the need is urgent to develop such partnerships as part of the government’s strategy to address nanotechnology risks. Nanotechnologies are being commercialized rapidly—going from $60 billion in manufactured goods in 2007 to a projected $2.6 trillion in nanotechnology-enabled manufactured goods by 2014—or 15% of total manufactured goods globally.21 And knowledge about possible risks is simply not keeping pace with consumer and industrial applications.

CONCLUSIONS The nanotechnology future is calling us forward, and the U.S. is at the forefront of the race to get there as fast as possible. But we are skating on thin ice, and are in danger of missing the warning signs. Nanotechnology is counterintuitive, and we cannot rely on past ways of doing things to succeed in the future. Without strong leadership from the top, we run the risk of compromising the whole enterprise—not only loosing America’s lead, but also jeopardizing the good that could come out of nanotechnology for other countries.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

United States House of Representatives Committee …

15

Already, the hubris surrounding nanotechnology R&D funding is giving way to a sobering reality: Based on NNI-identified risk-relevant projects, in 2006, the federal government spent an estimated $13 million on highly relevant nanotechnology risk research (approximately 1% of the nano R&D budget), compared to $24 million in Europe, despite assurances from the NNI that five times this amount was spent on risk related research in Fiscal Year 2006. But nanotechnology will not succeed through wishful thinking alone. Instead, it will depend on clear and authoritative leadership from the top. If we are to fully realize the benefits of this innovative new technology, we must bridge the gap between our dreams and reality. In my personal view, the proposed National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of 2008 goes a long way to bridging this gap. I particularly commend the committee for promoting transparency through a public database for projects funding under EHS; education and societal dimensions; and nanomanufacturing program component areas, with sub-breakouts for education and ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) projects. This database will complement the public international EHS database expected to be launched by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in June 2008, and will provide an essential resource for evaluating the federal government’s progress towards addressing critical research questions, as well as developing future research strategies. In addition, I believe the proposed act takes an important step in assigning to a single coordinator the responsibility for ensuring that a top-down strategic plan for nanotechnology environmental, safety and health research is developed and implemented; that EHS research is appropriately funded with at least 10 percent of the total NNI budget; and that public-private partnerships are established that leverage government and industry research initiatives. Finally, as the committee knows, my in-depth experience lies in the area of the EHS implications of nanotechnology. But as one of the many scientists and engineers deeply involved in nanotechnology development for over 20 years, I am genuinely concerned about the education and “nano-readiness” of America’s students, teachers, and workforce. For this reason, I personally endorse the establishment of partnerships to help recruit and prepare secondary school students to pursue postsecondary education in nanotechnology. I also support enhancements to nanotechnology undergraduate education, faculty development, and acquisition of equipment and instrumentation at the undergraduate level. When today China has as many scientists and engineers working on nanotechnology as the U.S., it is critical to support initiatives in nanotechnology education aimed at our young people.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

16

Andrew D. Maynard

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Similarly, the U.S. public and consumers are woefully unprepared for the nano-age. Polling, focus groups and social science research commissioned by PEN since its inception show that Americans’ awareness of nanotechnology remains abysmally low, with seven in 10 adults having heard just a little of nothing at all about it.22 This, in my opinion, is a significant failing of the NNI. Too few resources and too little expertise has been devoted to educating and engaging the public about the implications of what I believe is one of this century’s most exciting areas of science and engineering. I particularly urge the committee to address this problem as it works on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Act of 2008. When I look back on the origins of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, I am impressed by the foresight and quality of leadership exerted by congressional visionaries from both sides of the aisle, the president and executive branch, scientists and engineers, businesspeople, and educators.23 Perhaps because of the tremendous successes achieved in the laboratory since its creation, we risk losing sight of the importance of meeting the challenges involved in taking the NNI to the next level of research, education, governance and commercialization. It is my belief that with the proposed act—and with the continued vigilance of this committee—this will not happen.

ANNEX A. ASSESSMENT OF U.S. GOVERNMENT NANOTECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND HEALTH RESEARCH FOR 2006 1. Assessment of Research Listed in the 2008 NNI Nanotechnology Risk Research Strategy24 a.

b. c.

Research projects highly relevant to nanotechnology environment health and safety accounted for an estimated $12.8 million in federal research funding in 2006. Research that was either highly or substantially relevant to nanotechnology EHS accounted for an estimated $28.9 million. The majority of the research projects listed by the NNI as being relevant to nanotechnology EHS have only limited relevance.

Listed research was categorized according to its relevance to addressing potential nanotechnology risks (highly relevant, substantially relevant, having some relevance, or having marginal relevance—as defined below). Projects

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

United States House of Representatives Committee …

17

specifically addressing engineered nanomaterials, as well as projects generally applicable to any source of nanoparticles, were included in the analysis. The methodology for categorizing research relevance was the same as that used in the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies on-line inventory of nanotechnology EHS research,25 and in the forthcoming OECD database of nanotechnology EHS research. 26 This approach allows a sophisticated and transparent assessment of research investment. The categorization is based on published project abstracts, and how these relate to addressing risk-specific issues.

2. A Broader Assessment of U.S. Federally-Funded Risk-Relevant Research for 2006 The previously-released PEN inventory of EHS research contains substantially more projects than are listed in the 2008 NNI risk research strategy. Assessment of the full inventory of projects reveals that more risk-relevant research was being funded in 2006 than is identified by the NNI, but that funding levels are still low:

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

a.

b.

Research projects highly relevant to nanotechnology environment health and safety accounted for an estimated $20.4 million in federal research funding in 2006. Research that was either highly or substantially relevant to nanotechnology EHS accounted for an estimated $37.8 million.

The disparity between the figures above and NNI figures on research spending underline an urgent need for transparency in what is being funded, and it’s relevance to addressing nanotechnology risk.

3. Comparison with European Risk Research Investments a.

In 2006, European countries invested an estimated US$23.6 million in research that was highly relevant to understanding and addressing the impacts of nanotechnology on human health and the environment. The EU as a central funding organization invested an estimated US$12.6 million in highly relevant research in 2006.

These estimates are based on figures published in the document “EU nanotechnology R&D in the field of health and environmental impact of nanoparticles,” published in 2008.27 Research funding within European countries

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

18

Andrew D. Maynard

for calendar year 2006 has been estimated. The analysis includes research funded by the European Union, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

4. Definitions of Research Relevance a.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

b.

c.

d.

High: Research that is specifically and explicitly focused on the health, environmental and/or safety implications of nanotechnology. Also included in this category are projects and programs where the majority of the research undertaken is specifically and explicitly focused on the health, environmental and/or safety implications of nanotechnology. Examples of research in this category would include research to understand the toxicity of specific nanomaterials, research into exposure monitoring and characterization to further understand potential impact, research into biological interactions and mechanisms that is focused on answering specific questions associated with potential risk. Examples of research that would not be included in this category would include exploratory research into biological mechanisms outside the context of understanding impact, general instrument development, and research into therapeutics applications which also incorporate an element of evaluating impact. Substantial: Research that is focused towards nanotechnology-based applications or developing fundamental new knowledge on nanoscience, but that has substantial and explicit relevance to EHS implications. Examples of research in this category would include non-targeted research into biological mechanisms which is informative to understanding risk, instrument development for assessing nanomaterials for applications and characterizing nanomaterials in hazard evaluations, and major programs with a significant component focused on risk research. Some: Research that is focused on the application of nanotechnology and developing fundamental new knowledge on nanoscience but that has some relevance to EHS implications. Examples might include research into therapeutics applications which also lead to the generation of useful data on hazard. Marginal: Fundamental nanoscience and/or nanotechnology applicationsbased research, which informs understanding on potential EHS implications in a marginal way. Examples might include the development of new analytical techniques such as analytical electron microscopy, where some attempt is made to apply the techniques to understanding potential risks unique to nanomaterials.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

ANNEX B. NNI-IDENTIFIED NANOTECHNOLOGY RISK-RESEARCH, LISTED BY RELEVANCE28 Highly Relevant Research NNI ID

Agency

Project Title

a1-14 a1-23 a2-12 a3-2 a3-3 a4-2 b1-1

NIST NIST NIST NIOSH NIST NIH DOD

b1-2

EPA

b1-27 b2-12

NSF NSF

b2-5

NIH

b2-6

NIOSH

b2-7

NIOSH

Single Photon Sources and detectors Metrology for the “Fate” of Nanoparticles in Biosystems Theoretical Models of Chemical Properties of Nanostructures Monitoring and Characterizing Airborne Carbon Nanotube Particles Nanoparticle Risk Impact and Assessment Program Submicron Particles and Fibers for Toxicological Studies Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative: Effects of Nanoscale Materials on Biological Systems: Relationship between Physiochemical Properties and Toxicological Properties Impact of Physiochemical Properties on Skin Absorption of Manufactured Nanomaterials Lung Deposition of Highly Agglomerated Nanoparticles SGER: Aquatic Nanotoxicology of Nanomaterials and Their Biomolecular Derivatives Physicochemical Characterisation and Formulation of Fullerene C60 and Titanium Dioxide Role of Surface Chemistry in the Toxicological Properties of Manufactured Nanoparticles Particle Surface Area As a Dose Metric

Estimated Annual Funding

$133,333 $168,893 $1,100,000

$130,539 $133,333 $30,000

$133,333 $333,333

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

b2-8 b2-9 b3-1 b3-5

NIOSH NIOSH EPA NIH

b4-10 b4-1 1

NIOSH NSF

b4-4 b4-5

NIH NIH

b4-6 b4-8 b4-9 b5-1 b5-2 b5-28 b5-29 b5-3 b5-30

NIH NIOSH NIOSH DOD DOD NIH NIH DOD NIH

b5-31 b5-34 b5-35 b5-36

NIH NIH NIH NIOSH

Nanoparticles: Lung Dosimetry and Risk Assessment Generation & Characterization of Nanoparticles A Rapid In Vivo System for Determining Toxicity of Manufactured Nanomaterials Development of methods and models for nanoparticle toxicity screening: Applications Pulmonary Deposition and Translocation of Nanomaterials Nanotox: Biochemical, Molecular and Cellular Responses of Zebrafish Exposed to Metallic Nanoparticles UTEP-UNM HSC ARCH Program on Border Asthma Skin Penetration, Phototoxicity, and Photocarcinogenesis of Nanoscale Oxides of Titanium and Zinc Toxicokinetics of Quantum Dots In Rats Role of CNT's in Cardiovascular Inflammation & Copd Related Diseases Dermal Effects of Nanoparticles Biological Interactions of Nanomaterials Safer Nanomanufacturing Nanoparticle Disruption of Cell Function Long Term Cardiovascular Effects of Inhaled Nanoparticles Identifying Critical P-C Characteristics of Np That Elicit Toxic Effects Tumorigenicity of Photoactive Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide In Tg.ac Transgenic Mice Mechanisms of Chemically Induced Photosensitivity Systemic Implications of Total Joint Replacement Long Term Cardiovascular Effects of Inhaled Nanoparticles Pulmonary Toxicity of Carbon Nanotube Particles

$166,667 $333,333 $133,333 $120,109 $300,000 $116,667 $948,159

$300,000 $233,333 $300,000 $122,288 $118,611

$288,959 $300,000

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table. Continued NNI ID

Agency

b5-37 b5-38 b5-4 b7-2 c1-1 c1-2

NIOSH NIOSH EPA NIOSH EPA EPA

c1-3 c4-1 c4-1 1

EPA DOD NSF

c4-14

NSF

c4-1 5 c4-17 c4-18 c4-19

NSF NSF USDA USDA

c4-22 c4-5 c4-6

USDA EPA EPA

Project Title

Estimated Annual Funding Systematic Microvascular Dysfunction Effects of Ultrafine Versus Fine Particles $200,000 Lung Oxidative Stress/Inflammation by Carbon Nanotubes $375,000 Effects of Ingested Nanoparticles on Gene Regulation in the Colon $100,000 Nanotechnology Safety and Health Coordination $100,000 Methodology Development for Manufactured Nanomaterial Bioaccumulation Test $133,256 The Effect of Surface Coatings on the Environmental and Microbial Fate of Nanoiron and $133,333 Feoxide Nanoparticles Aquatic Toxicity of Waste Stream Nanoparticles $133,276 Measure The Transport Of Modified Nanoparticles Through Soil SGER: Particle Incorporation of PAH in Aquatic Environments: Implications to Fate and $33,600 Transport CAREER: Interfacial Reactions Affecting Heavy Metal Fate and Transport: An Integrated $78,965 Research and Education Plan Carbon Nanoparticles in Combustion: A Multiscale Perspective $80,000 Aggregation and Deposition Behavior of Carbon Nanotubes in Aquatic Environments $133,333 Reactivity, Aggregation and Transport of Nanocrystalline Sesquioxides in the Soil System $61,736 Colloid Interfacial Reactions in Open Microchannel Representing Unsaturated Soil $48,001 Capillaries Sorption and Availability of Metals and Radionuclides in Soils Ecotoxicology of Underivatized Fullerenes (C60) in Fish $132,269 Carbon Nanotubes: Environmental Dispersion States, Transport, Fate, and Bioavailability $123,962

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

c4-7

EPA

c5-5

NSF

c5-6 d1-1 d1-2 d5-1

NSF NIOSH NIOSH DOD

d5-2 d5-3

NIOSH NSF

e1-1 e1-2 e1-3 e1-4 e2-1

NIOSH NIOSH NIOSH NIOSH EPA

e3-1 e5-1 e6-2

NIOSH NIOSH DOD

e6-5

NSF

e6-6

NSF

Biological Fate & Electron Microscopy Detection of Nanoparticles During Wastewater $132,999 Treatment Environmental Biogeochemistry and Nanoscience: Applications to Toxic Metal Transport $60,000 in the Environment Collaborative Research: Fullerene Aggregation in Aquatic Systems $116,164 Nanotechnology Research Coordination $233,333 Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) Nanoparticle Exposure Study $133,333 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR): The Impact of Nanomaterials on Occupational Safety and Health Nanoparticle in the Workplace $133,333 Experimental and Numerical Simulation of the Fate of Airborne Nanoparticles from a Leak $133,333 in a Manufacturing Process to Assess Worker Exposure Development and Evaluation of Nanofiber-based Filter Media $333,333 Penetration of Nanoparticles Through Respirator Filter Media $166,667 Automobile Ultrafine Intervention $333,333 Assessment Methods for Nanoparticles in the Workplace $133,333 Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Nano – and Bulk-materials in Photovoltaic Energy $100,000 Generation Developing a Web-Based Nano-Information Library $300,000 Nanotechnology Information Dissemination $200,000 WINGSTM-Web-Interfaced Nanotechnology ESH Guidance System for Force Health Protection NIRT: Nanotechnology in the Public Interest: Regulatory Challenges, Capacity, and Policy $350,000 Recommendations NIRT: Evaluating Oversight Models for Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems: Learning $305,191 from Past Technologies in a Societal Context

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Substantially Relevant Research NNI ID

Agency

Project Title

a2-13 a2-1 a2-2

NIST DOE DOE NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIST

Nanocharacterization - NCI Single Molecule Fluorescence In Nanoscale Environments The Reaction Specificity of Nano Particles In Solutions Near-Infrared Fluorescence Nanoparticles for Targeted O* $578,922 NIR Absorbing Nanoparticles For Cancer Therapy $152,591 A Tumor-Specific Nanoimmunocomplex Markedly Improves MR Imaging $460,490 CNS Gene Delivery and Imaging in brain Tumor Therapy $552,763 Nanoparticles for siRNA delivery to mammalian neurons $166,709 Bioengineering of the blood-brain barrier permeability $199,169 Reuse in RI: A State-based Approach to Complex Exposures $2,784,592 Design of Targeting Enhancement for Drug Delivery $ 1 84,653 Nanoparticles for efficient delivery to solid tumors $ 111 ,028 Multifunctional Nanoparticles for Intracellular Delivery $271 ,029 Hybrid Nanoparticles in Imaging and Therapy of Prostate* $585,773 Training in Pharmacometrics and the Therapeutic Application of Nanotechnology $147,236 Nanoparticles As Promoters of Cell Longevity $368,831 Nano-Apatite Coating of the Porous Surface of Implants $249, 124 The Interaction of Polycationic Organic Polymers with Biological Membranes $278,170 Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory Micellar VIP Nanoparticles for Rheumatoid Arthritis $257,713 Superresolution, In Situ Microscopies for Characterization of Nanostructured Materials

b1-16 b1-1 8 b1-19 b1-23 b1-24 b1-25 b1-26 b1 -4 b1 -5 b2-1 b3-4 b4-2 b5-20 b5-21 b5-22 b5-26 b5-32 a1-17

Estimated Annual Funding

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

a4-3 a4-4 a1 -29 a3-4

NIST NIST NSF NSF

b2-10

NSF

b2-1 1

NSF

c4-9 c5-2

NSF NSF

c5-4

NSF

c5-8 e6-1

NSF NSF

c1-5

USDA

c5-9

USDA

R&D For Carbon Nanotube Reference Materials R&D For Nanoparticle (non-Carbon Nanotube) Reference Materials NSEC for Molecular Function at the Nano/Bio Interface $ 1 ,820,700 IMR: Developement of an Analyzer for Size and Charge Characterization of $83,676 Nanoparticles in Research and Training NIRT: Design of Biocompatible Nanoparticles for Probing Living Cellular $330,938 Functions and Their Potential Environmental Impacts NER: Novel Cell Culture Stylus for the Rapid Assessment of Functional Nano-Bio $ 11 5,300 Interfaces CAREER: Carbonaceous Particles of Tarry Origin $ 11 0,742 CAREER: An Integrated Research and Education Program in Long-Term Durability $103,331 of Nano-Structured Cement-Based Materials during Environmental Weathering Investigating the Surface Structure and Reactivity of Bulk and Nanosized $109,857 Manganese Oxides NSEC: Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology $937,984 NSEC: Center for Nanotechnology in Society at University of California, Santa $885,761 Barbara Cellular and Materials-based Studies of Marine Invertebrates to Advance Biomineralization, Antifouling and Nanotechnology Fields The Chemical and Physical Nature of Particulate Matter Affecting air, Water, and Soil Quality.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Research with Some Relevance NNI ID

Agency

Project Title

a1-32 a1-33 b5-33 a1-34

NSF NSF NIH NSF

a1-35 a1-36 b5-39

NSF NSF NSF

a1-1 a1-3 b1-3 a1-4 a1-5

NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH

a1-6 b1-6 a1-7 b1-7 a1-8 b1-8

NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH

Molecular Simulation of Chemical Warfare Agent Adsorption NSEC: Center for Hierarchical Manufacturing Curcumin and Curcumin Derivatives for Alzheimer's Nanoscale Science & Engineering Center for Integrated Nanopatterning and Detection Technologies CAREER: Engineering Nucleic Acid Devices NSEC: Center Of Integrated Nanomechanical Systems (COINS) NIRT: Controlling Interfacial Activity of Nanoparticles: Robust Routes to Nanoparticle-based Capsules, Membranes, and Electronic Materials A study of model beta-cells in Diabetes Treatment Implantable 16-256 channel data system for sleep in mice Nanoparticle, Raman-based Fiber-optic Glucose Sensor Power Harvesting in Implanted Neural Probes Surface Plasmon-coupled Fluorescence Microscope to Study Ion Channel Dynamics A Turnkey, Wireless, EEG/EMG/Biosensor Measurement Engineered intelligent micelle for tumor pH targeting Cut Nanotube Capsules for MR Imaging (RMI) Carolina Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence Flourescent Ceramic Nanoprobes Center of Nanotechnology for Treatment, Understanding, and Monitoring of Cancer

Estimated Annual Funding $35,000 $814,472 $206,829 $2,117,092 $81,407 $1,915,697 $300,000 $298,020 $402,601 $377,105 $190,505 $186,713 $336,588 $268,607 $144,603 $3,325,006 $323,657 $3,839,972

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

a1-9 b1-9

NIH NIH

a1-1 0

NIH

b1-10 a1-11 b1-1 1 a1-12 b1-12 a1-13 b1 -13 bl-14 b1-15 a1-15 a1-16 b1-17 b1-20 b1-21 b1-22 a1-24

NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIST NIST NIH NIH NIH NIH NSF

a1 -25

NSF

Targeted MRI with Protein Cage Architectures (RMI) Emory-GA Tech Nanotechnology Center for Personalized and Predictive Oncology MFe2O4-Loaded Polymer Micelles as Ultra-Sensitive MR Molecular Probes (RMI) Nanomaterials for Cancer Diagnostics and Therapeutics Membrane Topography of Cell Signaling Complexes The MIT-Harvard Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellelence Non-viral Liver-targeted Gene Delivery The Siteman Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence Morphogen Gradients in Microfluidic Cultures Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence Focused on Therapy Response DNA-linked dendrimer nanoparticle systems for diagnosis Nanotherapeutic Strategy for Multidrug Resistant Tumors Quantum Optical Metrology Nano-scale Engineered Sensors for Ultra-low Magnetic Field Metrology Polymer chelate conjugates for Diagnostic cancer imaging In vivo imaging of diabetogenic cytotoxic T-lymphocytes Imaging Tumor Blood Vessels in Bone Metastases from Breast Cancer Early Detection of Renal Injury SST - Ferroelectric Thin-Film Active Sensor Arrays for Structural Health Monitoring CAREER: Hybrid Nanomaterials for Multi-Functional Sensors - Synthesis and Characterization of Nanocomposite Thin-Films for Device Applications

$354,053 $3,523,612 $351,746 $3,695,651 $259,841 $3,905,825 $297,630 $330,773 $138,118 $3,806,915 $468,218 $345,707

$239,418 $253,117 $322,971 $150,667 $80,000

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table. Continued NNI ID

Agency

Project Title

Estimated Annual Funding $80,000

a 1-26

NSF

a1-27 a1 -28 b1-28 b1 -29 b1-30 a1 -31 c2-1

NSF NSF NSF NSF NIH NSF NSF

b2-2 e2-2 a2-8 a2-9 b2-13

NIH NSF NIH NIH NSF

a2-14 c3-1

NIST NSF

a3-1

DOE

CAREER: Integrated Research and Education in Nano- and Microscale Photoacoustic and Photothermal Microscopy REU Site for Nanoscale Structures and Integrated Biosensors (NSIB) $130,400 Selective Filling of Nanostructured Packings for Chromatographic Chip Systems $75,000 Nanostructured Interfaces for Targeted Drug Delivery $25,000 Materials World Network: Designer Nanodiamonds for Detoxification $157,000 Integrated Nanosystems for Diagnosis and Therapy $2,713,460 IGERT: Nanoparticle Science and Engineering $475,747 Environmental Molecular Science Institute: Actinides and Heavy Metals in the $920,292 Environment - The Formation, Stability, and Impact of Nano- and MicroParticles Local Anesthetic Cardiotoxicity: Nanotechnology Therapy $250,062 The Life Cycle of Nanomanufacturing Technologies $100,000 Toxic Substances in the Environment $153,032 Bladder Tissue Engineering through Nanotechnology $170,033 NSEC: Center for Affordable Nanoengineering of Polymer Biomedical Devices $2,122,192 (CANPBD) Metrology for Tissue Engineering: Test Patterns and Cell Function Indicators NER: Nanoscale Size Effects on the Biogeochemical Reactivity of Iron Oxides in $114,998 Active Environmental Nanosystems A Fundamental Study of Transport Within A Single Nanoscopic Channel

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

b3-2 b3-3 b3-6 a4-1 b4-1

NIH NIH USDA NIH NIH

c4-2 c4-3

DOE DOE

b4-3 a4-5 a4-6 c4-8

NIH NIST NIST NIH

c4-10

NSF

c4-12

NSF

c4-13 c4-16

NSF NSF

c4-20

USDA

c4-21

USDA

Polymer-Nucleotide Complexes with Cytotoxic Activity $226,085 Detecting cancer early with targeted nano-probes for va $606,348 Role of Chromosome Alterations in Environmental Carcinogenesis Cryopreservation of tissue engineered substitutes $320,356 $140,195 Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes with Oral Administration of Nanoencapsulated GLP-1 How Do Interfacial Phenomena Control Nanoparticle Structure? "Frontiers In Biogeochemistry And Nanomineralogy: Studies In Quorum Sensing And Nanosulfide Dissolution Rates Pediatric Pharmacology Research Unit $413,937 Fundamental Metrology for Carbon Nanotube Science and Technology Scanning Probe Microscopy Reference Specimens $64,410 Sub-micrometer zero valent metal for in-situ remediation of contaminated aquifers NIRT: Metal Ion Complexation by Dendritic Nanoscale Ligands: Fundamental $305,750 Investigations and Applications to Water Purification SGER: Metallic Nanocatalysts for Rapid Transformation of Polychlorinated $25,000 Dibenzo-p-Dioxins Center for Advanced Materials for Water Purification $4,014,292 Development of a Copolymer-Based System for Targeted Delivery of $50,000 Nanoparticulate Iron to Environmental Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids Elucidating Interactions and Transformations of Pollutants and Organic Matter in Soil Conference Symposium: Environmental Mineralogy and Toxic Metals $8,500

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table. Continued NNI ID

Agency

Project Title

a5-3 c5-3 b5-5 b5-7 c5-7 b5-8 b5-9 b5-10 b5-1 1 b5-12 b5-14 a5-14

DOE NSF NIH NIH NSF NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NIH NSF

b5-1 5 a5-15 b5-16 b5-17 b5-1 8 b5-24

NIH NSF NIH NIH NIH NIH

b5-25 b5-27

NIH NIH

Directed Energy Interactions With Surfaces CAREER: Gas-Phase Catalytic Processes on Metal Nanoclusters Design of Targeting Enhancement for Drug Delivery Pharmacology of Targeted Therapy to Brain Tumors The formation rates and structure of nanodroplets Nanotechnology Platform for Pediatric Brain Cancer Image Multifunctional nanoparticles for targeted DNA vaccine delivery Novel Lentiviral Packaging Systems Translational Program of Excellence in Nanotechnology Designing ECM-Inspired Peptide Biomaterials for Regenerative Medicine Nanotechnology in Osseointegration of TMJ Implants Acquisition of a Powder X-ray Diffractometer for Environmental and Materials Research at UC Merced Complex Nanocomposites for Bone Regeneration Engineering Research Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Science and Technology BIOMIMETIC SCAFFOLD FOR BONE-REPAIR Nanotechnology Strategies for Growth of Bones and Teeth Nanocoatings for Biomedical Implants Stimulus-responsive, Mechanically-dynamic Nanocomposite for Cortical Electrodes Mechanisms of Orthopedic Implant Osteolysis Imaging Nanocomposites Targeting Tumor Microvasculature

Estimated Annual Funding $108,918 $184,653 $365,790 $131,333 $310,464 $137,582 $332,556 $3,081,892 $195,077 $298,727 $93,704 $657,312 $2,275,755 $298,530 $578,308 $211,480 $199,718 $23,799 $254,829

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

a6-1 e6-3 e6-4 c7-2 c7-3 c7-6

NSF NSF NSF NSF NSF NSF

c7-10

NSF

c7-11

NSF

Idaho Research Infrastructure Improvement $3,000,000 NSEC: The Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing (CHN) $2,033,540 NSEC: Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the Nanoscale $2,135,780 Reactive Membrane Technology for Water Treatment $101,062 Magnetocaloric Effect in Nanoparticle Assemblies for Refrigeration Applications $50,000 NIRT: Active Nanoparticles in Nanostructured Materials Enabling Advances in $278,000 Renewable Energy and Environmental Remediation CAREER: On the Prevention of Selenium and Arsenic Release into the $79,952 Atmosphere Nanoscale Mineralogy and Geochemistry of Arsenian Pyrite in Ore Deposits $71,741

Research with Marginal Relevance NNI ID

Agency

Project Title

a1-2 a1-18 a1-19 a1-20 a1-21 a1-22 a1-30 a2-3 b2-3

NIST NIST NIST NIST NIST NIST NSF DOE NIH

Develop Fiber-Optic Confocal Microscope With Nanoscale Depth Resolution Metrology of Semiconductor Quantum Nanowires High Throughput Hyperspectral Data Analysis Dimensional Metrology Program Surface Metrology Phase Sensitive Scatterfield Imaging for Sub-10 nm Dimensional Metrology National High Magnetic Field Laboratory Manipulation and Quantitative Interrogation of Nanostructures Bioabsorbable Membranes for Prevention of Adhesions

Estimated Annual Funding

$28,647,208 $415,114

,

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table. Continued NNI ID

Agency

Project Title

a2-4 b2-4 a2-5

DOE NIH DOE

a2-6

DOE

a2-7 a2-10 a2-11 a5-1 c5-1

DOE NIH NIH DOE DOE

a5-2 a5-4 a5-5 a5-6 b5-6 a5-7 a5-8 a5-9 a5-10 a5-1 1 a5-12 b5-13

DOE DOE DOE DOE NIH DOE DOE DOE NIH NIST NIST NIH

Diffraction Studies of Glasses, Liquids, and Nanoclusters NanoMedex Propofol Microemulsions: Preclinical Studies to FDA IND Application New Methods and Instrumentation For the Study of Complex Magnetic Materials and Nanostructures Using Soft X-ray Spectroscopies Using Plasmon Peaks In Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy To Determine the Physical and Mechanical Properties of Nanoscale Materials Nano-structures Examined With Spin-polarized Positron Beams Nano-Porous Alumina Membranes for Enhanced Hemodialysis Performance Biotechnology Research Infrastructure at Albany State U* Chemical Analysis of Nanodomains Experimental, Theoretical, And Model-based Studies Of Crystallographically Controlled Selfassembly during Nanocrystal Growth Atomic Scale Chemical Imaging In 3 Dimensions Studies of Nanoscale Structure and Structural Defects of Advanced Materials Microscopy Investigations of Nanostructured Materials Three-dimensional Imaging of Nanoscale Materials By Using Coherent X-rays USING VIRAL NANOPARTICLES TO TARGET CANCER Electron Diffraction Determination of Nanoscale Structures Quantitative Electron Nano-crystallography and Nano-spectroscopy High Resolution Lenseless 3d Imaging of Nanostructures With Coherent X-rays Thin-walled Micromolding 3-D Chemical Imaging at the Nanoscale Metrology for the Manufacture of Robust Nanostructures New Nanoparticles for Antimicrobial Therapy of Dental Plaque Related Diseases

Estimated Annual Funding $411,614

$183,400 $793,298

$726,937

$336,916

$145,988

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science Publishers,

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

a5-13 b5-19 b5-23 a6-2 a7-1

NSF NIH NIH NSF NSF

c7-1 c7-4 c7-5 c7-7

NSF NSF NSF NSF

c7-8 c7-9

NSF NSF

CAREER: Multi-Scale and Multi-Disciplinary Aspects of Indentation Center of Excellence in Translational Human Stem Cell Research Reconfigurable Nanoengineered Extracellular Matricss NNIN: National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network SGER: MEMS-Based Preconcentrators with Nano-Structured Adsorbents for Micro Gas Chromatography New Mexico EPSCoR RII (NM NEW) Proposal Delaware Research Infrastructure Improvement Program Alabama Research Infrastructure Improvement NIRT: Actively Reconfigurable Nanostructured Surfaces for the Improved Separation of Biological Macromolecules NIRT: Environmentally Benign Deagglomeration and Mixing of Nanoparticles CAREER: Hydroxyl Radical and Sulfate Radical-Based Advanced Oxidation Nanotechnologies for the Destruction of Biological Toxins in Water

$79,923 $893,968 $172,163 $11,180,430 $50,000 $1,687,500 $2,000,000 $2,066,667 $250,000 $304,688 $85,524

United States House of Representatives Committee …

33

ENDNOTES

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

These figures are based on an assessment of published U.S. and European riskrelated research projects, and their relevance to addressing potential risks. See Annex A and Annex B for further information. Full access to the information used in the assessment is available at www.nanotechproject.org/ inventories/ehs/ (accessed 4/15/08). 2 NNI (2008). Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research, National Nanotechnology Initiative, Washington DC. 3 Lane, Neal and Kalil, Thomas, “The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation,” Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2005. 4 For further information see www.nanotechproject.org. Accessed April 4, 2008. 5 Maynard, A. D., Aitken, R. J., Butz, T., Colvin, V., Donaldson, K., Oberdörster, G., Philbert, M. A., Ryan, J., Seaton, A., Stone, V., Tinkle, S. S., Tran, L., Walker, N. J. and Warheit, D. B. (2006). Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267-269. 6 Oberdörster, G., Stone, V. and Donaldson, K. (2007). Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 1:2 - 25. 7 An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/. Accessed 3/30/08. 8 Maynard, A. D. (2006). Nanotechnology: A research strategy for addressing risk, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DC. 9 See Annex A, and supporting information in Annex B. 10 United States House of Representatives Committee on Science. Hearing on Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: What are Federal Agencies Doing? Testimony of Andrew D. Maynard. September 21 2006. 11 United States House of Representatives Committee on Science. Hearing on Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation under the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Testimony of Andrew D. Maynard, October 31, 2007. 12 See also: Maynard, A. D. (2006). Nanotechnology: A research strategy for addressing risk, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DC. 13 NIOSH (2008). Strategic plan for NIOSH nanotechnology research. Filling the knowledge gaps. Draft, February 26 2008 (Update). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington DC..

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

34

Andrew D. Maynard

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

14

See Annex A, with supporting information in Annex B. Project specific data underpinning this analysis can be found in the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Environment, Health and Safety Research inventory (http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/, accessed 4/15/08). This inventory is in the process of being adopted and updated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Working Party on manufactured Nanomaterials. 15 Further independent assessment of research funded in 2006 reveals funding for highly relevant risk research was closer to $20 million (http:// www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs/, accessed 4/8/08). The discrepancy appears to be due to relevant research that that the NNI missed in their analysis—another indicator that the government is not on top of what research is being funded, and lacks sufficient transparency for effective accountability. 16 The OECD nanotechnology risk research database is based on the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies inventory of nanotechnology Environment, Health and Safety Research (http://www.nanotechproject.org/ inventories/ehs/, accessed 4/8/08). Due to be launched in June 2008, it will include information on project relevance to addressing nanotechnology risks, and funding levels. For further details, see http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/34/6/37852382.ppt (accessed 4/8/08) 17 United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education. Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation under the National Nanotechnology Initiative Testimony of Andrew D. Maynard. October 31 2007. 18 For further information see The Health Effects Institute, www.healtheffects.org. Accessed Oct 13 2007. 19 For further information see The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, www.fnih.org. Accessed Oct 13 2007. 20 For further information, see the International Council On Nanotechnology, icon.rice.edu. Accessed Oct 13 2007. 21 Lux Research (2007). The nanotech report. 5th edition., Lux Research Inc., New York, N.Y. 22 “Awareness of And Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology And Federal Regulatory Agencies” conducted on behalf of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., September 25, 2007.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

United States House of Representatives Committee … 23

24

25

26

27

Lane, Neal and Kalil, Thomas, “The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation,” Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2005. NNI (2008). Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research, Washington DC, National Nanotechnology Initiative. Environment, safety and health research. www.nanotechproject.org/ inventories/ehs/ (accessed 4/15/08). For further details on the OECD risk research database, see http://www. oecd.org/dataoecd/34/6/37852382.ppt (accessed 4/8/08) EU nanotechnology R&D in the field of health and environmental impact of nanoparticles. DG Research, January 28, 2008. Refer to Annex A for definitions of relevance. All research projects in the document “Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research, Washington DC, National Nanotechnology Initiative.” (NNI, 2008) are listed; not all specifically address engineered nanomaterials though, or were funded in 2006.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

28

35

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

In: National Nanotechnology Initiative Editor: Jerrod W. Kleike, pp. 37-107

ISBN 978-1-60692-727-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE: SECOND ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY ADVISORY PANEL*

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY President Bush established the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) by Executive Order 13226 in September 2001. Under this Executive Order, PCAST “shall advise the President ... on matters involving science and technology policy,” and “shall assist the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in securing private sector involvement in its activities.” The NSTC is a Cabinet-level council that coordinates interagency research and development activities and science and technology policy-making processes across Federal departments and agencies. PCAST enables the President to receive advice from the private sector, including the academic community, on important issues relevant to technology, *

Excerpted from the Report of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, dated April , 2008

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

38

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

scientific research, mathematics and science education, and other issues of national concern. The PCAST-NSTC link provides a mechanism to facilitate the public-private exchange of ideas that inform Federal science and technology policy- making processes. As a private sector advisory committee, PCAST recommendations do not constitute Administration policy but rather provide advice to the Administration in the science and technology arena. PCAST follows a tradition of Presidential advisory panels on science and technology dating back to Presidents Truman and Eisenhower. The Council's 35 members, appointed by the President, are drawn from industry, education, and research institutions, and other nongovernmental organizations. In addition, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy serves as PCAST's CoChair.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY ADVISORY PANEL The National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) was created by the United States Congress in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108-153), signed by President Bush on December 3, 2003. The Act required the President to establish or designate an NNAP to review the Federal nanotechnology research and development program. On July 23, 2004, President Bush formally designated the PCAST to act as the NNAP.

ABOUT THIS REPORT The Act that created the NNAP calls for this advisory body to conduct a review of the NNI and report its findings to the President. The Act calls upon the NNAP to assess the trends and developments in nanotechnology, and the strategic direction of the NNI, particularly as it relates to maintaining U.S. leadership in nanotechnology research. The Act also requires comment on NNI program activities, management, coordination, implementation, and whether the program is adequately addressing societal, ethical, legal, environmental, and workforce issues. The Act calls for the NNAP to report on its assessments and to make recommendations for ways to improve the program at least every two years. The Director of the Office of Science and

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

39

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Technology Policy is to transmit a copy of the NNAP report to Congress. This is the second report of the NNAP under the Act. Front cover: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image showing piezoelectric zinc oxide nanowires grown around two conductive microfibers. One fiber is coated with metal (top left) and one is not (bottom right). The two sets of nanowires meet teeth-to-teeth, allowing the metal-coated microfibers to scrub those not coated with metal to produce electricity via a coupled piezoelectric- semiconducting process. This approach can be applied to harvesting electrical energy from mechanical energy produced by body movement, light wind, vibration, and sound, with potential for powering small biomedical devices, nanoelectronics, nanosensors, and even personal electronics. Courtesy of Zhong Lin Wang, Georgia Institute of Technology (see Qin, Wang, and Wang 2008 for more information). Cover design by Nicolle Rager Fuller of Sayo-Art. Copyright information: This document is a work of the U.S. Government and is in the public domain. Subject to the following stipulation, it may be distributed and copied. Copyrights to graphics included in this document are reserved by original copyright holders or their assignees and are used here under the Government’s license and by permission.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502 April 7, 2008 President George W. Bush The White House Washington, D.C. 20502 Dear Mr. President: We are pleased to send you the report, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, prepared by your Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in the advisory role you formally designated for it in July 2004 by Executive Order. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) remains a model program with world-class infrastructure at our universities and national labs and strong

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

40

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

management and interagency coordination. In short, our review shows that the NNI continues to: • • •

Provide effective coordination across agencies, with industry, and with other nations; Facilitate expanding technology transfer efforts and build connections across the unparalleled innovation ecosystem in the U.S.; and Prioritize environmental, health, and safety research that facilitates appropriate risk analysis and risk management in step with technological innovation.

To strengthen the NNI and bolster implementation, our recommendations include: • •

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

Expand communication and outreach efforts, particularly with respect to real and perceived benefits and risks associated with nanotechnology; Develop and implement standards critical for nanomaterial identification, characterization, and risk assessment; and Coordinate strategically-guided nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety research across agencies, sectors, and countries and include balanced assessment of risks and benefits in the context of specific, realworld applications.

The full PCAST discussed and approved this report at its public meeting on January 8, 2008. We continue to anticipate broad and significant societal benefits from nanotechnology and will continue to monitor on your behalf the progress of Federal programs to this end.

John H. Marburger, III Co-Chair

E. Floyd Kvamme Co-Chair

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Chairs John H. Marburger, III Co-Chair and Director Office of Science and Technology Policy

Members Duane Ackerman Former Chairman and CEO BellSouth Corporation

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Paul M. Anderson Chairman and CEO Duke Energy Charles J. Arntzen Regents’ Professor and Florence Ely Nelson Presidential Chair The Biodesign Institute Arizona State University Norman R. Augustine Former Chairman and CEO Lockheed Martin Corporation Carol Bartz Executive Chairman of the Board Autodesk, Inc. M. Kathleen Behrens Managing Director Robertson Stephens & Co. Erich Bloch

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

41

42

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Director The Washington Advisory Group Robert A. Brown President Boston University Wayne Clough President Georgia Institute of Technolog E. Floyd Kvamme Co-Chair and Partner Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Michael S. Dell Chairman of the Board Dell Inc. Nance K. Dicciani President and CEO Honeywell Specialty Materials Raul J. Fernandez CEO ObjectVideo Marye Anne Fox Chancellor University of California, San Diego Martha Gilliland Senior Fellow Council for Aid to Education Ralph Gomory President Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative Bernadine Healy Health Editor and Columnist U.S. News and World Report Robert J. Herbold Former Executive Vice President Microsoft Corporation Richard H. Herman Chancellor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Martin J. Jischke President Emeritus Purdue University Fred Kavli Founder and Chairman Kavli Foundation

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Bobbie Kilberg President Northern Virginia Technology Council Walter E. Massey President Morehouse College E. Kenneth Nwabueze CEO SageMetrics Steven G. Papermaster Chairman Powershift Ventures Luis M. Proenza President University of Akron Daniel A. Reed Director of Scalable and Multicore National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

43

44

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Computing Strategy Microsoft Corporation George Scalise President Semiconductor Industry Association Stratton D. Sclavos Chairman of the Board, President, and CEO VeriSign John Brooks Slaughter President and CEO The National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Joseph M. Tucci Chairman, President, and CEO EMC Corporation Charles M. Vest President National Academy of Engineering Robert E. Witt President University of Alabama Tadataka Yamada President, Global Health Program Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Executive Director Scott J. Steele

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

45

OSTP Staff Liaison Travis M. Earles

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-153) calls for a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) to periodically review the Federal nanotechnology research and development (R&D) program known as the National Nanotechnology Initiative (N NI). The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is designated by Executive Order to serve as the NNAP. This report is the second NNAP review of the NNI, updating the first assessment published in 2005. Including the NNI budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2009 of $1.5 billion, the total NNI investment since its inception in 2001 is nearly $10 billion. The total annual global investment in nanotechnology is an estimated $13.9 billion, divided roughly equally among the United States, Europe, and Asia. Industry analysis suggests that private investment has been outpacing that of government since about 2006. The activities, balance, and management of the NNI among the 25 participating U.S. agencies and the efforts to coordinate with stakeholders from outside the Federal Government, including industry and other governments, are the subject of this report. The first report answered four questions: How are we doing? Is the money well spent and the program well managed? Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks? How can we do better? That report was generally positive in its conclusions but provided recommendations for improving or strengthening efforts in the following areas: technology transfer; environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research and its coordination; education and workforce preparation; and societal dimensions. Since the first report, increasing attention has been focused on the potential risks of nanotechnology, especially the possible harm to human health and the environment from nanomaterials. In this second assessment, the NNAP paid special attention to the NNI efforts in these areas. During its review, the NNAP obtained input from various sources. It convened a number of expert panels and consulted its nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (nTAG) and the President’s Council on Bioethics. NNI member

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

46

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

agencies and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) also provided valuable information. The NNAP finds that the United States remains a leader in nanotechnology based on various metrics, including R&D expenditures and outputs such as publications, citations, and patents. However, taken as a region, the European Union has more publications, and China’s output is increasing. There are many examples of NNI-funded research results that are moving into commercial applications. However, measures of technology transfer and the commercial impact of nanotechnology as a whole are not readily available, in part because of the difficulty in defining what is, and is not, a “nanotechnology-based product.” The NNAP commends and encourages the ongoing NNI investment in infrastructure and instrumentation. Leading-edge nanoscale research often requires advanced equipment and facilities. The NNI investment in over 81 centers and user facilities across the country that provide broad access to costly instrumentation, state-of- the-art facilities, and technical expertise has been enormously important and successful. These facilities, which have been funded by many different agencies in order to address a variety of missions, support a diverse range of academic, industry, and government research. In addition, the NNI investment has been used to leverage additional support by universities, State governments, and the private sector. Advances in nanotechnology are embodied in a growing number of applications and products in various industries. Many early applications have been more evolutionary than revolutionary. However, research funded by the NNI today has the potential for innovations that are paradigm shifting, for example in energy and medicine. As with any emerging technology, there is potential for unintended consequences or uses that may prove harmful to health or the environment or that may have other societal implications. The NNAP notes that existing regulations apply to nanotechnology-based products, and those who make or sell such products have responsibilities regarding workplace and product safety. As in 2005, the NNAP believes that the greatest risk of exposure to nanomaterials at present is to workers who manufacture or handle such materials. However, environmental, health, and safety risks in a wide range of settings must be identified and the necessary research performed so that real risks can be appropriately addressed. The NNAP views the approach for addressing EHS research under the NNI as sound. The recent reports by the interagency Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group are good steps by the NNI to prioritize needed EHS research and to coordinate EHS activity across the Federal

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

47

Government. The NNAP feels that calls for a separate agency or office devoted to nanotechnology EHS research or to set aside a fixed percentage of the budget for EHS research are misguided and may have the unintended consequence of reducing research on beneficial applications and on risk. In addition to EHS implications, the NNAP considered ethical and other societal aspects of nanotechnology. In consultation with the President’s Council on Bioethics, the panel concluded that at present, nanotechnology does not raise ethical concerns that are unique to the field. Rather, concerns over implications for privacy and for equality of access to benefits are similar to concerns over technological advances in general. This finding does not diminish the importance of continued dialogue and research on the societal aspects of nanotechnology. Overall, the members of the NNAP feel that the NNI continues to be a highly successful model for an interagency program; it is well organized and well managed. The structure of the interagency Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council effectively coordinates the breadth of nanotechnology activities across the Federal Government. The NSET working groups target functional areas in which additional focus is required. The NNCO provides important support that is a key to the success of the program. The Strategic Plan updated in 2007 clearly communicates the goals and priorities for the initiative and includes actions for achieving progress. With the separation in the updated plan of EHS research from that on other societal dimensions, the NNAP finds the Program Component Areas (PCAs) that are defined for purposes of tracking programs and investments serve the NNI well. The NNAP has a number of recommendations for strengthening the NNI, which are grouped into six areas. 1. Infrastructure, management, and coordination. The NNAP feels that the substantial infrastructure of multidisciplinary centers, user facilities, along with instrumentation, equipment, and technical expertise, is vital to continued U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology and should be maintained. Whereas the NNAP finds the coordination and management among the NNI participating agencies to be generally strong, intraagency coordination should be improved, especially in large, segmented agencies. The NNI member agencies should continue to support international coordination through effective international forums, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Such efforts will aid in the development of information related to health and safety, as well as addressing economic barriers and impacts.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

48

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

2.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

3.

4.

5.

Implementing and monitoring this recommendation should lead to more effective use of agency resources. Standards development. Nanotechnology standards are necessary for activities ranging from research and development to commerce and regulation. Federal agencies should continue to engage in national and international standards development activities. The NNI should maintain a strong U.S. representation in international forums and seek to avoid duplicative standards development work. Where appropriate, NIST and other NNI agencies should develop reference materials, test methods, and other standards that provide broad support for industry production of safe nanotechnology-based products. Technology transfer and commercialization. The NNI should continue to fund world-class research to promote technology transfer. Strong research programs produce top-notch nanoscale scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, who graduate with knowledge, skills, and innovative ideas. Such programs also have the potential to attract more U.S. students to related fields. NNI-funded centers should be structured to spur partnering with industry, which enhances technology transfer. The NNI should seek means to assess more accurately nanotechnology-related innovation and commercialization of NNI research results. These efforts should be coordinated with those of the OECD to assess economic impact of nanotechnology internationally. Environmental, health, and safety implications. The NNAP feels that the NNI has made considerable progress since its last review in the level and coordination of EHS research for nanomaterials. Such efforts should be continued and should be coordinated with those taking place in industry and with programs funded by other governments to avoid gaps and unnecessary duplication of work. Moreover, EHS research should be coordinated with, not segregated from, applications research to promote risk and benefit being considered together. This is particularly important when development and risk assessment research are taking place in parallel, as they are for nanotechnology today. The NNI should take steps to make widely available nonproprietary information about the properties of nanomaterials and methods for risk/benefit analysis. Societal and ethical implications. Research on the societal and ethical aspects of nanotechnology should be integrated with technical R&D and take place in the context of broader societal and ethical scholarship. The NNAP feels that this approach will broaden the range of perspectives and increase exchange of views on topics that affect society at large.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

49

6. Communication and outreach. The NNAP is concerned that public opinion is susceptible to hype and exaggerated statements—both positive and negative. The NNI should be a trusted source of information about nanotechnology that is accessible to a range of stakeholders, including the public. The NNI should expand outreach and communication activities by the NNCO and the Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications Working Group and by coordinating existing agency communication efforts. To enhance effectiveness, the information should be developed with broad input and through processes that incorporate two-way communication with the intended audiences.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

This review complements an assessment by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. The NNAP agrees with many of the NRC recommendations. However, the NNAP questions the recommendation for a formal, independent advisory panel. The panel feels that the current arrangement—whereby the NRC panels of technical experts, the high-level science and technology management leaders of PCAST, and the nanotechnology experts on the nTAG each provide distinct and useful input to the NNI review process— provides a broader perspective than would a single group consisting of a smaller number of advisors.

I. INTRODUCTION Nanotechnology Nanotechnology involves the understanding, control, and use of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometers, where unique characteristics enable novel applications. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter; a strand of human hair is about 100,000 nanometers in diameter. At the nanoscale, the physical, chemical, and biological properties of materials often differ in fundamental and valuable ways from the properties of individual atoms and molecules or from the properties of bulk matter. Nanotechnology has emerged in the last decades of the 20th century with the development of new enabling technologies for imaging, manipulating, and simulating matter at the atomic scale. The frontier of nanotechnology research and development (R&D) encompasses a broad range of science and engineering activities directed toward understanding and creating improved materials, devices,

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

50

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

and systems that exploit the properties of matter that emerge at the nanoscale. The results promise benefits that will shift paradigms in biomedicine (e.g., imaging, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention); energy (e.g., conversion and storage); electronics (e.g., computing and displays); manufacturing; environmental remediation; and many other categories of products and applications. With such a broad range of applications, nanotechnology R&D is taking place in academic, government, and industry laboratories across the country and around the world. Often, nanotechnology research is at the intersection of traditional disciplines, including chemistry, biology, materials science, and computer science. As cutting-edge research proceeds, early commercial uses are coming to market, typically in the form of improvements to existing products and processes such as coatings and composite materials.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) The NNI was established in FY 2001 to coordinate the diverse nanotechnology activities across the Federal Government and to leverage expertise and investments among Federal agencies and with precompetitive and noncompetitive activities by industry and by other governments. The initiative continues to be an R&D priority of the Administration. Today, the NNI comprises 25 Federal agencies, 13 of which have designated R&D budgets for nanotechnology. Collectively, the nanotechnology R&D budget amounts to a requested $1.5 billion in FY 2009, bringing the total Federal investment in nanotechnology research and development since the NNI was established in 2001 to nearly $10 billion. Operational interagency coordination of the NNI occurs through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET), which is composed of representatives from all Federal agencies participating in the NNI. The NSET Subcommittee has established four working groups to address distinct programmatic aspects of the NNI: • •

Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN) Working Group supports U.S. Government activities in international forums related to nanotechnology. Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group addresses Federal nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research; develops coordinated EHS research strategy; and facilitates interagency activities related to EHS aspects of nanotechnology.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative •

•

51

Nanomanufacturing, Industry Liaison, and Innovation (NILI) Working Group coordinates industry collaboration and supports commercialization, manufacturing, and technology transfer. Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications (NPEC) Working Group coordinates relevant communications and outreach efforts across agencies and internationally, including those related to ethical and societal issues.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) provides dedicated technical and administrative support to the NSET Subcommittee, the four working groups, and the NNI agencies with respect to NNI activities, coordination, and communication with the public. The NNI is subject by law to regular, extensive oversight. In its role as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (described below), the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) reviews the NNI on a biennial basis through reports such as this one. The National Academies also conducts an external assessment of particular aspects of the NNI on a triennial basis. In addition to these statutory reviews, the Government Accountability Office is currently evaluating NNI coordination and reporting of nanotechnologyrelated EHS research.

National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (108th Congress 2003, Public Law 108-153) calls for the President to establish or designate a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP). In 2004, by Executive Order the President designated the duties of the NNAP to PCAST. The NNAP is responsible for assessing: • • • • • • •

trends and developments in nanotechnology science and engineering implementation progress any need for programmatic revisions the balance among the components of the NNI, including funding levels for the NNI program component areas how the NNI is helping to maintain U.S. leadership in nanotechnology management, coordination, implementation, and program activities how the NNI is addressing societal, ethical, legal, environmental, and workforce concerns.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

52

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

In May 2005, PCAST released the report of its first biennial review of the NNI in its capacity as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (PCAST 2005). The report addressed four questions: (1) Where do we stand? (2) Is this money well spent and the program well managed? (3) Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks? (4) How can we do better? The panel’s principal findings at the time were as follows: •

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

The United States is the acknowledged leader in nanotechnology research and development. Federal research investment accounts for roughly onequarter of the current government investment by all nations. It also leverages larger investments from the private sector and State and local governments. The United States hosts the most nanotechnology-based start-up companies and produces by far the most patents and publications in nanotechnology. However, growing public and private investment around the world is raising competitive pressure on U.S. leadership. U.S. Federal Government investment in nanotechnology is robust and well spent. The NNI Strategic Plan provides an appropriate guide to program development, and the interagency NSET Subcommittee, with the support of the NNCO, effectively coordinates program implementation and management and facilitates interaction with industry and the public at large. Continued robust funding is important in order to realize long-term benefits. The NNI is working to identify, prioritize, and practically address environmental and health effects of nanotechnology as well as other societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology.

Based on its first assessment, the NNAP noted some specific areas for further attention and made the following recommendations to strengthen the NNI: •

•

Technology transfer – The NNI should expand efforts to dialogue with U.S. industry, increase Federal-State coordination, and improve knowledge management of and access to NNI assets (e.g., user facilities and instrumentation). Environmental and health implications – The NNI should continue its efforts to understand the possible toxicological effects of nanotechnology, particularly in workplace settings where nanomaterials are manufactured or used and where exposure is most likely to occur. Where evidence of harmful human or environmental health effects exist, pertinent Federal agencies should apply appropriate regulatory

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

•

•

53

mechanisms. Strong interagency collaboration as well as international coordination on these issues is essential. Societal implications – The NNI should support research aimed at understanding societal (including ethical, economic, and legal) implications of nanotechnology and should actively work to inform the public about nanotechnology. Education/workforce preparation – The NNI should establish relationships with the Departments of Education (DOEd) and Labor (DOL) to develop education and training systems to improve the Nation’s technical proficiency in areas related to nanotechnology.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

NNAP review of the NNI is complemented by that of the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. In December 2006, the NRC released its first triennial review of the NNI, largely in parallel to the initial NNAP review, but including specific one-time studies on the technical feasibility of molecular manufacturing and the responsible development of nanotechnology (NRC 2006). Appendix D presents a summary of the key findings from that report. The NNAP offers the following specific comments on the NRC recommendations: •

•

•

The members of the NNAP believe the Federal Government does play a unique role in support of nanotechnology research and development that balances short- and long-term goals in support of basic and applied research and that cultivates and maintains a “robust supporting infrastructure.” The NNAP concurs that it is premature to rigorously assess the levels of risk posed by engineered nanomaterials. Adequate tools are being developed but are not yet in place; therefore, expanded nanotechnology EHS research, broad-based protocol development, and particularly standardization are necessary. The NNAP questions the need for a formal, independent advisory panel with “specific operational expertise in nanoscale science and engineering; management of research centers, facilities, and partnerships; and interdisciplinary collaboration.” Functionally, the latter two of these areas are not unique or specific to nanotechnology. The current arrangement, whereby the NRC panel of technical experts, the high-level science and technology management expertise of PCAST, and the nanotechnology experts on the ad hoc Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (nTAG) each provide input to the NNI review process, provides a broader

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

54

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

•

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

perspective than would a single group consisting of a smaller number of advisors. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) guidelines, the number of such panels is closely managed and should only be established when they are essential to attaining clear Federal priorities. In addition, the NRC and NNAP will continue to provide regular oversight, assembling for the task an appropriately broad range of technical advisors having specific expertise related to nanotechnology. Assessing and projecting economic impacts of nanotechnology investment are indeed challenging. The NNAP welcomes a study on the feasibility of developing metrics to better quantify the economic return on government investment in nanotechnology. The NNAP supports the idea of increasing coordination through the NNI focused on education, training, and workforce preparation in conjunction with DOEd and DOL participants.

This report represents the second biennial review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative by PCAST in its capacity as the NNAP. NNAP members brought to their review of the NNI a considerable range of expertise, including significant experience managing large-scale, multidisciplinary research, development, and commercialization endeavors. The NNAP also solicited assessments and recommendations broadly from representatives of industry and the academic community (from both science and humanities disciplines), through the nTAG, as well as from members of the NSET Subcommittee and other agency representatives. Together, these representatives addressed the wide range of nanotechnology research, development, education, technology transfer, commercialization, environmental, health, and safety issues, as well as societal and ethical concerns related to the NNI. The NNAP also convened a public meeting on June 25, 2007, to discuss the same issues.1 Collectively, these sources supplemented the broad and deep expertise of NNAP members with detailed and current expertise, feedback, and perspectives in a range of relevant technical and societal areas. This report updates the assessment of and recommendations for the NNI issued by the NNAP in May 2005, noting specifically relative progress and status in nanotechnology research and development; applications and fostering commercialization; and implications for the environment, health, safety, and ethics issues, including public perception and the importance of sound communication. 1

See http://www.ostp.gov/pdf/agenda607.pdf for meeting agenda and presentations.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

55

II. PROGRESS AND STATUS: LEADING CHANGES SINCE 2005 Principal Findings • •

•

•

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

Investment in research, development, and commercialization continues to increase in the United States and around the world. Scientific research is demonstrating greater potential from nanotechnology for both evolutionary and revolutionary changes. More nanotechnology-based products are coming to market. The world-class research and development infrastructure of the NNI continues to grow and strengthen, enabling broader participation in leading-edge research and multidisciplinary collaborations, and accelerating technology innovation towards functional applications. Progress is evident in many areas of opportunity, as identified by the Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (nTAG) and in response to specific recommendations from the NNAP in 2005. NNI investment is broadly leveraged. NNI leadership has catalyzed increased investment in the private sector and around the world. The NNAP commends the NNI agencies for their leadership in international forums, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Growing Investment U.S. investment in nanotechnology research and development continues to grow. Overall Federal funding for nanotechnology-related research and development has grown from a request of $982 million for FY 20052 to a request of $1.53 billion for FY 2009—a growth of over 50%— and has tripled from the initial NNI funding in 2001 (see Figure II-1) (NSTC/NSET, FY 2009 Budget, 2008). The growth rate has slowed somewhat over the past few years. Funding is distributed across the NNI-designated Program Component Areas (PCAs) (see list of PCAs in Appendix B) by all 13 agencies that have designated 2

Note that actual spending in 2005 was $1.2 billion, well over the amount requested, due to a combination of programmatic changes and Congressional additions, or earmarks, during the appropriation process.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

56

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

nanotechnology R&D budgets; this reflects the importance to the NNI agency missions of simultaneous advances in all of the PCAs (see Figure II-2 and Appendix C, which set out the FY 2009 agency appropriation requests by PCA).

Figure II-1. Collective agency funding (in millions of dollars) reported since inception of the NNI (the 2008 figure is estimated; the 2009 figure is requested.

Figure II-2. NNI funding (in millions of dollars) by Program Component Area (PCA) (planned for FY 2009).

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

57

International private sector funding (both corporate and venture capital) has also increased since 2005, from an estimated $5 billion to over $7 billion in 2007. Total public and private sector support for nanotechnology R&D continues to grow around the globe, topping an estimated $13.9 billion worldwide as of 2007 (Lux Research 2007), divided roughly equally among the United States, Europe, and Asia. The continued growth in total R&D investment worldwide reflects the widely recognized potential for broad- based benefits from nanotechnology, in both the near and the long term. In the collective memory of NNAP and nTAG members regarding the technology industry, this is the first time that U.S. investment has been so closely matched by European and Asian investment. This requires a more focused look at the competitiveness of the U.S. program. Evolutionary changes introduced by nanotechnology are already impacting the market in a variety of materials and consumer products, including textiles, food packaging, home improvement tools and materials, sporting goods, reformulated drugs, and automobile parts. Ongoing research and development advances promise forthcoming revolutionary changes in energy capture and storage, molecular electronics, environmental sensing and remediation, and personalized medicine. The research infrastructure created by the NNI to date remains the essential framework for fundamental nanotechnology research and innovation in the United States—and a central distinction of U.S. leadership in this field. Since 2005, the NNI infrastructure has continued to expand: the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established 21 new research centers focused on cancer nanotechnology and nanomedicine development, including the National Cancer Institute’s Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory; all five Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) at Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories have come on line, significantly boosting available research user facilities; the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) opened the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology in conjunction with its state-of-the-art Advanced Measurement Laboratory; and the National Science Foundation (NSF) set up two Centers for Nanotechnology and Society as well as the Network for Informal Science Education at the Nanoscale and the National Nanomanufacturing Network (see Figure II-3). In all, the NNI leads the world in supporting over 81 centers, networks, and user facilities for pursuit of nanotechnology R&D, education, and discourse (NSTC/NSET 2007). This research capacity supports a broad base of scientific communities and facilitates extensive interdisciplinary research and development, which is essential for maintaining a competitive position in both fundamental

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

58

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

science and emerging applications of nanotechnology. This unmatched array of user facilities should help U.S. industry stay ahead in the competition for leadership in nanotechnology commercialization.

Figure II-3. NNI centers, networks, and user facilities.

Measuring Progress Identifying meaningful metrics and securing relevant data with respect to advancements in the broad range of research, development, and commercialization outcomes related specifically to nanotechnology remains challenging. By and large, this is not unique to nanotechnology. Entire academic careers are spent studying how best to measure and account for scientific progress. When it comes to nanotechnology, however, such endeavors encounter numerous complicating factors. The fact that nanoscale research is integral to forefront research in many disciplines—including physics, chemistry, materials science, engineering, medicine, and biology—makes it difficult to separate and quantify research results directly attributable to nanotechnology. Assessing commercial impact is equally difficult. There is not a “nanotechnology industry,” but rather, nanotechnology is developed and applied in almost every industry sector, making it infeasible to quantify the number of nanotechnology products or

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

59

workers. Such inconsistency across discipline and product boundaries confounds comparisons based on funding, production, and commercialization and highlights the need for standardization of terminology, not just for assessment purposes, but to facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure II-4. Nanotechnology publications in the Science Citation Index (SCI) (*China includes Taiwan) (Shelton 2007).

Figure II-5. Percent contribution by country to nanotechnology publications (by titleabstract search) in Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (top 3 journals based on citation index by other nanotechnology papers and patents) (Chen and Roco 2008; Hu et al. 2007).

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

60

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Nonetheless, appropriate metrics are essential for evaluating both internal progress and the competitiveness of the United States in terms of research support and output, infrastructure development, innovation progress, and ultimately, economic and societal benefit. Commonly used measures include bibliometrics such as publications, patents, and citations; knowledge mapping; counts of research centers, networks, user facilities, principal investigators, new trainees, start-ups, new products, initial public offerings, and acquisitions; and amounts of funding support from public and private sectors (corporate R&D as well as venture capital). In the course of this review, the NNAP considered numerous efforts to collect and analyze such data on research output and commercialization efforts underway in the United States and around the world. While available data and viable metrics are limited, the panel found bibliometric analyses (numbers of publications and citations) and patent counts to be the most salient metrics for purposes of its assessment of the NNI progress and the relative position of the United States with respect to the rest of the world.

Publications and Citations Nanotechnology publication and citation data provide some measure of research output in terms of both quantity and quality. On a country-by-country basis, the United States continues to exceed all others by these measures of nanotechnology publications (Figures II-4 and II-5)3. The United States also leads in the percentage of number of cited publications (Figure II-6), as another measure of quality. The 27 nations of the European Union, when considered as a whole, exceed the United States in total publications (Figure II-4). And China and Taiwan have seen a significant increase in their percentage of publications since 2004 (Figure II-6), demonstrating the heightened focus on nanotechnology research and development in those countries. However, thus far, their increase in percentage of publications has not been accompanied by a concomitant increase in cited publications (Figure II-7).

3

Data for Figure II-4 based on text search of the Science Citation Index as of 2006 for nano* excluding terms of scale alone (e.g., nanosecond, nanoliter, nanogram, nanomolar, nanonewton) and including relevant terms without the nano prefix (e.g., quantum dot, quantum well, molecular device, molecular wire, fullerene, spintronic, molecular electronic or dendrimer).

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

61

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure II-6. Fraction of number of nanotechnology publications in Science Citation Index over time (*China includes Taiwan) (Lewison 2007).

Figure II-7. Citations by country (Leydesdorff and Wagner 2006).

Ideas and Inventions According to one recent publication, the numbers of nanotechnology-related patents published in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) continued to increase nearly exponentially from

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

62

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1980 to 2004 (Figure II-8). (The numbers of nanotechnology-related patents published in the Japan Patent Office (JPO) during the same period are uneven.) Additionally, when country of patent assignment data is available, the United States has a dominant number of nanotechnology-related patents and number of patent citations in the USPTO and EPO databases An independent analysis by the USPTO confirms that United States-origin inventors and assignees have the most nanotechnology-related patent publications globally. Additionally, the United States-origin inventors and assignees hold the most nanotechnology-related inventions with patent publications in 3 or more countries, demonstrating a more aggressive pursuit of international patent protection (Figure II-9). This is an indication of the impact of United States-origin nanotechnology-related patents. Given the interest in the global market and the perception of potential commercial value, the United States is producing more widely marketable ideas. The next most active countries pursuing nanotechnology-related patents globally are Japan, Germany, Korea, and France, in descending order.

Figure II-8. Number of nanotechnology patents by title/abstract search worldwide (Li et al. 2007).

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

63

Figure II-9. Nanotechnology-related patents published on the same invention in three or more countries, by country of assignee (1985-2005) (Kisliuk 2008)

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Managing Resources and Engaging Stakeholders NNI agencies continue to broaden access to the knowledge base of basic research and instrumentation available at Government-supported laboratories. DOE has significantly expanded scientific user facility availability for nanoscale research and collaboration with its NSRCs, which are co-located with national laboratories at Argonne, Berkeley, Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, and Sandia/Los Alamos (see http://www.science.doe.gov/nano/). NSF continues to support the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN; http://www.nnin.org/) launched in 2004, an integrated group of university lab user facilities designed to serve the research community in both academia and industry. These centers constitute a crucial part of the NNI backbone and are playing an important role in early development and in facilitating commercial innovation, particularly by small businesses but also by large corporations. U.S. competitiveness should greatly benefit from the availability of these facilities.

Industry Collaboration Successful advancement of nanotechnology from discovery through application depends on effective and specific government and industry communication, coordination, and collaboration. Enabled by the breadth and

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

64

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

depth of its facilities infrastructure, the NNI has continued working with various industry groups (e.g., semiconductor, chemicals, and forest products) to facilitate nanotechnology development, largely through the NILI Working Group. The Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI; http://nri.src.org/) is one example of a promising joint industry-government program that is focused on realizing nextgeneration information processing technologies beyond CMOS (the complementary-symmetry metal-oxide-semiconductor structure used almost universally in today’s integrated circuits) through collaborative activities with industry centers and joint training programs based in U.S. universities.

Global Coordination The United States has been closely involved in the establishment and leadership of the OECD working parties on nanotechnology (WPN) and manufactured nanomaterials (WPMN). The United States is taking a leadership role in coordinating nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety efforts in the WPMN, which is chaired by a representative from the EPA. The WPMN is leading efforts to share EHS information and coordinate the collaborative development of information that is needed by governments and industries worldwide. The development of effective standards is fundamental for large-scale growth of nanotechnology commercialization as well as for better understanding, communication, and oversight. Representatives from the NSET Subcommittee and NNI member agencies are participating in standardization activities domestically and abroad through the ISO. The ISO technical committee on nanotechnologies is working to develop standards for terminology and nomenclature; instrumentation and metrology; and health, environment, and safety. ISO standards often are adopted widely. The NNAP endorses the NNI’s continued participation and leadership in these activities. Update of the NNI Strategic Plan As this report was being finalized, the NNI issued its legislatively mandated update to its strategic plan, first issued in 2004. The NNI Strategic Plan provides the framework for the U.S. Government to realize the fundamental goals and priorities of the NNI: driving cutting edge research, maintaining the strong research infrastructure and interdisciplinary training, facilitating technology transfer, and addressing EHS issues directly. The revised NNI Strategic Plan of December 2007 retains the program component areas for strategic investment, although for functional consistency and clarity it formally divides the earlier Societal Dimensions PCA into two separate

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

65

PCAs: Environment, Health and Safety; and Education and Societal Dimensions (which covers education, ethics, legal issues, and economics). The revised strategic plan (2007) also features a set of illustrative high-impact research opportunities representative of applications where nanotechnology may enable progress that significantly impacts our economy and society. The changes in the strategic plan reflect progress in the science and in the NNI’s management and coordination of its broad interagency effort and its impact on academic and industrial research, development, and innovation. The NNAP recommends that the legislation regarding NNI oversight be changed such that the NNAP review occurs on a triennial basis (as does the NRC review), and that it be due after the triennial update to the NNI Strategic Plan to enable the Panel to more fully evaluate the revised plan in its future reports.

III. APPLICATIONS: FOSTERING PRESENT COMMERCIALIZATION AND EMERGING INNOVATION Principal Findings Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

• •

•

•

The growing impact of nanotechnology development remains broadly distributed in terms of industry coverage and product composition. The extent to which a product or process is enabled by nanotechnology or composed of nanomaterials varies substantially, complicating standards development, market evaluation, and regulatory assessment. Although many initial applications have been evolutionary in nature, nanotechnology innovations nonetheless are promising paradigm-shifting applications in the near future. The NNI plays a central role in overcoming the barriers in the process of nanotechnology innovation and commercialization, through basic and application-targeted research support, critical infrastructure development, and education and training.

Context of Commercialization Nanotechnology encompasses a vast range of engineered materials and devices with an increasingly broad scope of applications and differing degrees of risk and benefit. The extent to which a product, process, or application is enabled

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

66

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

by nanotechnology or composed of nanomaterials may vary substantially, complicating categorization, standards development, market evaluation, and regulatory assessment. For example, many commercial applications utilize nanomaterials as raw materials in the manufacturing process, but the final commercial product no longer contains nanomaterial that can be recognized as such, as is the case with many solar cell technologies and composite materials. Furthermore, what constitutes nanotechnology—beyond scale—defies consensus, and most attempts to define an industry or to catalog such products have resulted in unwarranted inclusions or exclusions that obscure the main issues surrounding nanotechnology development and implementation. For example, there are claims that a new, ostensibly “nanotechnology”-based product reaches the market every day; such claims create the impression that nanotechnology development is a runaway train. This can obscure the reality that the great majority of current commercial nanotechnology applications involve a core set of materials: carbon nanostructures, silver or gold nanoparticles and nanowires, nanoscale metal oxides, and a few other compounds. (The OECD has put forward some fourteen materials that collectively account for most nanotechnology-based applications to date.) The Federal Government continues to fund and conduct extensive research on these and other nanomaterials and specific applications in support of responsible development and thorough assessment from a complete risk/benefit perspective. The challenges to developing, manufacturing, and marketing nanotechnologyenabled products and processes are by and large not unique. A business or investor looks for advantages over existing products and a path to reproducible, reliable, and cost-effective manufacture. And, as with any product, the responsibility for the safety of workers and consumers lies with the manufacturer. Firm assessments of current economic impact and projections of future economic impact of U.S. investment in nanotechnology are difficult to obtain. Various estimated market assessments typically include nanotechnology-enabled products often well downstream from nanotechnological innovation. Those market projections based on well-defined categories of fundamental nanomaterials and devices, and specific classes of products enabled by them, allow for some reasonable estimates—if they are properly qualified. This is not inappropriate, given the fundamental nature of nanotechnology and the sheer breadth of current and potential effects on everyday materials, products, and processes. The current impact of nanotechnology on commercial activities may be evaluated via the number and extent of company efforts (both “pure play” and “integrators”), number of new start-ups, and amount of corporate R&D investment and venture capital (VC), where such data or estimates are available.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

67

Table III-1 summarizes by state such data on new nanotechnology-based companies.4

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table III-1. New nanotechnology-based firms and venture capital investment (1995-2006) by state5

4

5

State

New nano firms

Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri New Jersey New Mexico New York

2 5 2 42 6 2 1 7 2 9 1 2 1 3 25 12 7 3 7 10 13

#New nano firms with VC 0 1 0 13 1 0 0 1 2 6 1 0 0 1 7 2 2 1 2 2 2

Sum of VC to nano firms (in million $) 0 40 0 447 32 0 0 4 41 54 2 0 0 11 244 27 5 20 50 46 37

“Nanotechnology-based companies” is defined as firms established primarily in the period 1990– 2005 to develop or apply nanotechnological processes, materials, tools, and devices, as identified from compiled and validated lists of new nanotechnology-based firms available in various nanotechnology-based firm directories. Source of VC data: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTreeTM Report, based on data from Thomson Financial. Computed September 2007 by Jue Wang, Program in Research and Innovation Systems Analysis, Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS-ASU) at the Georgia Institute of Technology Technology Policy and Assessment Center.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

68

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table III-1. Continued State

New nano firms

North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Total

5 5 3 12 2 8 17 1 7 2 4 2 230

#New nano firms with VC 2 1 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 3 0 60

Sum of VC to nano firms (in million $) 8 16 0 97 0 0 91 0 0 10 38 0 1324

The NNI is expanding efforts to assess national and international nanotechnology-related innovation and commercialization activities. Through its member agencies and NNCO-supported activities, the NNI has supported a number of activities aimed at collecting and analyzing data on innovation (e.g., patenting trends and industry surveys and data collection). While this NNAP panel commends these efforts, the members recommend closer involvement in these issues from the Department of Commerce (DOC) and continued U.S. participation in the OECD to obtain better data on an international level.

Case Studies Input from a number of nTAG representatives indicated their consensus that nanotechnology development has not yet produced the commercial revolution that was anticipated, and that many of the early applications evident today are only evolutionary improvements over existing materials and products. At the same time, they noted that nanotechnology research and development has advanced faster than expected in many areas, including drug delivery devices and semiconductor electronics. The NNI has existed since 2001. Many nanotechnology-based applications are now coming to market, in part as a result of NNI investments to date, and

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

69

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

many remarkable innovations are emerging as well. The cases that follow provide examples of how the NNI supports present commercialization and emerging innovation in four sample categories: consumer products, biomedicine, energy, and electronics. An additional case highlights carbon nanotubes as the preeminent example of a nanomaterial platform technology with cross-cutting applications.

Consumer Products Nanoscale metal oxides in sunscreen: balancing risks and benefits of a specific application in the broader context of human health. Sunscreens are perhaps one of the better-known examples of consumer products purposefully using nanoscale materials. Titanium dioxide, a highly inert metal oxide used in multiple products for its light-modifying qualities, is a key ingredient in many sunscreens. In this application, the compound is “micronized” into microscale and/or nanoscale particles (Figure III-1). Doing so provides two particular benefits: (1) the sunscreen becomes transparent instead of white and adheres better when it is applied, and (2) the sunscreen can absorb harmful UVA rays more effectively than conventional sunscreens. A substantial body of research on biological responses to nanoscale titanium dioxide and other metal oxides has already been published. Researchers continue to investigate whether dermally applied titanium dioxide that may be in the nanoscale can penetrate the skin, and if so, whether there may be toxicities associated with these particles. The majority of evidence to date suggests that titanium dioxide nanoparticles do not penetrate intact skin (Nohynek et al. 2007). Nevertheless, research continues through the National Toxicology Program and through other Federal efforts on this and other questions regarding exposure to and toxicity of nanoscale metal oxides.6 In consideration of the issue, some have called for responses from industry and government ranging from product withdrawal or labeling to a full-scale moratorium on all nanotechnology-related consumer products. Although most of these calls focus on the possible risks that may be associated with nanoscale materials, they fail to consider the broader relative risks and benefits of sunscreens—nano-based and otherwise—to human health.

6

In recently proposed rulemaking, the FDA has issued a call for public input and data on this specific issue.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

70

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Figure III-1. Nanoscale rutile titanium dioxide. (Image credit: National Toxicology Program.)

In contrast, one non-governmental organization conducted a detailed and broad evaluation of sunscreens, including evaluation of other chemical contents and functional benefits. Contrary to their stated expectations, the group found that sunscreens containing nanoscale titanium dioxide or zinc oxide are some of the safest, most effective sunscreens available (EWG 2007). The extent of absorption and associated risk was higher for the non-nanoscale active ingredients than for nanoscale metal oxides. Indeed, the data on titanium dioxide suggests no exposure and better reduction of UV risk, whereas many other active ingredients are known hazards with less UVA blocking benefit. All relative risks and benefits considered, the overall health benefits (better adhering formulations that better block UVA that consumers are more likely to use since they go on transparently) evidently outweigh the overall health risks, both known (UV-exposure carcinogenicity and/or chemical toxicity) and unknown.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

71

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Biomedicine Simultaneous Detection of Multiple Biomarkers of Disease Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology revolutionized diagnostic medicine and basic research through its ability to amplify and detect minute amounts of specific DNA sequences. Researchers at Northwestern University have developed a diagnostic nanotechnology known as the biobarcode assay that works like PCR for proteins (Figure III-2). The biobarcode assay can simultaneously detect trace levels of multiple biomarkers (including DNA and proteins) associated with human cancers using oligonucleotide- and antibodycoated gold nanoparticles. In 2007 the Northwestern team developed nanoparticle-tagged oligonucleotide biobarcodes to detect three cancer-related protein biomarkers: prostate specific antigen (PSA); human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG), a marker for testicular cancer; and α-fetoprotein (AFP), a liver cancer marker. In this case, the investigators used three pairs of nanoparticles, each containing a different DNA barcode. The biobarcode assay was able to detect each of the three markers simultaneously at concentrations multiple orders of magnitude below that detectable by the standard immunoassay (Stoeva et al. 2006). The ability to detect low-levels of protein biomarkers directly in serum in a multiplexed manner will enable more powerful diagnostic methods to detect early-stage malignancy. The biobarcode assay nanotechnology has been commercially developed by Nanosphere, Inc.; to date, the FDA has cleared its use for two molecular diagnostic tests associated with blood disorders (Nanosphere, Inc. 2007). Nanoparticles Transport Cancer-killing Drug into Tumor Cells with Greater Efficacy and Lower Toxicity Dendrimers (branched spherical nanoscale polymers) have shown promise as targeted delivery vehicles for anticancer therapy. Researchers at the University of Michigan have shown for the first time that a targeted dendrimer can indeed deliver anticancer drugs into tumor cells and that this nanotechnology-based treatment is effective in treating tumors growing in living animals and in prolonging life (Kukowska-Latallo et al. 2005). The study is the first to demonstrate a nanoparticle-targeted drug actually leaving the bloodstream, being concentrated in cancer cells, and having a biological effect on tumors.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

72

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Figure III-2. The biobarcode assay uses two particle probes that are each specific to the targeted biomarker. One is a magnetic particle probe that captures the target from complex media. The other is a gold nanoparticle probe that is specific to the target of interest but that also carries with it hundreds to thousands of DNA sequence barcodes chosen to be specific to the target of interest. Released biobarcodes can be detected using common DNA detection methods (microarray, fluorescence, electrochemistry). (Image credit: Chad Mirkin, Northwestern University.)

The Michigan research team integrated expertise from across a broad range of disciplines to develop multifunctional dendrimers as targeted carriers of anticancer drugs. These branched polymers form compact nanoparticles of welldefined size, ranging from less than 2 nanometers in diameter to greater than 13 nanometers in diameter, with reactive chemical groups on their surfaces that can be used to attach targeting molecules, therapeutic drugs, and imaging agents, either alone or in combination. The investigators used a G5 dendrimer, which has a diameter of approximately 5 nanometers and room to attach as many as 110 targeting, therapeutic, and imaging molecules. The investigators attached folate as a targeting molecule and methotrexate as the therapeutic agent. Folate targets a high-affinity folic acid receptor that cancer cells overexpress, and methotrexate is an effective but highly toxic anticancer drug. The researchers also attached a fluorescent molecule to the dendrimer to act as an optical imaging probe to enable the investigators to track the dendrimers’ distribution in the body by measuring fluorescence in various tissues.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

73

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure III-3. On the left, mice receiving free methotrexate (30 mg/kg) alone lost their hair, lost weight, and experienced other toxic side effects from the drug. On the right, mice given nanoparticle-delivered methotrexate to shrink their tumors did not lose their hair—a common side effect of anticancer drugs. (Image credit: Kukowska-Latello, Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine and Biological Sciences.)

When tested in laboratory mice that had received injections of human epithelial cancer cells, the targeted, methotrexate-loaded dendrimer was 10 times more effective than methotrexate alone at delaying tumor growth. Nanoparticle treatment also proved to be far less toxic to mice than the anticancer drug alone (Figure III-3). In the longest trial reported, which lasted 99 days, over 30 percent of the mice given the multifunctional nanoparticle survived. In contrast, all of the mice receiving free methotrexate died, either from tumor growth or from drug toxicity. Tumor growth also proceeded unabated when mice received a folatetargeted G5 dendrimer that did not contain methotrexate. The presence of a fluorescent label on the dendrimer had no effect on anti-tumor activity. Biodistribution studies using the fluorescent tag showed that folate-targeted nanoparticles concentrated in tumors and liver, and tumor concentrations of the dendrimer remained high for four days after injection. These studies also revealed that the kidneys quickly filtered any nanoparticles that remained in circulation— they either did not bind to a target or were eventually released from their target— and eliminated them in urine. The researchers found no evidence that nanoparticles were able to leave the bloodstream and enter the brain. The nanoparticles did not appear to generate an immune response in mice in the study. Confocal microscopy studies, again utilizing the fluorescent tag on dendrimers, confirmed that the targeted nanoparticles were taken up by tumor cells.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

74

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

In future research, scientists at the Michigan Nanotechnology Institute and Avidimer Therapeutics will determine the maximum therapeutic dose, in research animals, of targeted nanotherapy with methotrexate7 and will complete other preliminary studies in preparation for human clinical trials.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Energy Light, Thin Solar Cells Manufactured with Printing Presses Thin-film photovoltaic technology has improved over the last decade to a point where it can now convert sunlight to electricity as efficiently as all but the most expensive silicon-based solar cells. New low-cost production methods could help make these thin-film cells an important contributor to the Nation’s energy needs. Nanosolar, Inc. is using printing presses instead of vacuum deposition equipment to make solar panels based on a semiconducting material called copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS). The presses deposit nanostructured ink, which is then processed to create the light-absorbing nanoarchitecture at the heart of the solar cell. Employing a range of innovative technologies developed in part with the support of the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Nanosolar has recently shipped its first utility-scale panels. The company was one of several recipients of major awards under DOE’s Solar America Initiative that are using nanotechnology to drive down the cost of renewable energy, with the ultimate goal of achieving price parity with the major energy sources now feeding the electric grid. Titanium-studded Carbon Nanotubes Hold Promise for Fuel Cells with High-capacity Hydrogen Storage Quantum calculations and computer models show that carbon nanotubes (CNTs) “decorated” with titanium or other transition metals can latch on to hydrogen molecules in numbers more than adequate for efficient hydrogen storage (Figure III-4), a capability key to long-term efforts to develop fuel cells as an affordable alternative transportation technology (Yildirim and Ciraci 2005). Using established quantum physics theory, NIST researchers and international collaborators predict that hydrogen can amass in amounts equivalent to 8 percent of the weight of titanium-studded singled walled carbon nanotubes— better than the 6 percent minimum storage capacity requirement set by the FreedomCar Research Partnership involving DOE and U.S. automakers. As 7

See http://www.avidimer.com/productportfolio/leadproductcandidate.html for a more detailed description of the nanostructured methotrexate product.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

75

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

important, the hydrogen molecules that link to a titanium atom are readily relinquished when heated. Such reversible desorption is another requirement for practical hydrogen storage. Resembling exceedingly small cylinders of chicken wire, single-walled CNTs are among several candidate materials eyed for hydrogen storage. Reaching the 6 percent minimum target, however, has proved difficult. With structural and computational models of the materials, researchers showed that positioning a titanium atom above the center of hexagonally arranged carbon atoms (the repeating geometric pattern characteristic of CNTs) appears to enable sufficient, reversible storage. Surprisingly, interactions among carbon, titanium, and hydrogen seem to give rise to unusual attractive forces. The upshot is that four hydrogen molecules can dock on a titanium atom, apparently by means of a unique chemical bond of modest strength. Several forces at work within the geometric arrangement appear to play a role in the reversible hydrogen binding. The findings demonstrate a potential way to engineer novel nanostructured highcapacity hydrogen storage materials and catalysts.

Electronics Researchers at IBM, a pioneer in nanotechnology research, published work in Science magazine reporting on novel computational approaches based on nanoscale science and engineering. Researchers demonstrated progress in developing the ability to measure the magnetic anisotropy of single atoms—and thus their potential ability to store information magnetically at the atomic level (Hirjibehedin et al. 2007). Such capability would dramatically shrink the space currently needed for computational memory—the equivalent of holding all the video contents of YouTube on an iPod.

Figure III-4. This computer model shows how titanium atoms (dark blue) can attach above the centers of single-walled carbon nanotubes (light blue). Each titanium atom can bond with four hydrogen molecules (red), which could lead to efficient fuel cells for future automobiles. (Image credit: T. Yildirim, NIST, and S. Ciraci, Bilkent University, Turkey.)

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

76

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Furthermore, IBM researchers also have developed the first molecular switch that preserves the external framework of the molecule (Liljeroth, Repp, and Meyer 2007). Because the external framework does not change shape when the switch is “on” or “off” (Figure III-5), this opens the possibility of integrating this novel molecular switch (which functions as a logic gate) as a component in a larger circuit.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Platform Technology Carbon Nanotubes Although not the first commercialized nanoscale materials, CNTs have gained broad public recognition as an embodiment of nanotechnology and a prime example of development through government, academia, and industry cooperation. Due to beneficial properties that include exceptional tensile strength, unique current conduction mechanisms, and their vessel-like shape, CNTs have multiple potential applications. They are already impacting commercial electronics and composites, are demonstrating promise for use in energy storage and conservation, and are being explored for use in gene and drug delivery within the body. Although perhaps best known for their use in composite materials for consumer products such as car bumpers and sporting goods, CNTs can only improve material characteristics to a degree that is limited by manufacturing challenges (e.g., ability to control uniformity, length, and disaggregation). Revolutionary advantages enabled by CNTs over the composite materials that are currently on the market will depend on improving manufacturing controls (Eklund et al. 2007). There are many different types of CNTs, with a variety of diameters, number of walls (single or multiple), and functional additives, as well as impurities. Pure, single-walled CNTs are extremely difficult and expensive to manufacture, and the market for these (as compared to cheaper multi-walled CNTs) is not yet evident. Asia and Japan in particular far surpass the United States and Europe in manufacturing capability for multi-walled CNTs. The primary market for multiwalled CNT manufacturing is currently for use in lithium-ion battery electrodes, whereas the primary market for single-walled CNTs is field emission devices (used, for example, in field emission microscopes for surface science studies and in vacuum microelectronic devices).

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

77

Figure III-5. Molecular switch in stable framework. (Image credits: IBM, 30 August 2007, available online: http://www03.ibm.com/press/us/en/presskit/22242.wss.)

Challenges to Commercialization Along with the many opportunities that presently exist in the innovation and development process for technologies like those described above, there are also challenges. The following barriers to commercialization are pronounced with respect to nanotechnology, given the scope of potential applications and the many unknowns associated with various nanomaterials constructs: • •

•

Lack of standards Questions about EHS implications: unknown risks (cf. publications in environmental law), attention by insurers, anecdotal evidence of companies avoiding “nano” in their product descriptions, or worse, shelving their nanotechnology development efforts Limited/restricted venture capital: an investor community uncomfortable with many nanomaterialdependent startups due to their relative earlier

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

78

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

stages of development and longer development cycles (i.e., greater time to applications and products) Insufficient education and workforce preparation

The Federal Government plays a central role in overcoming the barriers in the process of nanotechnology innovation and commercialization. The NNI serves to coordinate Federal agency efforts in this regard. The NNI directly supports the broad spectrum of basic nanotechnology research and development and also stimulates private sector commercial investment with targeted, applicationfocused research and development programs. Furthermore, the unparalleled research infrastructure and interdisciplinary training programs built at a national level through the NNI are clearly accelerating the process of U.S. nanotechnology innovation and seeding regional efforts to do the same. Limited dissemination of knowledge/skill/expertise in nanotechnology is a continuing barrier to commercialization of the cutting-edge ideas that come out of the lab. Transfer of nanotechnology know-how and ideas from university research labs to industry occurs primarily when students are hired by existing companies or start new ones. The importance of the Government role in educating scientists and engineers through investment in R&D cannot be overemphasized. As described in the updated NNI Strategic Plan of December 2007, the NNI aims to continue fostering technology transfer by creating a favorable business environment for nanotechnology developers by a variety of means. Key approaches include coordinated engagement with industry, clear intellectual property protections, and better defined development pathways and oversight expectations. NNI participating agencies also are working to facilitate sharing of precompetitive data on nanomaterials domestically and internationally, which will help to address EHS concerns.

IV. IMPLICATIONS: ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ETHICS ISSUES RESPONSIBLY Principal Findings •

The Federal Government is highly active and widely supporting nanotechnology EHS planning and R&D, and is coordinating with industry and international stakeholders to that end.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative • •

• •

79

Manufacturers have a unique responsibility for product and workplace safety. Companies that make and use nanomaterials must also be involved wherever possible in developing and widely sharing information about the properties of the nanomaterials in their products. Negative public perceptions threaten the development and subsequent economic and societal benefits of nanotechnology. Although no ethical concerns appear to be fundamentally unique to nanotechnology today, all stakeholders have a shared responsibility to carefully evaluate the ethical, legal, and societal implications raised by the development of novel science and technology.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Context of and Perspective on EHS Considerations Many nanotechnology-enabled products are already available today, including medical applications and devices, electronics, and a broad range of consumer goods. The impact of nanotechnology will certainly increase in the future as more innovations enabled by nanotechnology are developed into commercial applications. The NNAP anticipates that nanotechnology will have a net positive effect on the environment and human health. As with any emerging technology, responsible nanotechnology development and application should be a universally shared goal of researchers, developers, manufacturers, regulators, and consumers. However, applying this principle can be challenging, because nanoscale materials have unique physical and chemical properties that can be difficult and/or costly to fully characterize, and their effects on health or the environment are not known or are poorly understood. The NNI stance should continue to be appropriately cautionary, not precautionary, and NNI member agencies should maintain a proactive approach to developing and disseminating relevant risk-related information. The Federal agencies recognize that there is much that is unknown about the possible health effects from exposure to nanomaterials. Therefore, in order to cultivate a growing body of baseline information, the NNI and its member agencies should continue to (1) strategically fund priority EHS research and (2) support collaborative EHS activities with industry and with research agencies in other countries. The NNI has a vital role in supporting the regulatory agencies by providing such research. The NNAP examined the nature and scope of the NNI investments in research to assess the environmental, health, and safety implications of nanotechnology as

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

80

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

well as in research to identify the ethical, societal, legal, and related workforce concerns that arise in connection with nanotechnology research, development, and commercialization. These implications need to be carefully examined continuously to ensure responsible development and appropriate balancing of risks versus benefits. Such ongoing, thorough examination of EHS implications, within the proper framework and incorporating broad stakeholder input, will enable sustainable development and maximum realization of the potential of nanotechnology. In making its review, the NNAP is aware of the growing number of articles and publications suggesting that EHS efforts in the United States are inadequate and might lead to environmental, health, and safety risks that are unacceptable. In general, these reports suggest that insufficient funding and focus on EHS concerns are the primary problem. The NNAP has paid particular attention to EHS funding and current research efforts in this review. The panel finds that from a scientific point of view, while there is still plenty to learn, the research being funded is leading to an ever-increasing body of knowledge about EHS issues. Budgetary support for EHS has been growing at a rate well above that of the entire NNI program and, as such, the panel believes it is of the right order of magnitude to continue building knowledge of EHS issues as knowledge of the science increases. The panel does note that if expenditures of other countries in the global economy were as significant in the EHS field as those in the United States, and with ongoing, appropriately multinational communication efforts, the entire field would benefit greatly. Having said this, there is little question that nanotechnology development is facing an important threshold, in that public acceptance of nanotechnology may deteriorate if some of the more frightening speculations of some writers reach common acceptance. The NNAP is concerned that nanoscience is losing a public relations contest. The value of nanotechnology to the U.S. economy and the contribution of nanotechnology to actually improve EHS conditions in our country are being drowned out by the emphasis on uncertainties and by speculation that is unconstrained by examination of actual exposure and hazard in realistic use settings. These concerns have led the NNAP to pay close attention to EHS and related activities and implications in this report.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

81

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

FEDERAL EHS ACTIVITIES In September 2006, the NNI issued a report titled Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, developed under the auspices of the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group of the NSET Subcommittee (NSTC/NSET 2006). The report incorporates perspectives of several different Federal agencies that have a role in assuring the responsible development of nanotechnologies. Carrying out the research specified in the report over the next several years is a fundamental responsibility of the Federal effort in nanotechnology research. The report also provides guidelines for State agencies, the private sector, and international entities involved in nanotechnology-related EHS research. In August 2007, the NNI released for public comment an interim document that prioritizes EHS research needs. The prioritization was based on (1) the value of information and (2) the ability to leverage relevant research funded by other governments and the private sector. The NNAP views the NNI reports to date as an important first step in identifying the many research areas that are encompassed by the need for responsible development of nanotechnology, and in prioritizing research areas that must necessarily follow to ensure research resources are appropriately deployed. Input gained from public comment on the NEHI research needs and prioritization documents as well as from detailed analyses of current Federal nanotechnology EHS research by the NEHI has informed the development of the NNI’s February 2008 publication, Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research (NSTC/NSET 2008b). This document includes a process for regular progress review and transparent reevaluation of the stated EHS research needs and priorities. Because this report was completed and released at the close of the NNAP’s current review process, the NNAP intends to issue a brief addendum to this report commenting on the strategy. Since the 2005 NNAP report called for special attention to be directed toward EHS research and assessment, NNI member agencies responsible for oversight of human health and the environment have been proactive in addressing the EHS information needs. Several NNI agencies have been actively evaluating their approach to regulation and oversight of nanotechnology products, manufacturing, and workplace safety, as indicated by the following examples:

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

82

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology •

•

•

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

The OSTP and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued in November 2007 a memorandum identifying principles for nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety oversight based on interagency consensus (OSTP 2007). The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued a call in July 2006 for information on Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology (NIOSH 2006) inviting expert feedback from private industry and other government entities, and in June 2007 it issued the report Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace (NIOSH 2007). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produced in February 2007 a white paper (EPA 2007) summarizing the agency’s anticipated approach to nanotechnology EHS research, followed in February 2008 by a nanomaterial research strategy (EPA 2008). The agency also has launched a Voluntary Nanoscale Materials stewardship program. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released in July 2007 the report (FDA 2007) of its Nanotechnology Task Force’s efforts to clarify a predictable pathway for application of existing regulatory approaches on a case-by-case basis for developers of nanotechnology-enabled products under its jurisdiction. NIST is producing standard reference materials for nanoscale gold and carbon nanotubes.

Considered along with the full interagency coordination of EHS activities and planning through NEHI, these activities further demonstrate active involvement and participation by the Federal agencies responsible for public health and safety to inform regulatory approaches and policy development. The total funding of research in nanotechnology EHS has grown since the last NNI report from $34.8 million in 2005 to a requested $76.4 million in the President’s proposed budget for nanotechnology R&D in 2009. This accounts only for research that is specifically and primarily focused on environmental and health effects of nanotechnology. In 2007, the NSET Subcommittee coordinated with the Office of Management and Budget to collect a broader account of research under the five priority categories identified in the NEHI 2006 report EHS Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials for research that not only examines EHS issues directly but that supports such examination, including research in instrumentation, in fundamental understanding of the behavior of key nanomaterials, and in risk management methods. When such research is included, the total investment amount related both directly and indirectly to EHS in FY

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

83

2006 was over $68 million, compared to reported research spending of $37.7 million primarily addressing EHS. Though not practical for regular reporting, this data snapshot likely represents more closely the Federal investment in nanotechnology-related EHS research. The NNAP feels that this amount of research is appropriate; however, it does recommend that the funding level for EHS continue to grow consistent with the needs and approach identified in the NNI research strategy for nanotechnology EHS as well as the available capacity for quality research. While the Federal Government establishes and provides appropriate regulatory oversight, manufacturers have a responsibility for product and workplace safety. Therefore, companies that make and use nanomaterials must also be involved in developing information about the properties of their products. As the 2005 NNAP report stated, the greatest likelihood of exposure to manufactured nanomaterials is in the manufacturing environment. Currently the exposure to consumers and the environment is relatively low. NIOSH has various resources available at its nanotechnology website, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ topics/nanotech /default.html, including the two documents mentioned above, that provide interim guidance on safe handling of nanomaterials in the workplace. Although the following sections separately address the NNI-sponsored research in the areas of environmental impact, human health effects, and safety considerations, the context of EHS issues must be understood in order to properly evaluate and manage risk. Most EHS areas are highly interrelated. Environmental issues can impact the health of humans and other living organisms. Safety considerations can also affect health. This review discusses environmental issues as those directly impacting the environment; health issues include those directly intended to improve human health but that may have unintended consequences; safety issues include possible consequences of exposure to nanomaterials in the workplace and elsewhere where activities involving nanomaterials might have a deleterious effect on the persons connected with the activity. As previously noted, Federally sponsored EHS research should be coordinated not only with the States and with U.S. industry, but also with the international community. The NNAP commends NNI efforts to cooperate on EHS issues with OECD and other international bodies.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

84

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Nano EHS Research Today and Tomorrow A large body of both domestic and international research on EHS implications of nanotechnology already exists and is growing, which is consistent with the continuing growth rate of Federal support in the area. For example, a recent search of the International Council on Nanotechnology’s Virtual Journal on nanoEHS—a representative database of publications worldwide—shows well over 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers as well as technical reviews and other articles that have been published in this area since 2003 (httpi/www.icon.rice.edu/virtualjournal.cfm). In addition, Government agencies, corporations, and a handful of non-government organizations are conducting extensive targeted research as well. One organization, the Environmental Working Group, studied over 900 sunscreen products based on over 400 studies on efficacy and toxicity of relevant materials in the scientific literature (EWG 2007b). Targeted efforts like these properly assess nanomaterials in product- and life-cycle-specific contexts and complement fundamental research and baseline characterization of nanomaterials. However, growing research in nanotechnology EHS must be strategic, guided by (1) a comprehensive set of scientifically determined priorities and needs rather than arbitrary percentages or funding figures, and (2) standardized methods and data sets for nanomaterial characterization to enable reproducible and progressive research. For example, a recent review of over 400 publications showed that the vast majority of studies did not adequately characterize the nanomaterials under study, making it virtually impossible to specify the hazarddeterminative properties of those nanomaterials (Hansen et al. 2007). In the absence of guidelines for appropriately standardized materials and analyses, EHS research on nanomaterials will not move forward. Arbitrary funding increases will only lead to more confusion (instead of 80 nonreproducible, noncomparable studies on various types of carbon nanotubes, we could have 800) and will hinder the necessary, relevant research that can only be built on clearly characterized, reproducible, standardized, comparable research on specific materials in specific, relevant applications.

Environment The presence of nanoscale materials in the environment is not new; in fact, nanoscale materials occur naturally. However, as engineered nanoscale materials are developed, the potential environmental effects may be unique for specific

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

85

nanoscale substances. The NNI, and the Federal Government in general, has a central role to play in the development of tests to assess environmental effects of nanoscale materials. In many cases, it is not yet clear if existing protocols are sufficient, although they should be used as a starting point. The NNI is working to collaborate with other stakeholders (industry, academia, and international peers such as the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials) to share the burden of development of analytical tests and risk assessment methodologies and to ensure broad acceptance of tests worldwide. As new nanomaterials come to market in products, it is also the fundamental responsibility of industrial developers to perform appropriate and relevant studies to assure environmental neutrality, guided by scientifically founded assessments of associated risks and benefits. There is an increasing recognition that the characterization of test materials is not always as complete as needed to fully understand the basis for observed effects. At the nanoscale, there can be profound differences between chemical entities otherwise thought to be of the same basic material, based on shape, charge, and other characteristics. For example, as particles become smaller and the ratio of surface area to mass greatly increases, the contribution of the surface chemistry to observed effects may greatly increase as well. However, any surface contamination is also magnified—a factor often overlooked. A resulting observed effect may be due to a contaminant and not to the material being evaluated. The NNI is uniquely positioned to have an impact on improving awareness of the need for robust physical characterization of nanoscale materials through the participation of agencies such as NIST, EPA, and FDA, as well as through international cooperation. The NNI must continue to be diligent in filling this role.

Health The application of nanotechnology to health maintenance and improvement is one of its most promising areas of use. Much of the work with nanoscale materials is being performed to develop new pharmaceuticals and medical devices or to improve food preservation techniques. This is an exciting area, and some of the work has shown that nanoscale medications may provide enhanced benefits over conventional forms of the same medications and can in some cases provide improved targeting with fewer side effects (see examples cited earlier in III, Applications). Clearly, these benefits, if fully realized, will have great social value. But because nanomaterials are being actively used in biomedical and healthcare products, and marketing claims for the improved performance of these

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

86

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

products proliferate as new compounds are used, the FDA, consistent with its regulatory scope, must remain vigilant and proactive in assessing approval for and use of products that incorporate nanomaterials. In cancer therapy, colloidal gold and nanoscale gold-coated particles have been shown to be effective in targeting and reducing tumors. Thousands of citizens receive hip, knee, or other bone replacements, stents, heart valves, and a wide variety of other medical implants each year. Research and development continues apace using nanomaterials to further improve the performance of and further reduce the risks associated with these structures. Novel delivery mechanisms and implantable devices have raised legitimate concerns about the longer-term effects of nanomaterials in the body. Studies to determine these impacts are being funded by the NNI and must continue as more targeted, nanotechnology-enabled drugs and devices are designed. The NNI, in conjunction with participating agencies such as FDA and USDA, is increasingly looking at this expanding role of nanotechnology-based products for healthcare and food. Though there is no evidence at present of negative human health outcomes from use of these products, continued diligence in testing and approving these products will be necessary as their use continues to grow.

Safety As described in the 2005 NNAP report, the greatest present safety concern remains in the workplaces where nanotechnology products are being produced. Developing and communicating information about potential health effects and minimizing unintended exposures to workers and users of nanoscale materials is of critical importance. As noted above, NIOSH is very active in assessing workplace factors with respect to nanoscale materials. It has established a robust program to work with those developing nanoscale materials, both to collect more data about existing workplace practices and to provide guidance to workers and employers via its website and upon request (see Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics /nanotech/safenano/) to help reduce potential exposure along the lines of current good manufacturing practices. EPA’s Voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (http://www. epa.gov/oppt/nano /stewardship.htm) encourages industry submission of data that may have a safety impact. While respecting confidential business information, these data should be regularly published where possible and incorporated into the literature identifying best practices.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

87

Ethics Concerns about ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI) have naturally arisen as nanotechnology has developed and as products have proliferated in the marketplace. The following are examples of findings from the many scholarly articles that have been written in the recent past defining and assessing societal benefits: •

• •

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

New drugs that may be more active, using less material, and produced at lower cost, may enable use by a broader segment of an affected population. Application of nanoscale materials in environmental remediation may facilitate work in areas of greatest need and economic disadvantage. Superior energy production through the use of nanoscale materials may be possible due to more active catalysts in petroleum refining or battery electrodes improved through the addition of nanoscale materials. Improved efficiencies in manufacturing processes may result in less waste.

At the same time, ethical issues identified in the context of nanotechnology applications and implications are a growing area of debate. Besides the safety issues—both from a human and an environmental health perspective—some have asked whether some potential applications of nanotechnology would pass meticulous ethical consideration. For example, bioethical questions have been raised regarding access to benefits and uses, many of which may ultimately go beyond therapeutic use into performance enhancement and challenge core concepts of what it means to be human. As noted earlier in this report, in many ways, these concerns do not differ from those raised as any new technologies come into existence. It is not clear whether the concerns raised are exclusively related to nanotechnology or, more likely, to the generally increasing penetration of technology into the fabric of our daily lives. The NNI has funded some research in this area, particularly through the NNI/NSF Centers for Nanotechnology and Society located at universities around the country. In addition, the NNAP in performing this review has engaged the President’s Council on Bioethics (which conducted an independent study and has published a brief summary of its examination and thoughts on these issues8) as 8

See http://www.bioethics.gov/topics/nanotechindex.html.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

88

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

well as other experts in the field of ethics to discuss these issues. Numerous ethical issues common to emerging technologies could be the subject of further examination, including, among many others, development of codes of conduct for emerging technologies, risks to marginalized people, therapeutics vs. enhancement, privacy issues invited by the use of nanosensors, confidentiality issues, nanotechnology-related policies for developing countries, and many more. Based on input from the nTAG, the President’s Council on Bioethics, and numerous thought leaders, the assessment of the NNAP is that there are no ethical concerns that are unique to nanotechnology today. That is not to say that nanotechnology does not warrant careful ethical evaluation. As with all new science and technology development, all stakeholders have a shared responsibility to carefully evaluate the ethical, legal, and societal implications raised by novel science and technology developments. However, the NNAP, in consultation with the President’s Council on Bioethics, sees no apparent need at this time to reinvent fundamental ethical principles or fields or to develop novel approaches to assessing societal impacts with respect to nanotechnology.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Managing and Coordinating Implications Research The NNAP is pleased with the degree of coordination taking place among the agencies through the NNI. The great strength of the NNI’s consensus-based interagency approach is that it successfully leverages the broad expertise resident in the various agencies, consistent with their respective missions. For example, Federal assessment of risks associated with diesel exhaust and other incidental nanomaterials has informed planning for how to assess engineered nanomaterials. This argues against the notion of creating a centralized, top- down management structure that would duplicate or, worse, exclude contributions from key mission agencies. The panel expects that the NNI’s current EHS, education, and societal dimensions planning and coordination processes, under NSET Subcommittee and NNCO leadership, will continue to strategically guide nanotechnology-related EHS research across NNI member agencies. While there is much to learn, the process is certainly not “broken.” In fact, the coordination process used at the NNCO and the similar process used to manage the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program could well be considered models for similar coordination in fields such as K–12 education, where spending for hundreds of programs is spread over many agencies without any formal mechanism whereby the spending agencies might be informed of

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

89

activities in their sister Government departments. The NNAP anticipates an expeditious review of the final nanotechnology EHS research strategy and how the interagency coordination will functionally implement it as a forthcoming addendum to this report.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS: SUSTAINING LEADERSHIP THROUGH COORDINATION, STRATEGY, COMMUNICATION Nanotechnology in many ways represents a new age of research, development, and commercialization. It is one of the first broad-based technology areas in which the United States has had a research lead and where development and market applications have been clearly defined as essential aims from the beginning. It is in large part due to the formal coordination and prioritization work of the NNI that the United States has been an early leader and continues to be a global leader in nanotechnology. However, nanotechnology is also one of the first areas where European and Asian countries have approximately matched U.S. investments at the earliest stages of development. Nanotechnology is one of the core drivers of interdisciplinary collaboration, which is becoming more and more essential for all science R&D today. And nanotechnology still presents a distinct opportunity in the history of innovation to get technology development “right” from the outset by establishing and maintaining strong, sound, proactive policies to guide public and private R&D and responsible, sustainable innovation of a wide spectrum of materials and products for use in commercial applications. Overall, the members of the NNAP feel that the NNI is well organized and well managed. The NSET Subcommittee, supported by an interagency-funded coordination office (the NNCO), is effectively coordinating nanotechnology activities across the Federal Government, while allowing agencies to leverage their efforts aimed at supporting their individual agency missions. The panel believes that the NNI’s eight program component areas, currently designated in the updated NNI Strategic Plan to track areas of investment, are well conceived and the categories are sufficient to assess and manage the program. The NNAP notes that its overall positive assessment is consistent with those of planning and advisory bodies in other countries, based on the number of nanotechnology programs around the world intentionally modeled after the NNI. Like the NNAP, the National Academies also bears responsibility for oversight of the NNI. The NNAP members feel these two oversight efforts should be more appropriately timed and more closely coordinated with the NNI schedule

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

90

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

(i.e., both reviews should be every three years after the strategic plan is revised) to avoid overlap and to get more out of both activities, particularly in terms of increasing public awareness of their activities and those of the NNI agencies. More timely coordination will enhance the effectiveness and objectivity of both panels. The members of the NNAP feel that U.S. leadership in nanotechnology is due in large part to the formal framework of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. However, in order to ensure that the Nation remains competitive, the NNAP has the following recommendations to improve and further strengthen the NNI.

1. Infrastructure, Management, and Coordination

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Maintaining the world-class R&D infrastructure and strong interagency coordination created under the NNI is essential to achieving broad societal benefits from nanotechnology innovation. 1.1. Ensure continuing support from NNI member agencies and from Congress for NNI multidisciplinary centers, networks, and user facilities for nanoscale research.The NNI infrastructure of user facilities, centers, and networks is an unparalleled resource for the nanotechnology R&D community, but it requires sufficient funding to maintain and operate. Having had the foresight to establish these centers, DOE, NSF, NIH, and NIST should provide ongoing strong support for these vital assets. In particular, NSF and NIH should continue to fund large centers and collaborative research groups that enable the multidisciplinary approaches that are essential to advances in basic nanotechnology research. Such multidisciplinary research remains especially vital because many applications will emerge from research at the convergence of historically disparate fields of science and technology. The NNI should continue to foster both “curiosity-driven” researchers and “applications-driven” developers, and their interaction. 1.2. Seek to improve intra-agency coordination. Due to the scope and breadth of nanotechnology’s impact, the NNAP recommends that each department and agency with numerous operating divisions impacted by nanotechnology (including DOC, DOD, EPA, HHS, and USDA) establish a cross-cutting task force or some similar mechanism to coordinate and optimize nanotechnology activities and policies more uniformly within the agency as a whole. Where such groups already

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

91

exist, they should be supported at all levels and should be strengthened horizontally and vertically within the agency. The FDA’s Nanotechnology Task Force, which incorporates representation from each of its centers, is a notable example. These intraagency groups, which should include policy, communications, and budget specialists, will foster improved communication within the agency, across the Federal Government, and with outside stakeholders and agency customers. 1.3. Strengthen participation in the NNI by DOC (beyond NIST), DOEd, and DOL in light of their respective departmental missions. Interdisciplinary training, broad-based education, workforce preparation, market assessment and evaluation, and standards development are critical challenges for nanotechnology and are essential for the United States to achieve the expected societal and economic benefits of nanotechnology research, development, and commercialization. These needs warrant closer involvement from these agencies in the NNI than has existed to date. 1.4. Coordinate NSET Subcommittee and working groups activities more broadly with related NSTC interagency working groups, especially the Interagency Working Group on Manufacturing R&D, which has identified nanomanufacturing as an area of opportunity. 1.5. Continue to function as the central coordination structure for nanotechnology R&D—including nanotechnology EHS research. The NSET Subcommittee, its working groups, and the NNCO have been, and should continue to be, the locus of coordination for all nanotechnology-related activities. Congress, to the extent that it engages these issues, should support the current interagency coordination and management structure of the NNI through the NSET Subcommittee and the NNCO.

2. Standards Development Progress across the breadth of NNI-supported R&D critically depends upon the development and implementation of standards for nanomaterial identification, characterization, and risk assessment. 2.1. Participate in the development of voluntary consensus-based standards, which are crucial to research, commercialization, and safe handling and

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

92

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology use of nanotechnology. The NNI agencies, individually and jointly through the NNCO, should participate in and support standards development activities. In particular, the NNI should support U.S. participation at key international standards bodies, such as the International Organization for Standards (ISO). Through Federal agency participation, the NNI should seek to avoid duplication of standards development work at organizations that have overlapping areas of activity. 2.2. Develop materials and analytical standards for nanotechnology EHS research. Such standards are critical to characterizing and monitoring effects of nanomaterials. NIST should lead the development work, in consultation and collaboration with agencies that use such standards, including EPA and FDA. The initial focus should be on nanomaterials that have or are moving toward broad commercial use (e.g., nanoscale gold, silver, metal oxides, carbon nanotubes, and other materials such as those identified in the OECD list of fourteen most common nanomaterials in current applications). 2.3. Work towards development of minimum data sets of physical and chemical properties of nanomaterials. If properly defined, adoption of a minimum set of data for research on nanomaterials would ensure accurate communication of research results and product properties. It would also enable comparison and reproducibility of EHS testing. This is essential to ensure that evaluations are meaningful and that the assessments of potential EHS impacts are sound. NIST should take a leading role in coordinating efforts to this end among the interagency NNI members.

3. Technology Transfer and Commercialization Nanotechnology innovation through to commercialization depends on maintaining and strengthening cross-sector collaborations and cross-fertilization of technology development and business development expertise. 3.1. Expand efforts to assess national and international innovation and commercialization activities. While the NNAP commends current and ongoing efforts, the NNI—led by DOC—should identify metrics and obtain data that will allow accurate assessment of the economic impact of nanotechnology development. This will require closer and more

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

93

coordinated involvement from DOC and continued engagement with OECD to obtain better data at the national and international levels. The downstream impact of nanotechnology development on the economy remains difficult to quantitatively assess, but market projections based on well-defined categories of nanomaterials and devices and specific classes of products will allow for some reasonable estimates, if properly qualified. In any case, since so many industries are involved in nanotechnology development, it appears clear that nanotechnology will have a large economic impact, and continuously monitoring that impact is an important role DOC should play. 3.2. Continue to build connections across the innovation ecosystem, including requiring that multidisciplinary centers partner with industry or with economic development organizations. NSF, NIH, and other major supporters of multidisciplinary nanotechnology-focused centers should explicitly support, maintain, and strengthen cross-sector linkages. 3.3. Educate more scientists and engineers to become entrepreneurs and skilled technology workers. Transfer of know-how and ideas from university labs to products and processes with commercial value and public benefit occurs primarily through college and university education and research activities. Funding world- class research is the best “training program” for top-notch nanoscale scientists and engineers.9 The NSF Integrative Graduate Education Research and Traineeship (IGERT) program is a notable model in this regard, particularly with respect to interdisciplinary nanotechnology training and R&D.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS Nanotechnology EHS research must be strategically guided, integrated, and coordinated across agencies, sectors, and countries, and include balanced assessment of risks and benefits in the context of specific, real-world applications. 4.1. Coordinate the nanotechnology EHS strategy with industry and international stakeholders. EHS research is noncompetitive; therefore, the NNI should coordinate efforts in this area with the activities of 9

While this report focuses on nanotechnology, the NNAP references useful reports with regard to the nature of engineering education, including the November 2006 workshop by the National Science Board (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07122/nsb07122 4.pdf).

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

94

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

4.2.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

industry and other countries so as to avoid duplication and to leverage investments. NNI member agencies should work centrally through the NNCO and/or consensus lead agencies designated in the NNI nanotechnology EHS research strategy to coordinate their respective research activities with other relevant entities. Do not segregate implications research and applications research. In many instances, nanotechnology EHS research cannot be separated from the particular application(s) research and from the context for which a specific nanomaterial is intended. Such division is unproductive and neglects the whole benefit of research. Consequently, the NNAP expects that a substantial fraction of nanotechnology research related to EHS will continue to take place under the auspices of agencies that fund applications R&D and may not be uniquely or exclusively identified as nanotechnology EHS research. Risk research that is performed independent of applications development should nevertheless be carried out with consideration of overall risks and benefits associated with the particular material or technology. Furthermore, detailed reporting on the degree of relevance to EHS of such research is not necessarily critical to (and may actually hinder) overall prioritization and coordination. Continue developing joint programs among NNI agencies that leverage expertise and resources to conduct nanotechnology EHS research and to support agency missions. The NNI member agencies should proactively seek to collaborate on priority EHS research, where appropriate, in order to expedite progress and take advantage of competency and knowledge that is distributed across the Federal Government. Support wide distribution and availability of new nonproprietary information about the properties of nanomaterials. Such information should include methods for risk/benefit analysis that can be implemented by researchers, as well as by developers and manufacturers. Note: As mentioned earlier in the report, in the near future the NNAP will be adding an addendum to this report with its review of the justpublished NNI EHS research strategy.

5. SOCIETAL AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1. Research on the societal and ethical aspects of nanotechnology should both be integrated with technical R&D and take place in the context of

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

95

broader societal and ethical scholarship. Societal research should continue to be addressed in conjunction with technical research activities. However, these discussions will also be advanced by involvement of researchers who are primarily engaged in social science, ethics of technology, and other members of the broader academic community with expertise on science, technology, and society.

6. COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Public perception of and expectations related to nanotechnology should be informed based on sound science and balanced assessment of risks and benefits (known and anticipated) of specific innovations and their implications for society.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

6.1. Demonstrate more clearly to the public the value of nanotechnology and N NI-supported research and development. Broader communication and outreach efforts are an essential part of successful innovation. A lack of information and basic understanding of nanotechnology by the general public fosters susceptibility to exaggerated claims and to miscommunications that generate unfounded hopes or fears; these in turn may inhibit future nanotechnology innovation and societal benefit. While communication is a fundamental responsibility of all researchers, a number of specific NNI programs are pursuing efforts to address this both broadly (e.g., the NSF Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network, or NISE Net10) and more narrowly, in areas of application (e.g., the model communications efforts of the Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer program at NCI11). Nonetheless, the NNI should undertake a more explicit and direct outreach approach to better inform and engage policymakers, stakeholders of all types, and the general public in a dialog as to the application-specific status and associated risk-benefit ratio of relevant near-commercial and commercial nanotechnologies; and to convey the significance of nanotechnology-based capabilities to address grand challenges and future opportunities across industry sectors. Failing to effectively communicate the complete risk-benefit pictures with respect to various specific nanotechnology applications as they exist to date will hinder 10 11

See http://www.nisenet.org/. See http://nano.cancer.gov/

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

96

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology realization of the significant societal benefits, both demonstrated and promised, of nanotechnology advancements. 6.2. Enhance communications efforts within the NNCO. As an interagency office, the NNCO is well positioned to serve as a central point for much of the communication activity outlined above. In addition, the office also should coordinate among NNI agencies to enhance their agencyspecific communication efforts. Member agencies should provide for greater resources to be directed toward these activities.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS Agencies Departments, agencies, and commissions within the Executive Branch of U.S. Federal Government AML Advanced Measurement Laboratory (NIST) CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (DHHS) CEQ Council on Environmental Quality (Executive Office of the President) CMOS Complementary-symmetry metal-oxide-semiconductor (integrated circuits) CNST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (NIST) CNT Carbon nanotube CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission DHS Department of Homeland Security DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DOC Department of Commerce DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DOEd Department of Education DOJ Department of Justice DOL Department of Labor DOS Department of State DOT Department of Transportation EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDA Food and Drug Administration (DHHS) GIN Global Issues in Nanotechnology Working Group (NSET) IGERT Integrative Graduate Education Research and Traineeship awards (NSF) ISO International Organization for Standardization

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative NASA NCI NCL NCTR NEHI NIEHS NIH NILI NIOSH

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

NISE NIST NNAP NNCO NNI NNIN NPEC NRC NRI NSEC NSET NSF NSRC NSTC OECD OMB OSTP PCA PCAST R&D USPTO USDA UVA

97

National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Cancer Institute (DHHS/NIH) Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory (DHHS/NIH/NCI) National Center for Toxicological Research (DHHS/FDA) Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Working Group (NSET) National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (DHHS/NIH) National Institutes of Health (DHHS) Nanomanufacturing, Innovation, and Liaison with Industry Working Group (NSET) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (DHHS/CDC) Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NSF-supported network) National Institute of Standards and Technology (DOC) National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (PCAST) National Nanotechnology Coordination Office National Nanotechnology Initiative National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NSF program) Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications Working Group (NSET) National Research Council of the National Academies Nanoelectronics Research Initiative Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSF program) Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee of the NSTC Committee on Technology National Science Foundation Nanoscale Science Research Centers (DOE program) National Science and Technology Council Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Office of Management and Budget (Executive Office of the President) Office of Science and Technology Policy (Executive Office of the President) Program Component Area President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology research and development U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (DOC) U.S. Department of Agriculture ultraviolet radiation, long wave (400 nm–320 nm wavelength)

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

98

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

APPENDIX B: NNI PROGRAM COMPONENT AREAS

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Program Component Areas (PCAs) are the major subject areas under which related NNI projects and activities are grouped. Whereas the NNI goals embody the vision of the initiative and provide structure for its strategy and plans, the PCAs relate to areas of investment that are critical to accomplishing those goals. These areas cut across the interests and needs of the participating agencies and indicate where advancement may be expedited through coordination of work by multiple agencies. The PCAs are intended to provide a means by which the NSET Subcommittee, as the interagency coordinating body; the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Congress; and others may be informed of and direct the relative investment in these key areas. The PCAs also provide a structure by which the agencies funding research and development can better direct and coordinate their activities. The eight PCAs are defined as follows: 1. Fundamental Nanoscale Phenomena and Processes: Discovery and development of fundamental knowledge pertaining to new phenomena in the physical, biological, and engineering sciences that occur at the nanoscale. Elucidation of scientific and engineering principles related to nanoscale structures, processes, and mechanisms. 2. Nanomaterials: Research aimed at the discovery of novel nanoscale and nanostructured materials and at a comprehensive understanding of the properties of nanomaterials (ranging across length scales, and including interface interactions). R&D leading to the ability to design and synthesize, in a controlled manner, nanostructured materials with targeted properties. 3. Nanoscale Devices and Systems: R&D that applies the principles of nanoscale science and engineering to create novel, or to improve existing, devices and systems. Includes the incorporation of nanoscale or nanostructured materials to achieve improved performance or new functionality. To meet this definition, the enabling science and technology must be at the nanoscale, but the systems and devices themselves are not restricted to that size. 4. Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards for Nanotechnology: R&D pertaining to the tools needed to advance nanotechnology research and commercialization, including nextgeneration instrumentation for characterization, measurement, synthesis, and design of materials, structures, devices, and systems. Also includes

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

5.

6.

7.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

8.

99

research and development and other activities related to development of standards, including standards for nomenclature, materials, characterization and testing, and manufacture. Nanomanufacturing: R&D aimed at enabling scaled-up, reliable, costeffective manufacturing of nanoscale materials, structures, devices, and systems. Includes research and development and integration of ultraminiaturized top-down processes and increasingly complex bottom-up or self-assembly processes. Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition: Establishment of user facilities, acquisition of major instrumentation, and other activities that develop, support, or enhance the Nation's scientific infrastructure for the conduct of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology R&D. Includes ongoing operation of user facilities and networks. Environment, Health, and Safety: Research primarily directed at understanding the environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology development and corresponding risk assessment, risk management, and methods for risk mitigation.12 Education and Societal Dimensions: Education-related activities such as development of materials for schools, undergraduate programs, technical training, and public communication, including outreach and engagement. Research directed at identifying and quantifying the broad implications of nanotechnology for society, including social, economic, workforce, educational, ethical and legal implications.

NOTE: With the release at the end of 2007 of the updated NNI Strategic Plan, the original Societal Dimensions PCA (7) defined in the 2004 plan was divided into two PCAs as shown. This change aligns with budget- reporting practices since 2006.

12

Environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research and development on the EHS implications of nanotechnology includes efforts whose primary purpose is to understand and address potential risks to health and to the environment posed by this technology. Potential risks encompass those resulting from human, animal, or environmental exposure to nanoproducts— here defined as engineered nanoscale materials, nanostructured materials, or nanotechnology-based devices, and their byproducts.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

100

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

APPENDIX C: PLANNED 2009 AGENCY INVESTMENTS BY PCA

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

227.8 Fundamental nanoscale phenomena & processes Nanomaterials 55.2 107.7 Nanoscale devices and systems 3.6 Instrument Research, Metrology, & Standards 12.8 Nanomanufacturing Major research 22.1 facilities & instrumentation acquisition Environment, 1.8 Health, & Safety Education & Societal Dimensions NNI Total 431.0

DHS DOT (FHWA) Total

DOJ

USDA (CREES)

USDA (FS)

DHHS (NIOS H)

EPA

NASA

DOC (NIST)

DHHS (NIH)

DOE

NSF

DOD

Table C-1. Planned 2009 agency investments by Program Component Area (PCA) in millions of dollars

141.7 96.9 55.5 24.5 1.2 0.2

1.7 0.4

0.9 550.8

62.5 63.5 25.4 8.5 9.8 0.2 51.6 8.1 125.8 22.7 7.7 0.2

1.3 0.8 0.7 1.5

227.2 327.0

16.0 32.0 5.9

20.9

1.1

26.9 6.0

15.3

0.2 0.1

0.8

32.1 101.2 0.0

5.7

30.6 3.0

7.7

12.8 0.1 14.3 6.0

35.5 0.5

4.6

1.0

2.0

0.2

81.5

62.1 161.3

0.1

76.4 40.6

396.9 311.2 225.7 110.4 19.0 14.9 6.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.9 1,527.0

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

101

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2006 NRC REVIEW OF THE NNI In December 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies conducted its first triennial review of the NNI, largely in parallel to the initial NNAP review, but including specific one-time studies on the technical feasibility of molecular manufacturing and the responsible development of nanotechnology.113Some of the key findings may be summarized as follows: •

•

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

•

13

NNI-related R&D is world-class and in many instances world-leading, and... is making invaluable contributions to the advancement of knowledge and innovation in the United States. [p. 22] Increased interagency cooperation—which has enhanced the development of interdisciplinary research, led to improvements in the R&D infrastructure, and stimulated new areas in research—is an important impact of the NNI. [p. 5] The articulation [in the NNI Strategic Plan] of the NNI’s strategic goals and the development of the related PCAs are an important outcome of the NNI that has had a positive impact on the provision of Federal support for the fields and disciplines involved in R&D at the nanoscale... the strategy has led to the NNI contributing to the education of the 21st Century R&D workforce, as well as addressing societal issues such as health effects and environmental impact. [pp. 24–25] The flexible structure of the [NSET] working groups... help[s] to promote effective interagency communication, coordination, and joint programs development and enable the NSET Subcommittee to efficiently address societal issues by giving it ready access to regulatory experts and health professionals in various agencies. [pp. 25–26] ... other outreach and coordination efforts stimulated by and established under the NNI have made a considerable contribution to coordination of R&D efforts in pursuit of realizing the full potential of nanotechnology. [p. 27]

National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. 2006. A matter of size: Triennial review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington DC: National Academies Press. (See http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordid=11752.)

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

102

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology •

•

•

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

•

•

A significant impact of the NNI has been the development of new collaborations across agencies and between different units within agencies that are conducting R&D relevant to the broad goals articulated by the NNI... [p. 27] A critically important impact of the NNI has been the focused investment by the NNI-participating agencies in the establishment and development of multidisciplinary research and education centers devoted to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Many such centers are designated as user facilities available to researchers from academia and the private sector, and to scientists at the national laboratories. [p. 29] NNI-related science and technology R&D and the strong Federal support for discovery-based research and interdisciplinary collaborations at university centers are attracting and exciting students... [However, the] committee believes that the public’s curiosity about nanotechnology could be leveraged more effectively to build public support for the Federal support of R&D in the physical and biomedical sciences, as well as attract new talent into U.S. undergraduate and graduate education. [pp. 34–35] Although good comparative indicators of investment in nanotechnology R&D, resultant innovation, and economic exploitation of nanotechnology do not exist, existing data point to worldwide growth in investment in nanoscale research and innovation. The United States appears to remain in the lead, but with other countries closing this gap. [pp. 58–59] It is too early to gauge the economic impact of nanotechnology... any future analysis of economic impact will be hindered unless data are collected and metrics developed that will facilitate a rigorous analysis of economic indicators such as jobs created or individuals employed as a result of nanotechnology development. [p. 69] Materials and devices of moderate complexity can be designed and manufactured by molecular assembly... [however,] the eventually attainable perfection and complexity of manufactured products, while they can be calculated in theory, cannot be predicted with confidence... Research funding that is based on the ability of investigators to produce experimental demonstrations that link to abstract models and guide longterm vision is most appropriate to achieve this goal. [p. 108] It is not possible yet to make a rigorous assessment of the level of risk posed by [engineered nanomaterials]. Further risk assessment protocols

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

103

have to be developed, and more research is required to enable assessment of potential EHS risks from nanomaterials. [p. 90] Many of the report’s findings are also associated with recommendations. The following is a summary of key recommendations: •

•

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

• •

The Federal Government [should] sustain [nanoscale science and technology] investments in a manner that balances the pursuit of shorterterm goals with support for longer-term R&D and that ensures a robust supporting infrastructure, broadly defined. Supporting long-term research effectively will require making new funds available that do not come at the expense of much-needed ongoing investments in U.S. physical sciences and engineering research. [pp. 7–8] The Federal Government [should] establish an independent advisory panel with specific operational expertise in nanoscale science and engineering; management of research centers, facilities, and partnerships; and interdisciplinary collaboration... [p. 8] Federal agencies participating in the NNI, in consultation with the NNCO and the Office of Management and Budget, [should] continue to develop and enhance means for consistent tracking and reporting of funds requested, authorized, and expended annually. The current set of PCAs provides an appropriate initial template for such tracking. [p. 9] The NSET Subcommittee [should] carry out or commission a study on the feasibility of developing metrics to quantify the return to the U.S. economy from the Federal investment in nanotechnology R&D. [pp. 9– 10] Research on the environmental, health, and safety effects of nanotechnology [should] be expanded. [p. 11] The NSET Subcommittee [should] create a working group on education and the workforce that engages the Department of Education and the Department of Labor as active participants. [p. 40]

REFERENCES 108th Congress. 2003 (December). Public Law 108-153. An Act to authorize appropriations for nanoscience, nanoengineering, and nanotechnology research, and for other purposes. Washington, DC: GPO. Available online:

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

104

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108 cong public laws&docid=f:publ153.108.pdf. Chen, H. and M.C. Roco. 2008. Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge: Global, longitudinal patent and literature analysis. Private communication with the author(s). (Publication forthcoming.) Eklund, P., P. Ajayan, R. Blackmon, A.J. Hart, J. Kong, B. Pradhan, A. Rao, and A. Rinzler. 2007. International assessment of research and development of carbon nanotube manufacturing and applications. Baltimore, MD: WTEC, Inc. Available online: http://wtec.org/cnm/CNMfinalreport.pdf. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Policy Council 2007. Nanotechnology white paper. Washington, DC: EPA. Available online: http:// es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/whitepaper12022005.pdf. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development 2008. Draft Nanomaterial Research Strategy (NRS). Washington, DC: EPA. Available online: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/nanostrategy 012408.pdf. Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2007. Sunscreen: What’s safe and what works. Available online: See http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/ sunscreens/summary.php and the link “What about nanoparticles?” under “FAQ.” Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2007b. Sunscreen: What's safe and what works. Available online: See http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ special/sunscreens/summary.php and links on that page under “Investigation.” Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nanotechnology Task Force. 2007. Nanotechnology. Washington, DC: FDA. Available online: http:// www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.pdf. Hansen, S.F., B.H. Larsen, S.I. Olsen, and A. Baun. 2007. Categorization framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 1(3): 243–250. Hirjibehedin, C.F., C.-Y. Lin, A.F. Otte, M. Ternes, C.P. Lutz, B.A. Jones, and A.J. Heinrich. 2007. Embedded in a surface molecular network large magnetic anisotropy of a single atomic spin. Science 317:1199–1203. Hu, D., H.C. Chen, Z. Huang, and M.C. Roco. 2007. Longitudinal study on patent citations to academic research articles in nanotechnology (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9:529–542. Kisliuk, B. U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO). 2008. Personal communication. Kukowska-Latallo, J.F., Kimberly A. Candido, Z.Y. Cao, S.S. Nigavekar, I.J. Majoros, T.P. Thomas, L.P. Balogh, M.K. Khan, and J.R. Baker, Jr. 2005.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

105

Nanoparticle targeting of anticancer drug improves therapeutic response in animal model of human epithelial cancer. Cancer Research 65(12): 5317– 5324. Lewison, G. 2007. Personal communication: Data results of text search of the Science Citation Index, performed by Grant Lewison of Evaluametrics Ltd. at request of WTEC for NNCO. Leydesdorff, L., and C. Wagner. 2006. Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics (forthcoming). Available online: http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/ usscience/index.htm. Li, X., Y.L Lin, H.C. Chen, and M.C. Roco. 2007. Worldwide nanotechnology development: A comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (19762004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9(6): 977-1002. Liljeroth, P., J. Repp, and G. Meyer. 2007. Current-induced hydrogen tautomerization and conductance switching of naphthalocyanine molecules. Science 317:1203–1206. Lux Research. 2007. The nanotech report: Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology, 5th ed. New York: Lux Research. Nanosphere, Inc. 2007. “Nanosphere announces FDA clearance of second molecular diagnostics assay.” Press release: http://www.nanosphere.us/ NanosphereAnnouncesFDAClearanceofSecondMolecularDiagnosticsAssay48 76.a spx. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2007. Progress toward safe nanotechnology in the workplace. Washington, DC: NIOSH publication No. 2007-123. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ docs/2007-123/. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2006. Approaches to safe nanotechnology: an information exchange with NIOSH. Washington, DC: NIOSH draft for public comment. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/. National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. 2006. A matter of size: Triennial review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington DC: National Academies Press. (See http://www.nap.edu/catalog. php?recordid=11752.) National Science and Technology Council, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSTC/NSET). 2006. Environmental, health, and safety research needs for engineered nanoscale materials. Washington DC: NSTC. Available online: http://www.nano.gov/NNIEHSresearchneeds.pdf.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

106

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

National Science and Technology Council, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSTC/NSET). 2007. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry. Supplement to the President’s 2008 budget. Appendix A. Available online: http://www.nano.gov/NNI08Budget.pdf. National Science and Technology Council, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSTC/NSET). 2008. The National Nanotechnology Initiative FY 2009 budget and highlights. Available online: http://www.nano.gov/NNIFY09budgetsummary.pdf. National Science and Technology Council, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSTC/NSET). 2008b. Strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety research. Washington DC:NSTC. Available online: http://www.nano.gov/ NNIEHSResearchStrategy.pdf. Nohynek G.J., J. Lademann, C. Ribaud, and M.S. Roberts. 2007. Grey goo on the skin? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and sunscreen safety. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 37(3):251-277. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). 2007. Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health, and Safety Oversight. (http:// www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/Nano%20EHS%20Principles%20Memo OSTP-CEQ FINAL.pdf) President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/FINALPCASTNANOREPORT.pdf. Qin, Y., X.D. Wang, and Z.L. Wang. 2008. Microfibre–nanowire hybrid structure for energy scavenging. Nature 451:809-813. Roco, M.C., and H. Chen. 2008. Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge: Global, longitudinal patent and literature analysis. Private communication with the author(s). (Publication forthcoming.) Shelton, R.D. 2007. Personal communication: Data results from text search of the Science Citation Index as of 2006, performed by R.D. Shelton of WTEC for NNCO. Stoeva, S., J.S. Lee, J.E. Smith, S.T. Rosen, and C.A. Mirkin. 2006. Multiplexed detection of protein cancer markers with biobarcoded nanoparticle probes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128(26):8378–8379. Available online: http://pubs.acs.org/ cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/2006/128/i26/abs/ja0613106.html.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

107

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Yildirim, T., and S. Ciraci. 2005. Titanium-decorated carbon nanotubes as a potential high-capacity hydrogen storage medium. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94:175501.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

In: National Nanotechnology Initiative Editor: Jerrod W. Kleike, pp. 109-117-

ISBN 978-1-60692-727-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

TESTIMONY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE ACT OF 2008

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Joseph S. Krajcik*

April 16, 2008 Dear Chairperson and Members of the Committee, I am honored to present testimony on the “National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.” My name is Joe Krajcik and I have been involved in science education for the last 34 years, first as a high school science teacher and now as a professor of science education. As a professor of science education I have focused my work on improving the teaching and learning of science at the middle and high school levels. I am co-PI on an NSF- funded center, the National Center for Teaching and Learning in Nanoscale Science and Engineering, whose

*

Statement of Dr. Joseph S. Krajcik, Professor of Science Education and Associate Dean of Research, School of Education, the University of Michigan, 610 East University Ann Arbor, MI; E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: 734-647-2014.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

110

Joseph S. Krajcik

primary goal is to enhance the teaching and learning of nanoscience in grades 7 – 16 through learning research. Let me begin by stating that we live in an exciting time with respect to the advances in science and technology, and that we know more about how people learn than ever before. Rapid advances in nanoscience have provided us with new products that have enhanced the quality of our lives ranging from diagnosing disease to improving the clothes we wear. At the same time, these new advances have also raised potential new dangers, because we have now created products that can penetrate the protective layer of skin that covers our bodies. Nanoscale science and engineering are at the core of these changes and advancements. These new advances in nanoscience also have the potential to make the teaching of science more exciting and to build student engagement. Unfortunately, this promise has not been realized in most of our 7 – 12th grade science classrooms. These breakthroughs in science have brought new challenges to science teaching and learning. The advances of nanoscale science and the global economy in which we live challenge the educational community to help students develop deeper and more useful understanding of core science ideas that underlie nanoscience. Unfortunately, the current education system is failing to produce a populace scientifically literate enough to understand the scientific advances of nanoscience. It is also failing to prepare a workforce for the new jobs and professions that are emerging from nanoscience. Children in our country continue to lag behind in science and mathematics on international assessments; yet understanding science and mathematics is critical both for informed citizenship and for global competitiveness. To remedy these problems our country needs to invest in 1) professional development to support 6 - 12 science teachers in learning content related to nanoscience and new pedagogical ideas that are supported by learning research; 2) develop new standards and assessment that focus on the core ideas in science, including those central to nanoscience; 3) develop new instructional resources, including new learning technologies, that focus on nanoscience; 4) redesign undergraduate education, including science teacher preparation programs, so that new ideas in science and learning are incorporated into them; and 5) incentives to attract science majors and people who currently hold science majors into teaching careers. We are also living in an exciting time because of the breakthroughs in understanding how to promote learning in science in general. Learning scientists and science educators are making important discoveries about ways to support learners in various aspects of inquiry, including the use of evidence and the construction of scientific explanations (Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R., 1999; Duschl, Schweingruber, Shouse, 2007). The science

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives …

111

standards on inquiry, described in the National Science Education Standards (1996) and the habits of mind articulated in Benchmarks for science literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Society, 1993), provide guidelines for how teachers should teach science. The science standards and benchmarks provide direction on the content ideas that children should know and the scientific practices they should be able to apply in order to be scientifically literate. New breakthroughs in technologies allow scientists and learners to explore the nanoworld and visualize data in new ways. Yet, even with these fascinating breakthroughs, many science classrooms in the United States still resemble classrooms of the early 1950s, with outdated equipment and pedagogical strategies that lack support for most learners. Perhaps most unfortunate, many of these classrooms are in locations where, typically, children do not succeed in science – our nation’s large urban cities and rural areas. As our nation becomes even more diverse, with growing populations of Hispanics, African-Americans and other cultures, the challenge of how to provide quality science instruction is amplified. These children will grow up in a world where they will need to apply ideas, communicate ideas, make sound decisions based on evidence, and collaborate with others to solve important problems. Many of the new discoveries are in the area of nanoscience, and our children need to be prepared to enter this world. Yet most of our schools are not providing our students with the opportunities to develop the level of science understanding they will need to grasp emerging ideas of the nanoscale. Our science curriculum still concentrates on covering too much content without focusing enough on developing deep, meaningful understanding that learners will need to grasp these new areas or that they will need to make personal and professional decisions. Research has shown that students lack fundamental understanding of science in general and in particular the ideas that will help them understand nanoscience. What content should be taught? How should new ideas about nanoscience be introduced into 7 – 12 classrooms? Through the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(d)), the “National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008” provides for the establishment of Nanoscience Education Partnerships. This Act will help provide important support to improve the education of all children in this country with respect to nanoscience education. The Act calls for 1) professional development activities to support secondary school teachers to use curricular materials incorporating nanotechnology and to inform teachers about career possibilities in nanotechnology; 2) enrichment activities for students, and 3) the identification of appropriate nanotechnology educational materials and incorporation of nanotechnology into the curriculum of schools participating in a

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

112

Joseph S. Krajcik

Partnership. Although important first steps, I question whether this Act through the formation of Partnerships will provide sufficient resources that will make a difference for all children throughout the country. The advance in nanoscience requires a commensurate response from the educational community to prepare our youth. As such, the financial resources needed to make this response must be provided by the national government with help from the private sector. In particular, we need to ensure that all children in our country have access to firstrate science education that will help them understand the ideas of nanoscience and other emerging ideas. The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act calls for providing support for professional development of teachers in nanotechnology. Yet, we need to make sure that this professional development is grounded in the science that teachers teach, focuses on teachers’ practices and provides long-term, standardsbased support (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). The short-term professional development that most teacher experience will not provide enough or the type of support needed for most teachers to understand many of the new ideas and the changing ways of thinking about science at the nanoscale. The ideas of nanoscience were not in textbooks when many of our current teaching force attended college. As such, professional development will be needed that focuses on helping teachers understand the new ideas of nanoscience. Moreover, sustained professional development must provide science teachers support to use pedagogical strategies and techniques that will help students understand ideas behind nanoscience. One critical area that professional development needs to focus on is how to help teachers support students to generate, use, and evaluate evidence to create scientific explanations (Duschl, Schweingruber, Shouse, 2007). Another critical area includes support in using new learning technologies to engage students in visualizing the nanoworld; there are some good resources (see the Concord Consortium Web site, Concord.org, and the NCLT web site, NCLT.US) available to teachers already. Use of these new resources and instructional strategies will require sustained professional development. Nanoscience is also an interdisciplinary field. Advances in science and technology are blurring the lines between the individual scientific disciplines. As science becomes more interdisciplinary, we can no longer rely on the traditional ways of teaching science as a set of well-understood, clearly depicted, stand-alone disciplines. However, how to teach in this fashion is not easy, particularly when teachers themselves did not experience education in this manner and pre-service programs preparing science teachers require science majors in specific science disciplines rather than providing interdisciplinary education. These present realities further the cycle of thinking within disciplines rather than between

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives …

113

disciplines. We need to provide professional development and universities need to prepare teachers to teach in this interdisciplinary manner. Moreover, our nation needs to have learning research to support models of how to support teachers teaching in this manner. Once teachers develop the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to teach nanoscience, they still will still face challenges teaching these new ideas to children unless they have appropriate classroom materials and resources. Some good instructional materials are beginning to appear, but more development and research is necessary to understand how they promote student learning. Although some teachers can develop curriculum materials, teachers modify curriculum to their local needs. If teachers can start with coherent materials that are known to promote learning, there is a great chance that students will learn important ideas (Kesidou, & Roseman, 2002). Although the national science education standards in this country helped to bring about a focus on standards-based reform and coherent educational materials and assessments, the standards are now outdated and need revamping. New standards that focus on the big ideas of nanoscience (Stevens, Sutherland, Shank, & Krajcik, 2008) and other knowledge essential for the 21st century need to be developed and adapted by schools. Important ideas in nanoscience are not currently incorporated in the national standards. Nanoscience education introduces students to emerging ideas of science and supports understanding of the interconnections between the traditional scientific domains by providing compelling, real-world interdisciplinary examples of science in action. However, standards-based teaching with an interdisciplinary focus will also require extensive and sustained professional development. The national science education standards also need renovation because there are too many standards. We know from successes in other countries and from research studies that attempting to cover too many ideas leads students to develop superficial knowledge that they cannot use to solve problems, make decisions, and understand phenomena. Hence, our national science education standards need reworking, updating and consolidating. Renovating the standards is critical because assessments are driven by standards. If we develop standards that include the content understandings and scientific practices that we cherish for our children to develop, then more appropriate assessments will follow. Our current testing practices, however, put stress on classroom teachers, particularly when the testing practices do not align with important learning goals. Assessment, particularly assessment that challenges learners to use ideas and inform their development, is a good thing. We know that learners need to experience science in engaging contexts and apply

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

114

Joseph S. Krajcik

ideas in order to learn; yet with so many standards, teachers feel as if they must cover topics in fear that students will not succeed on high stakes examinations rather than focus on helping students develop understanding. The national standards have allowed us to make headway in improving science instruction, but they still focus on too many content ideas and do not emphasis emerging ideas. Rather than focusing on covering too many ideas, our nation needs a long-term developmental approach to learning science that focuses on the ideas we most care about and takes into consideration learners’ prior knowledge and how ideas build upon each other. The Act needs to include provisions that take into account this development and research work to develop new standards that can drive development of appropriate assessments, and new instructional materials and resources. As our country now exists, each state has different standards, in addition to the national standards. This is not a workable system. We need to make certain that states buy into any new national standards and assessments by providing appropriate incentives. We need to find ways to ensure that states align themselves with these renovated national standards. Learning nanoscience will not occur without appropriate resources for teaching these new ideas. The resources also need to include new laboratory equipment and technology equipment to teach nanoscience. Although the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act provides funds for course, curriculum and laboratory improvement for undergraduate education, the Act does not call for updating secondary science laboratories. The Act needs to provide support for improving secondary school science laboratory equipment. In order to learn science, students need to have essential firsthand experiences when possible and secondhand experiences to understand the complex ideas underlying nanoscience. Nanoscience cannot be taught and students will not develop understanding of the ideas underlying nanoscience without first- and secondhand experiences. Students need to experience and do science if they are going to learn with understanding. However, most U.S. high schools and middle school are illequipped for students to have these experiences. Budget cuts have caused schools to stop purchasing consumable science supplies and new materials, preventing students from experiencing phenomena. New laboratory equipment needs to allow learners to take part in inquiry experiences that will allow learners to put ideas together so that they can solve problems, make decisions, use and evaluate evidence, and explain phenomena. The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act includes funds to revamp undergraduate education. Because of new content and the interdisciplinary nature of nanoscience, a revamping of how science is taught at

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives …

115

the undergraduate level needs to occur. Lasting change, however, will only occur in K – 12 education if support is provided to revamp how we prepare new teachers to teach emerging sciences such as nanoscience. We need to provide incentives to attract college students who have a deep understanding of the science into the teaching profession by providing new models of how they can enter certification programs. A major recommendation of the Glenn Report is that we need to find ways to attract science and mathematics undergraduates into the field of teaching and provide viable ways for them to learn how to teach and obtain certification. Preparing science teachers to teach in schools so that they can help all learners develop the level of understanding of science they need requires the revamping of undergraduate science and mathematics courses so that they reflect more what it is like to do science and mathematics as well as new models of how to prepare teachers. The Act needs to provide funds for both of these critical efforts. We will not change k – 12 schools in the long run unless we change undergraduate teacher education programs that better prepare teachers how to teach. To summarize, schools face pressing challenges with respect to resources, assessment and professional development. Many teachers did not experience science in which ideas built upon each other in a developmental approach, where evidence was used to support claims and where science ideas were used to explain important problems and phenomena; as such, we need models of professional development and the resources that can support teachers as life long learners to learn new pedagogical strategies and new assessment practices. New ideas that emerge in science, such as nanoscience, also present challenges for teachers with respect to integration into curriculum. For our children to live fruitful and fulfilled lives in an ever-globalizing world, our nation needs a system of science education that can prepare a scientifically literate population and a competent scientific workforce that has a useful understanding of the big ideas of science, including those of nanoscience. We are at a moment in history in which we, as a nation, need to provide learners with the scientific experiences, skills, and habits of mind that will allow them to make important decisions regarding the environment, their health, and our social policies. We have a growing body of knowledge that can help bring about this reform to science education. We are at a crossroads in science education. We can continue to push and build upon the knowledge, resources and models of exemplary teachers who know how to engage students deeply to reform science education, or we can retreat to old pedagogical strategies that don’t work. We need to build upon the strengths we have as a nation and resist yielding to testing pressures that focus on

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

116

Joseph S. Krajcik

unimportant ideas and pedagogical strategies that we know do not work. Yet, we will only do so with leadership and support from our national government. We need funding to provide for and study the impacts of sustained professional development and the development of new science standards that take into consideration what we know about how children learn. We also need support to design curriculum resources and assessments that align with the new standards and to study the impact of these high quality resources on student learning. Finally we need support for the revamping of undergraduate education and developing new models of preparing teachers to teach. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 provides some support for these important initiatives, but to provide the education that all children, regardless of their backgrounds and culture, need to live in a technology-driven world will require more support for improving teaching and learning. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the House Committee on Science and Technology. I hope that you have found some of my remarks valuable.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES American Association for the Advancement of Society. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford Press. Before It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, 2000, www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). Hoe well do middle sschool science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.National Research Council. (1996).

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives …

117

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Stevens, S. Sutherland, L., Shank, P., Krajcik, J. (2008). Big Ideas in NanoScience. http://www.hice.org/projects/nano/index.html.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

In: National Nanotechnology Initiative Editor: Jerrod W. Kleike, pp. 119-129

ISBN 978-1-60692-727-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

STATEMENT OF MR. E. FLOYD KVAMME, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

E. Floyd Kvamme April 16, 2008 Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to testify today. My name is Floyd Kvamme. I am co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (or PCAST). PCAST comprises a high-level group from academia, industry, and other entities with experience in leading successful science and technology enterprises. My remarks today are my own, but based on our recent review, I am confident that my fellow PCAST members feel similarly on the issues under discussion today. Last week, PCAST released its second review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (or the NNI), and I’d like to reference that report in full for this hearing’s record. That review, required by Congress as the primary external advisory mechanism for the NNI, includes a detailed assessment of NNI program activities and coordination developed through extensive review and consultation by PCAST members over the last 18 months. The executive summary of the report is attached to this testimony and I recommend it for your

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

120

E. Floyd Kvamme

review (full report available at: http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/PCAST_ NNAP_NNI_Assessment_2008.pdf). We are here today to talk about the NNI and the Committee’s draft legislation to reauthorize this important interagency research and development (R&D) program. Let me begin by giving you my view of what nanotechnology is. If one drops the ‘nano’ part of the word, we are talking about ‘technology’. Technology today invades virtually every part of our economy. It’s not only computers and communications, but healthcare, energy, transportation, education, and – in a word – everything. As a result, in talking about a “technology initiative,” we are talking about a very wide and varied range of industries and applications. Nanotechnology is simply the continuing development of technology to applications which take advantage of the unique properties of some materials engineered at the nanoscale. Nanotechnology is being applied in virtually all of the applications mentioned above and will, undoubtedly, make many of the products in these applications better – either in performance, cost or both. We should not think of some narrow range of applications for nanotechnology, but rather a vast array of potential uses. Establishment of the NNI was a very good idea. I commend the great work of Congress and this Committee for formally authorizing this initiative in 2003. In both our first report in 2005 and now our second one released last week, we have had to deal not only with the diversity that is nanotechnology but also a wide range of Federal agencies involved in supporting and/or conducting nano R&D. Appropriately, the initiative did not set up a new agency with a specific budget; rather, it set up coordination, planning, and review mechanisms intended to ensure individual agency activities in nanotechnology are effectively supporting program- and government-wide goals. I believe recognizing this is important and instructive with respect to the draft legislation, and I’ll get to that in a few moments. The legislation did formally establish the coordinating office which raises its budget through contributions from the various agencies with nanotechnology R&D budgets. Agencies with primarily regulatory missions have also taken an active role in the initiative and have contributed to its activities. This strong and deep interagency coordination—a premier example of any such Federal R&D initiative—has been central to the success to date of the NNI. At the same time, the agencies have specific missions and objective to address. For example, appropriate and informed support for environmental, health and safety (EHS) research within the NNI is an important responsibility that demands strong coordination. With respect to this issue PCAST has found that the NNI’s approach has been sound; the interagency coordination process identified EHS research needs, mapped those needs to current activities to identify potential

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Statement of Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme …

121

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

research opportunities, and then prioritized those opportunities to inform budget and planning activities. For example, I refer you to page 49 of the recentlyreleased NNI Strategy for Nanotechnology-R elated Environmental, Health, and Safety Research (full report available at http://www.nano.gov/NNI_ EHS_Research_Strategy.pdf):

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

122

E. Floyd Kvamme

In this document the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee’s working group on Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (or NEHI) has developed five critical areas for EHS research. The agencies agreed to cooperate such that while there was a lead agency for each task, the other agencies contribute to the overall goals agreed to within the NNI. These efforts do not take away from the other work within the agencies to perform their mission-oriented functions but, in our view, lead to more effective activity within the lead agency. I point specifically to the reports and activities of NIOSH, EPA, FDA, and NIST (detailed on page 27 in our PCAST report) as examples of agency specific activity: •

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

•

•

The OSTP and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued in November 2007 a memorandum identifying principles for nanotechnology environmental health and safety oversight based on interagency consensus.1 The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued a call in July 2006 for information in Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology2 inviting expert feedback from private industry and other government entities, and in June 2007 it issued the report Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace.3 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produced in February 2007 a white paper4 summarizing the agency’s anticipated approach to nanotechnology EHS research, followed in February 2008 by a nanomaterial research strategy.5 The agency also has launched a Voluntary Nanoscale Materials stewardship program. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released in July 2007 the report6 of its Nanotechnology Task Force’s efforts to clarify a predictable pathway for application of existing regulatory approaches on a case-bycase basis for developers of nanotechnology-enabled products under its jurisdiction. NIST is producing standard reference materials for nanoscale gold and carbon nanotubes.

1

http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/Nano%20EHS%20Principles%20Memo FINAL.pdf 2 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/ 3 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-123/ 4 http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/whitepaper12022005.pdf 5 http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/nano_strategy_012408.pdf 6 http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.pdf

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

OSTP-CEQ

Statement of Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme …

123

The provision in the draft reauthorizing legislation that the NNI collectively allocate a minimum of 10% of its nanotechnology R&D to EHS-related research is problematic in both practice and principle: •

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

In practice, the funding of each agency is fundamentally independent of the NNI. The NSET Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council provides the base for coordinating NNI member agencies activities and planning efforts, but it does not direct NNI funding. Furthermore, it is not feasible or reasonable to exclusively designate projects (or portions of projects) as exclusively “EHS” or not. The current reporting structure of the NNI by Program Component Areas or PCAs enables characterization and analysis of the research portfolio that is sufficient for policy and planning purposes. The current funding mechanisms and structure of the NNI makes it difficult for me to see how this “minimum funding” across the program is either reasonable, necessary, or, indeed, practical. In principle, this set-aside appears to be arbitrary and not based on a sound scientific analysis of the current NNI portfolio of relevant research (including extensive relevant research not reported under the EHS program component area) and what is strategically needed. Instead, support should be guided by the identified gaps and sequential priorities identified in the NNI’s nanotechnology EHS research strategy. Like all other aspects of the NNI, EHS research funding decisions should be determined by identified R&D objectives, as is currently the approach of the agencies within the NNI. Scientifically- determined, strategicallyplanned priorities—not arbitrary percentages—should guide funding for all nanotechnology research, including research relevant to EHS.

It is important to note that funding for nano-related EHS research has doubled since 2005. As industry picks up more applications research, the federal government’s role will change and is already changing to work more in the EHS and regulatory areas. EHS funding will probably continue to increase. The one area where funding is accelerating – perhaps tied to our recommendations – is in worker safety where we will propose in our upcoming letter on the EHS report that NIOSH spending accelerate. The reason worker spending is so critical is that in many instances, nanomaterials – while in nano form in the workplace – stop being nanomaterials after production and become a tightly, chemically bound part of a larger system.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

124

E. Floyd Kvamme

With respect to the oversight provisions in the proposed reauthorization, the breadth and depth of high-level expertise of the PCAST in its role as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel combined with the detailed expertise of the ad hoc Technical Advisory Group has worked quite well the past five years in providing functional oversight for the NNI and directly advising the President on nanotechnology. The proposed bill should maximize the flexibility for the next Administration in establishing its own advisory structure. As the current PCAST prepares to pass the baton to the next administration, we will suggest they incorporate a similar approach to oversight, leveraging the expertise of a large technical advisory group, whether they be within PCAST or separate. With respect to overcoming barriers to commercialization and facilitating tech transfer, again I refer to the report of the PCAST review of the NNI. The NNI’s unparalleled infrastructure of centers, networks, and user facilities is working very well, geographically distributed and with a wide array of expertise. These facilities are serving their purposes well based on all inputs we have received from both our TAG members and personal experience. Furthermore, the NNI already supports “large-scale research and development projects” on problems of national importance, for example, in energy and biomedicine. The National Cancer Institute, for example, supports a five-year, $144 million program developing nanotechnology for cancer diagnostics and therapeutics that involves 8 centers and over 400 investigators. With respect to overall funding, the NNI seems well funded in balance to other programs in the S&T budget. PCAST had hoped that the America COMPETES Act funding would have been passed and will continue to support those priorities of this Congress. In summary, the NNI as currently structured is a very productive and effective program and a model of interagency coordination. Our newly released report makes recommendations for improvement but finds the program basically sound. Industry is benefiting from its research. A clear strategy has been developed for nanotechnology-related EHS research, and EHS guidelines are being presented to guide industry. International cooperation is happening. The National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office and NNI participating agencies have responded to past recommendations from PCAST as well as the Academies and have strengthened the program. Agencies participate voluntarily because they derive benefit from doing so. A heavy-handed reauthorization with overly prescriptive guidance (like an arbitrary EHS funding floor) and bureaucratic micromanagement (such as costly database requirements) will weaken and inhibit the interagency coordination that is vital to the success of the NNI to date. Rather, this reauthorization should be an opportunity to strengthen and support the

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Statement of Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme …

125

interagency coordination founding the NNI, confirming the goals as presented in the original legislation and commending the agencies for their coordinated efforts to maintain the leadership and competitiveness of the U.S. in nanotechnology.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (Public Law 108- 153) calls for a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) to periodically review the Federal nanotechnology research and development (R&D) program known as the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is designated by Executive Order to serve as the NNAP. This report is the second NNAP review of the NNI, updating the first assessment published in 2005. Including the NNI budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2009 of $1.5 billion, the total NNI investment since its inception in 2001 is nearly $10 billion. The total annual global investment in nanotechnology is an estimated $13.9 billion, divided roughly equally among the United States, Europe, and Asia. Industry analysis suggests that private investment has been outpacing that of government since about 2006. The activities, balance, and management of the NNI among the 25 participating U.S. agencies and the efforts to coordinate with stakeholders from outside the Federal Government, including industry and other governments, are the subject of this report. The first report answered four questions: How are we doing? Is the money well spent and the program well managed? Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks? How can we do better? That report was generally positive in its conclusions but provided recommendations for improving or strengthening efforts in the following areas: technology transfer; environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research and its coordination; education and workforce preparation; and societal dimensions. Since the first report, increasing attention has been focused on the potential risks of nanotechnology, especially the possible harm to human health and the environment from nanomaterials. In this second assessment, the NNAP paid special attention to the NNI efforts in these areas. During its review, the NNAP obtained input from various sources. It convened a number of expert panels and consulted its nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (nTAG) and the President’s Council on Bioethics. NNI member agencies and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) also provided valuable information.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

126

E. Floyd Kvamme

The NNAP finds that the United States remains a leader in nanotechnology based on various metrics, including R&D expenditures and outputs such as publications, citations, and patents. However, taken as a region, the European Union has more publications, and China’s output is increasing. There are many examples of NNI-funded research results that are moving into commercial applications. However, measures of technology transfer and the commercial impact of nanotechnology as a whole are not readily available, in part because of the difficulty in defining what is, and is not, a “nanotechnology-based product.” The NNAP commends and encourages the ongoing NNI investment in infrastructure and instrumentation. Leading-edge nanoscale research often requires advanced equipment and facilities. The NNI investment in over 81 centers and user facilities across the country that provide broad access to costly instrumentation, state-of-the-art facilities, and technical expertise has been enormously important and successful. These facilities, which have been funded by many different agencies in order to address a variety of missions, support a diverse range of academic, industry, and government research. In addition, the NNI investment has been used to leverage additional support by universities, State governments, and the private sector. Advances in nanotechnology are embodied in a growing number of applications and products in various industries. Many early applications have been more evolutionary than revolutionary. However, research funded by the NNI today has the potential for innovations that are paradigm shifting, for example in energy and medicine. As with any emerging technology, there is potential for unintended consequences or uses that may prove harmful to health or the environment or that may have other societal implications. The NNAP notes that existing regulations apply to nanotechnology-based products, and those who make or sell such products have responsibilities regarding workplace and product safety. As in 2005, the NNAP believes that the greatest risk of exposure to nanomaterials at present is to workers who manufacture or handle such materials. However, environmental, health, and safety risks in a wide range of settings must be identified and the necessary research performed so that real risks can be appropriately addressed. The NNAP views the approach for addressing EHS research under the NNI as sound. The recent reports by the interagency Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group are good steps by the NNI to prioritize needed EHS research and to coordinate EHS activity across the Federal Government. The NNAP feels that calls for a separate agency or office devoted to nanotechnology EHS research or to set aside a fixed percentage of the budget for

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Statement of Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme …

127

EHS research are misguided and may have the unintended consequence of reducing research on beneficial applications and on risk. In addition to EHS implications, the NNAP considered ethical and other societal aspects of nanotechnology. In consultation with the President’s Council on Bioethics, the panel concluded that at present, nanotechnology does not raise ethical concerns that are unique to the field. Rather, concerns over implications for privacy and for equality of access to benefits are similar to concerns over technological advances in general. This finding does not diminish the importance of continued dialogue and research on the societal aspects of nanotechnology. Overall, the members of the NNAP feel that the NNI continues to be a highly successful model for an interagency program; it is well organized and well managed. The structure of the interagency Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council effectively coordinates the breadth of nanotechnology activities across the Federal Government. The NSET working groups target functional areas in which additional focus is required. The NNCO provides important support that is a key to the success of the program. The Strategic Plan updated in 2007 clearly communicates the goals and priorities for the initiative and includes actions for achieving progress. With the separation in the updated plan of EHS research from that on other societal dimensions, the NNAP finds the Program Component Areas (PCAs) that are defined for purposes of tracking programs and investments serve the NNI well. The NNAP has a number of recommendations for strengthening the NNI, which are grouped into six areas. 1. Infrastructure, management, and coordination. The NNAP feels that the substantial infrastructure of multidisciplinary centers, user facilities, along with instrumentation, equipment, and technical expertise, is vital to continued U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology and should be maintained. Whereas the NNAP finds the coordination and management among the NNI participating agencies to be generally strong, intraagency coordination should be improved, especially in large, segmented agencies. The NNI member agencies should continue to support international coordination through effective international forums, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Such efforts will aid in the development of information related to health and safety, as well as addressing economic barriers and impacts. Implementing and monitoring this recommendation should lead to more effective use of agency resources.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

128

E. Floyd Kvamme 2. Standards development. Nanotechnology standards are necessary for activities ranging from research and development to commerce and regulation. Federal agencies should continue to engage in national and international standards development activities. The NNI should maintain a strong U.S. representation in international forums and seek to avoid duplicative standards development work. Where appropriate, NIST and other NNI agencies should develop reference materials, test methods, and other standards that provide broad support for industry production of safe nanotechnology-based products. 3. Technology transfer and commercialization. The NNI should continue to fund world-class research to promote technology transfer. Strong research programs produce top-notch nanoscale scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, who graduate with knowledge, skills, and innovative ideas. Such programs also have the potential to attract more U.S. students to related fields. NNIfunded centers should be structured to spur partnering with industry, which enhances technology transfer. The NNI should seek means to assess more accurately nanotechnology-related innovation and commercialization of NNI research results. These efforts should be coordinated with those of the OECD to assess economic impact of nanotechnology internationally. 4. Environmental, health, and safety implications. The NNAP feels that the NNI has made considerable progress since its last review in the level and coordination of EHS research for nanomaterials. Such efforts should be continued and should be coordinated with those taking place in industry and with programs funded by other governments to avoid gaps and unnecessary duplication of work. Moreover, EHS research should be coordinated with, not segregated from, applications research to promote risk and benefit being considered together. This is particularly important when development and risk assessment research are taking place in parallel, as they are for nanotechnology today. The NNI should take steps to make widely available nonproprietary information about the properties of nanomaterials and methods for risk/benefit analysis. 5. Societal and ethical implications. Research on the societal and ethical aspects of nanotechnology should be integrated with technical R&D and take place in the context of broader societal and ethical scholarship. The NNAP feels that this approach will broaden the range of perspectives and increase exchange of views on topics that affect society at large. 6. Communication and outreach. The NNAP is concerned that public opinion is susceptible to hype and exaggerated statements—both positive

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Statement of Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme …

129

and negative. The NNI should be a trusted source of information about nanotechnology that is accessible to a range of stakeholders, including the public. The NNI should expand outreach and communication activities by the NNCO and the Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications Working Group and by coordinating existing agency communication efforts. To enhance effectiveness, the information should be developed with broad input and through processes that incorporate two- way communication with the intended audiences.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

This review complements an assessment by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. The NNAP agrees with many of the NRC recommendations. However, the NNAP questions the recommendation for a formal, independent advisory panel. The panel feels that the current arrangement—whereby the NRC panels of technical experts, the high-level science and technology management leaders of PCAST, and the nanotechnology experts on the nTAG each provide distinct and useful input to the NNI review process—provides a broader perspective than would a single group consisting of a smaller number of advisors.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

In: National Nanotechnology Initiative Editor: Jerrod W. Kleike, pp. 131-135

ISBN 978-1-60692-727-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 5

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

TESTIMONY OF SEAN MURDOCK, NANOBUSINESS ALLIANCE, U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HEARING ON THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 Sean Murdock April 16, 2008 Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the House Committee on Science and Technology, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. My name is Sean Murdock, and I am the Executive Director of the NanoBusiness Alliance. The NanoBusiness Alliance is the nanotechnology industry association and the premier nanotechnology policy and commercialization advocacy group in the United States. NanoBusiness Alliance members span multiple stakeholder groups and traditional industrial sectors, including newly formed start-ups, Fortune 500 companies, academic research institutions, and public-private partnerships working to derive economic development and growth through nanotechnology.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

132

Sean Murdock

This wide group of stakeholders has come together because we believe that nanotechnology will be one of the key drivers of quality-of-life improvements, economic growth and business success in the 21st century. The Alliance provides a collective voice and a vehicle for efforts to advance the benefits of nanotechnology across our economy and society. The NanoBusiness Alliance strongly supports the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 as drafted.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

THE NEED FOR THIS LEGISLATION This Committee has long recognized that nanotechnology is one of the most important frontiers of science and technology, and that nanotechnology has the potential to dramatically improve our quality of life, our health, our environment, and our economy. The National Nanotechnology Initiative, which this Committee led Congress in authorizing in 2003, provided the framework for coordinated federal research and development. That authorization bill, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, focused on fundamental nanotechnology research. Now, five years later, it is time to reauthorize and update this legislation. Much has changed in the past half-decade; nanotechnology is beginning to move from the laboratory to the store shelf. American nanotechnology companies are beginning to shift from prototype development to large-scale manufacturing. Employers are beginning to look for a nanotechnology-qualified workforce. And the public is beginning to notice nanotechnology, with its many benefits – and some potential risks, which need to be examined and managed. That the nanotechnology landscape has changed so much in five years is in no small part due to the success of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. But its success at jump-starting the nation’s nanotechnology economy means that the Initiative now needs to be updated to reflect five years of growth. We are pleased that the Committee has thought carefully about how best to bring the National Nanotechnology Initiative up to date. The draft legislation will improve the Initiative’s capabilities in several key areas, including translational research and commercialization; nanotechnology education; and environmental, health, and safety research.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Testimony of Sean Murdock, NanoBusiness Alliance

133

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH AND COMMERCIALIZATION As the Members of this Committee know, America faces intense global competition in every field. But nowhere is this competition more intense than in the field of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology’s economic potential has led countries across Europe and Asia to make large strategic investments in nanotechnology research and development. The stated goal of many of these countries is to dominate one or more sectors of the nanotechnology economy. Russia has announced a $7 billion nanotechnology initiative that will spend nearly $750 million more on nanotechnology research each year than the United States will. China already is on par with the United States, when purchasing power is taken into account. The United States continues to lead the world in fundamental nanotechnology research, but over the last five years we have seen our foreign competitors demonstrate that they are becoming equally capable of commercializing nanotechnology. By leveraging our research, these foreign governments and foreign companies are skipping the hard work and reaping the economic benefits. We must reverse this trend. While we cannot and should not adopt our competitors’ model of direct state investment in private companies, we can and should take steps to ensure that innovative American companies have unfettered access to American research, and that they are able to commercialize that research efficiently and effectively. We should encourage programs such as Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR), and the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). We should focus our efforts on goal- oriented research in areas of national importance. And we should do everything we can to see that federal, state, and private resources are working together toward the goal of bringing as much nanotechnology to market in the United States as possible. The draft legislation does all of this. It retools the National Nanotechnology Initiative to focus more on goal oriented research, while maintaining a commitment to fundamental research. It gives the SBIR, STTR, and TIP programs a leading role. It supports large-scale collaborative efforts to develop nanotechnology solutions to key public policy challenges such as energy efficiency, environmental cleanup, and health care. And it updates the Initiative to include databases and other information-sharing mechanisms to help companies and researchers understand what resources are available.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

134

Sean Murdock

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

NANOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION The NanoBusiness Alliance is firmly committed to advancing nanotechnology education. We cannot expect to compete in the global economy if we are not generating nanotechnology-literate students who will go on to become leaders and workers in the nanotechnology economy. We need to inspire American students to choose science tracks in high school, and then provide them with hands-on nanotechnology opportunities in colleges and technical colleges. As it stands, we are educating foreign students, and then sending them home to compete against us. According to the NSF, foreign students on temporary visas earned 32 percent of all science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United States in 2003, the last year for which data is available. Foreign students earned 55 percent of engineering doctorates. Many of these students expressed an intent to return to their country of origin after completing their studies. The Alliance strongly supported the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, and we are pleased to see that the current legislation reflects the goals of that bill. In particular, the Alliance supports putting nanotechnology tools in the hands of students, so that they can see firsthand what nanotechnology is and why it is important (and exciting). The Alliance also supports integrating local nanotechnology businesses into the program; many of our members are already reaching out to schools in their areas to help introduce students to nanotechnology.

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND SAFETY RESEARCH Nanotechnology has tremendous potential benefits for the environment, health, and safety (EHS). But as we develop nanotechnology applications, we must do so responsibly – identifying and addressing any risks or hazards associated with nanotechnology before they cause environmental, health, or safety problems. The Alliance has called for the National Nanotechnology Initiative to include a comprehensive, fully funded environmental, health, and safety research program, and this legislation does just that. We strongly support this EHS research. Americans need to know that the products they use are safe, or else they will not purchase or use them and the market for those products will collapse. The way to reassure consumers is not by ignoring any problems but by finding and dealing with any problems that may exist. A clear understanding of the environmental,

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Testimony of Sean Murdock, NanoBusiness Alliance

135

health, and safety impacts of various kinds of nanoparticles is necessary, and that understanding must expand as new nanoparticles are developed. The NanoBusiness Alliance believes that environmental, health, and safety research should be fully funded and based on a clear, carefully-constructed research strategy. While we believe that 10 percent of the total funding for nanotechnology research and development is a reasonable estimate of the resources that will be required to execute the strategic plan, we also believe that actual resource levels should be driven by the strategic plan as they will vary significantly across agencies. The Alliance appreciates the Committee’s commitment to developing a broader understanding of nanotechnology before erecting an extensive new regulatory structure. We hope that Congress will see the wisdom of the Committee’s approach, and will use the research authorized by this bill as a basis for the decision of what, if any, new regulation is needed.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION I would like to thank the Committee once again for the invitation to testify today, and for its leadership in working to ensure that America maintains its nanotechnology preeminence in the midst of intense global competition. The NanoBusiness Alliance commends this Committee and its staff for the careful research and extensive collaboration that have led to this proposed legislation. We strongly support the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 as drafted.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

In: National Nanotechnology Initiative Editor: Jerrod W. Kleike, pp. 137-144

ISBN 978-1-60692-727-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 6

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, TESTIMONY ON THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Robert Doering April 16, 2008 Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation is a natural follow-on to the America COMPETES Act signed into law last summer, and we thank this Committee for playing such a critical leadership role in that effort. Texas Instruments (TI) has a 78-year history of innovation. While our products have changed many times over the years, we have always fundamentally been a company of engineers and scientists. We have always looked to the future by investing in R&D. Based in Dallas, TI has become the world’s third largest semiconductor company. TI is focused on developing new electronics that make the world smarter, healthier, safer, greener and more fun. I am also appearing on behalf of the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). SIA has represented America’s semiconductor industry since 1977. The U.S. semiconductor industry has 46 percent of the $257 billion world

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

138

Robert Doering

semiconductor market. The semiconductor industry employs 216,000 people across the U.S., and is America’s second largest export sector. While my testimony today focuses directly on the draft National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act, please note that TI strongly supports the testimony presented last month to the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education by Dr. Jeff Welser, Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) at the Semiconductor Research Corporation on assignment from IBM. TI is an active member of the NRI, as well as the Semiconductor Research Corporation and the Semiconductor Industry Association. Nanotechnology holds the promise of solving a number of major challenges facing our country, in areas such as energy, health care, and security. Nanotechnology research is extremely interdisciplinary, bringing together any combination of biologists, chemists, electrical engineers, physicists, medical doctors and materials scientists. This interdisciplinary nature is one of the reasons that it is essential federal research agencies be encouraged to work collaboratively in the field of nanotechnology. The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act signed into law in 2003 created the mechanism to coordinate federal research agencies on a major scale around this subject. The creation of the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office (NNCO) provided a focal point of these federal activities, leading to the development of strategic plans that identified program component areas, and brought together key stakeholders for workshops on major nanotechnology topics. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 expands upon the foundation of the original legislation to improve interagency activities on critical nanotechnology research. Section 2 contains a number of elements that would enhance the way National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is planned and implemented. Using the NNI strategic plan to establish clear metrics and time frames for both near and longterm objectives, including plans for technology transition with industry and the states, allows better measurement of progress towards NNI goals. The explicit funding mechanism for the NNCO and authorization of travel expenditures are also positive proposals for improving the way the NNI is planned and implemented. The modifications to the Advisory Panel will allow a more direct role for industry input and specific focus on nanotechnology. While PCAST has addressed nanotechnology on a detailed level, it also has a vast scope of work in a range of other areas. My testimony today will focus on two core aspects that TI and the U.S. semiconductor industry see as key components to the legislation: identification of areas of national importance and the translation of basic research into innovations

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

House Committee on Science and Technology, Testimony …

139

that can be commercialized. These are essential to ensuring that the NNI program maintains U.S. leadership in nanotechnology.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

AREAS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE (SECTION 5) The draft legislation’s inclusion of “Areas of National Importance” is an essential element to the bill. The identification of the areas specifically named in the bill as well as subsequently by the Advisory Panel, will facilitate prioritization of interagency activity and resources around nanotechnology research that addresses the most critical challenges facing our country. It is indeed appropriate with this legislation for Congress to set some initial areas of national importance, with flexibility embodied in the Advisory Panel to identify additional areas. The legislation importantly recognizes that the projects in these areas will be selected on a merit and competitive basis. The draft bill identifies electronics, health care, energy, and water purification as initial areas of national importance. TI and the U.S. semiconductor industry are encouraged that electronics is the first area listed, and strongly advocate that it be renamed nanoelectronics and that the reference be retained in the final bill. The semiconductor industry makes major contributions to the U.S. economy. Semiconductor price reductions and performance improvements have driven productivity. Semiconductors drive the information technology sector, which has contributed to 25 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) growth since 1995 while only making up three percent of GDP. U.S. semiconductor companies are technology leaders, capturing nearly half of the over $250 billion worldwide market. As Dr. Welser testified, nanoelectronics research is needed to advance the current semiconductor technology to its ultimate limits, and to examine nanoelectronics alternatives to go beyond those limits, which will probably be reached by around 2020. Progress in nanoelectronics is essential to continued advances in information and communications, enabling breakthroughs in applications that depend on rapidly accessing huge volumes of data and increasing the speed of computations with that data, such as improved mapping of the human genome and protein folding, predicting the path of hurricanes, and modeling the behavior of nanomaterials and nanoparticles. There is no doubt that nanoelectronics will play a key role in essentially every area of national importance, such as energy, health care, and national security.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

140

Robert Doering

In addressing energy challenges, nanoelectronics and nanostructured materials will be essential to developing new sources as well as to greatly improved means of energy harvesting, storage, distribution, conservation, scavenging, and exploration. Nanostructured materials are already showing promise for low-cost, high-efficiency solar cells, fuel cells, super capacitors, batteries, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). As our country faces rising health care costs for a growing and aging population, the application of nanotechnology to medical diagnoses and treatments will be critical. Advances in nanoelectronics, and nanotechnology more broadly, can lead to less invasive procedures, better imaging and monitoring, and targeted treatment at the cellular level (e.g. cancer). Security is another major area of national importance. Even if the Committee decides not to address this area in the legislation, this topic should certainly be prominent in the interagency context. Further progress in nanoelectronics will continue to benefit national security in very many ways, including even smarter weapons, better and quicker situational awareness, and a broad range of small sensors such as single-chip chemical and biological analysis platforms.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Models and Resources Required to Address National Areas Collaboration among federal and state government, industry, and academia will be essential in addressing the application of nanotechnology to national challenges, through partnerships such as the NRI. The NRI currently supports university basic research in nanoelectronics at 35 universities and four regional centers. NRI efforts are primarily focused on finding a new switch with improved speed, energy efficiency, and/or cost compared to the field-effect transistor, which is today’s workhorse for processing information. The National Science Foundation also recognized this nanoelectronics challenge in its 2009 budget request by including a $20M initiative for research addressing “Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law.” The NRI started as a result of the semiconductor industry recognizing that university research in nanoelectronics must be accelerated. In 2005, Advanced Micro Devices, Freescale, IBM, Intel, Micron Technology, and Texas Instruments all agreed to provide industry funds to form a consortium that would fund university research in nanoelectronics. From the beginning, it was clear that the scope of the challenge and basic science questions involved would require engagement and resources from the federal government, and conversations began with NSF and NIST.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

House Committee on Science and Technology, Testimony …

141

NRI is a model collaboration that leverages funding and expertise from industry, NSF, and NIST, and contributions from state and local governments. To quote the most recent NNI strategic plan profile of the NRI, “these governmentindustry-academic partnerships blend the discovery mission of NSF, the technology innovation mission of NIST, the practical perspective of industry, and the technical expertise of U.S. universities to address a nanotechnology research and development priority. It is one example of the creative methods the NNI uses to accelerate research that contributes to the Nation’s economic competitiveness.” We are pleased that the draft legislation recognizes and encourages such models in Section 5. An extremely valuable addition to the reporting requirement in Section 5 would be to track investments in the areas of national interest, at the same level of detail as is currently done for the Program Component Areas. This information is currently disaggregated across agencies and extremely difficult to obtain and compile. For example, there is no central location to determine overall federal investments in nanoelectronics research, and certainly not on a fiscal year-to-year basis to determine trends. To pursue critical research in the areas of national importance, universities and federal labs such as NIST will need adequate resources in terms of research funding and necessary equipment/relating operating costs--this should be recognized in the bill. While the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 establishes an important framework, corresponding appropriations will need to follow. TI and many of our colleagues in the U.S. semiconductor industry have been among the leaders in the business community advocating for appropriations to meet the research levels established by the America COMPETES Act, House Democratic Innovation Agenda, and the President’s American Competitiveness Agenda.

RESEARCH TO COMMERCIALIZATION (SECTIONS 4 AND 6) The federal government is uniquely positioned to fund basic research. Historically, it has been the primary source of basic research funds for universities. The federal government plays an especially important role in supporting higher-risk, exploratory research for which the economic benefits may not be realized for decades. We applaud the Committee for recognizing that appropriate critical areas of basic research must have a mechanism for translating research into commercial applications. This must be balanced with sustained emphasis on continuing the

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

142

Robert Doering

exploratory research itself, which is required to answer remaining fundamental questions in the science and engineering of nanotechnology. We believe that industry can play an important role in establishing this balance by providing insights on appropriate goals and needs for both “directed” basic research and its potential commercialization. This input can be provided through the revised Advisory Panel, consortia, and various industry advisory liaisons’ input into federal agency merit review processes. Direct agency partnership through precompetitive industry consortia is one of the best mechanisms to achieve close industry- government collaboration and facilitate commercialization of promising research.

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Nanomanufacturing The language in Section 6 calling for instrumentation and tools for nanoscale manufacturing is an important one for the semiconductor industry. As we move to nanoelectronics, measurement, or metrology, challenges will only increase. NIST is best suited to address these challenges given its mission of metrology and its laboratory resources. Using the NRI research as an example, the new nanoelectronics switch must be extremely reliable, fast, low power, functionally dense, and capable of being manufactured in commercial volumes at low cost. There are a number of candidates for the new nanoelectronics switch, including devices based on spin or other quantum state variables rather than classical bulk electric charge. Commercialization of such devices into a new class of integrated circuits may very well require an entirely new nanomanufacturing paradigm.

Role of the States Section 4 of the draft legislation highlights technology transfer and explicitly identifies the important role of state leverage through research, development, and technology transfer initiatives. We agree that state governments should play an important role in leveraging federal funds and facilitating commercialization from universities to industry. For example, Texas created a $200 million Emerging Technology Fund. The fund has three goals: invest in public-private endeavors around emerging scientific or technology fields tied to competitiveness; match federal and other sponsored investment in science; and attract and enhance research talent superiority in

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

House Committee on Science and Technology, Testimony …

143

Texas. Several other states have similar mechanisms. Of course, state governments are also critical in supporting public research universities from an overall budget perspective. As part of the establishment of the third regional NRI center, the Southwest Academy of Nanoelectronics (SWAN), the State of Texas, the University of Texas System, and Texas industry collaborated to establish a complementary package of leveraged support. The resulting $30 million of matching funds is focused on attracting and supporting top academic researchers in nanoelectronics. Specifically, this is a three-way match, with the State of Texas contributing $10 million from the Emerging Technology Fund, the University of Texas System matching with $10 million, and the remaining $10 million being contributed by Texas industry for endowed chairs, including $5 million from TI. The other regional NRI centers provide similar state and local leverage to industry, NSF, and NIST funds. Overall, states are contributing approximately $15 million annually to the NRI in funding, equipment, and endowments, in addition to the major investments in new buildings. New York has provided significant research funding for the Institute for Nanoelectronics Discovery and Engineering (INDEX), as well as a major expansion of the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering Complex in Albany. The State of Georgia, a partner in INDEX through Georgia Tech, has provided new facilities. The Western Institute of Nanoelectronics (WIN) Center has leveraged funds through the University of California’s Discovery program. The recently-established Midwest Academy for Nanoelectronics and Architectures (MANA) at Notre Dame has attracted Indiana state funds and even city resources from South Bend, as well as a commitment to a nanoelectronics building and adjacent innovation park for commercialization activities. While the states have provided these resources to the four regional NRI centers, it is important to note that the regional centers are “virtual” and involve researchers from several universities outside these states, thus the local investments benefit research on a national level. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology issued a five-year assessment report on the NNI in 2005. One of the recommendations was to increase federal cooperation with the states, especially by leveraging state research investments. Further, the report recognized the important role of states in commercializing nanotechnology research results. We agree with these conclusions and endorse the draft legislation’s emphasis on the role of the states in nanotechnology.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

144

Robert Doering

CONCLUSION

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. The draft bill makes a number of improvements to the planning and implementation of the NNI. We strongly support the focus on areas of national interest, and specifically the language on nanoelectronics. The translation of basic research to commercialization must occur to ensure that the NNI maximizes the contributions to U.S. economic competitiveness and maintains our country’s leadership in nanotechnology. TI and the semiconductor industry look forward to continuing to work closely with the Committee as this bill proceeds towards final passage.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

In: National Nanotechnology Initiative Editor: Jerrod W. Kleike, pp. 145-148

ISBN 978-1-60692-727-4 © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

PANEL TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE NNI AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Raymond David Good Morning Chairman Gordon and members of the Committee. I am Dr. Raymond David, a toxicologist with BASF Corporation, and appearing before you today on behalf of the American Chemistry Council and ACC’s Nanotechnology Panel to speak in favor of the NNI Amendments Act of 2008. I appreciate Chairman Gordon’s invitation to address the House Committee on Science and Technology on the role of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in planning and implementing the environmental, safety, and health research necessary for the responsible development of nanotechnology. ACC represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make people's lives better, healthier and safer. In 2005, ACC formed its Nanotechnology Panel consisting of domestic producers that are engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and/or use of chemicals that have a business interest in the products of nanotechnology. Panel member companies wish to foster the responsible application of nanotechnology; to coordinate nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety research initiatives undertaken by member companies and other organizations; and to facilitate the exchange of information among member companies and other domestic and international organizations on issues related to applications and products of nanotechnology. The infrastructure that the NNI amendments would create will greatly improve the ability of the US to plan, coordinate, and implement research

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

146

Raymond David

programs – especially ones focused on the safe use of nanomaterials, an issue that has been raised many times in the past few years. This infrastructure and focus will be welcome in an area that has seen an explosion of research and generation of experimental data – not always focused. The US has had many intellectual and financial resources applied to studying nanomaterials, but not necessarily directed at solving any one issue. Under the NNI amendment, a central, federal, research oversight function would be created to address specific research questions and provide the capability to utilize all federal resources to answer those questions – much like other governments throughout the globe. This centralized oversight will bring the strengths of each federal research organization together to address a single issue. For example, scientists in the National Characterization Laboratory in Frederick, MD, have extensive experience detecting a variety of nanomaterials in biological fluids; scientists in NIOSH have verified the protective effect of personal protective equipment and have investigated the cellular effects of dermal exposure; and scientists in NIEHS and NCTR have developed techniques and conducted experiments to better understand the potential for dermal penetration of nanomaterials. Being able to bring all these entities and expertise together to answer specific questions on the applied nanomaterials could bring swift answers to questions that would take industry or academia alone much longer to evaluate. The amendments would also mandate that NNI provide information to the academic and industrial research community on current research programs, available techniques and methodologies, and facilities to support robust scientific research. This information should reduce the redundancy that we currently find in the explosion of scientific literature, and help gain acceptance of minimal characterization criteria needed for understanding the nature of what particle was tested- nano sized or otherwise. Too often we find published studies that refer only to obtaining a nanomaterial from a vendor and adding that to a biological test system. Investigators need to know how and where they get characterized nanomaterials for study. Otherwise, their research may be difficult to interpret in the context of human or environmental safety assessment. ACC strongly supports the amendment’s purposes to have NNI provide support for programs designed to educate all stakeholders, including the public, on nanotechnology. The public may very well have a skewed perception of nanotechnology and specifically the use of nanomaterials. Sensational articles on nanotechnology in the mainstream media can distort information, and we all must be mindful of the urgent need to present information on nanotechnology in a factually accurate, balanced way. The public will be far less likely to be receptive

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Panel to Speak in Favor of the NNI Amendments Act of 2008

147

to this emerging technology if information about its potential risks and benefits is not faithfully reported in clear, straightforward terms. Of course, the infrastructure that these amendments would provide does not guarantee success. Implementation is what is important. ACC would also like to reemphasize that a high quality, comprehensive and prioritized federal research strategy focusing on nanotechnology environment, health, and safety is still missing and should: • • •

• •

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

Focus on risk assessments, and the generation and application of information on the continuum of exposure, dose and response; Promote new interdisciplinary partnerships that bring visionary thinking to research on nanotechnology; Support better understanding of the fundamental properties of nanomaterials that have an impact in the exposure-dose-response paradigm. Develop processes for establishing validated standard measurement protocols so that individual or categories of materials can be studied; Clearly delineate the responsibilities, programs, timelines, and anticipated results of funded projects for each federal agency. and Leverage planned and ongoing work by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials, particularly in identifying on-going or planned research projects by other countries and interpreting the results of this research, and the testing of representative nanomaterials using standard test methods to assess potential health or environmental hazards.

When ACC testified before you last October, we urged as an appropriate next step, the funding of an independent review by the National Research Council Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST) to establish EHS research priorities for manufactured nanomaterials and a substantial increase in federal funding of EHS programs for manufactured nanomaterials. ACC continues to believe that BEST should develop and monitor implementation of a comprehensive roadmap for federal EHS research projects and set priorities with evaluation metrics suitable for federal funding. This funding would enable BEST to develop a roadmap and strategy for the federal government for environmental, health, and safety research. We look forward to working with the Congress and NNI to make the implementation of the NNI amendments a success. We are hopeful that this bill will be passed to allow that to happen.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

INDEX

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A absorption, 70 academic, 37, 46, 50, 54, 58, 65, 95, 104, 126, 131, 141, 143, 146 ACC, 145, 146, 147 access, 5, 10, 34, 46, 47, 52, 63, 87, 101, 104, 112, 126, 127, 133 accountability, 35 acid, 72 acquisitions, 60 ad hoc, 53, 124 additives, 76 administration, 124 administrative, 51 adults, 16 advisory body, 38 advocacy, 5, 131 African-American, 111 age, 16, 89 agent, 72 agents, 72 aging, 140 aging population, 140 aid, 47, 104, 127 air, 14, 25 Alabama, 33, 44, 67 alternative, 74 alternatives, 139 amendments, 146, 147, 148 AML, 96

analytical techniques, 19 animals, 71, 74 anisotropy, 75, 104 antibody, 71 anticancer, 71, 72, 73, 105 anticancer drug, 71, 72, 73, 105 antigen, 71 anti-tumor, 73 Apatite, 24 application, 11, 18, 63, 65, 69, 78, 79, 82, 85, 94, 95, 122, 140, 145, 147 applied research, 53 appropriations, 103, 141 aquifers, 29 Arizona, 41, 67 Arizona State University, 41 Arkansas, 67 articulation, 101 Asia, x, 45, 57, 76, 125, 133 Asian, 57, 89 Asian countries, 89 assessment, x, 9, 10, 12, 17, 34, 35, 40, 45, 49, 51, 52, 54, 59, 60, 65, 66, 81, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 102, 104, 110, 113, 115, 119, 125, 129, 143, 146 assets, 52, 90 assignment, 62, 138 assumptions, 7 atoms, 6, 49, 75 authority, ix, 3, 11 automakers, 74 automobiles, 75

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

150

Index

availability, 63, 94 awareness, 16, 85, 90, 140

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

B barrier, 24, 78 barriers, 47, 65, 77, 78, 124, 127 basic research, 63, 71, 138, 140, 141, 144 batteries, 140 battery, 76, 87 behavior, 5, 7, 8, 10, 82, 139 Belgium, 18 BellSouth, 41 benchmarks, 111 benefits, vii, ix, 4, 5, 6, 15, 40, 47, 50, 52, 57, 69, 70, 79, 80, 85, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 127, 132, 133, 134, 141, 147 binding, 75 bioethics, 87 biological interactions, 10, 18 biological responses, 69 biomarker, 72 biomarkers, 71 Biosensor, 26 blood, 24, 71 blood-brain barrier, 24 bloodstream, 71, 73 blurring, 112 Boston, 42 bottom-up, 99 bounds, 10 brain, 24, 73 branched polymers, 72 Britain, 4 broad spectrum, 78 buildings, 143 business environment, 78

C cancer, 5, 27, 29, 57, 71, 72, 73, 86, 95, 105, 106, 124, 140 cancer cells, 71, 72, 73 cancer treatment, 5

candidates, 142 capacity, ix, 3, 13, 52, 54, 57, 74, 75, 83, 107 Capacity, 23 carbon, 66, 69, 74, 75, 82, 84, 92, 104, 107, 122 Carbon, 20, 21, 22, 25, 29, 74, 76, 96 carbon atoms, 75 carbon nanotubes, 69, 74, 75, 82, 84, 92, 107, 122 carcinogenicity, 70 cast, 13 categorization, 17, 66 category a, 18 CDC, 4, 96, 97 cell, 66, 74 Centers for Disease Control, 4, 96 centralized, 88, 146 CEO, 41, 42, 43, 44 certification, 115 Chad, 72 chemical content, 70 chemical properties, 79, 92 chemicals, 7, 64, 145 chicken, 75 children, 111, 113, 115, 116 China, 15, 59, 60, 61, 133 circulation, 73 citizens, 86 citizenship, 110 classes, 66, 93 classical, 142 classroom, 113 classroom teacher, 113 classrooms, 110, 111 cleanup, 133 climate change, 5 clinical trial, 74 CMOS, 64, 96 CNS, 24, 67 CNTs, 74, 75, 76 Co, 12, 15, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 119, 147 coatings, 50 codes, 88 collaboration, 51, 53, 59, 63, 89, 92, 103, 135, 141, 142

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Index Collaboration, 63, 140 college students, 115 colleges, 134 Colorado, 67 commerce, 48, 128 commercialization, x, 4, 11, 16, 48, 51, 54, 55, 58, 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 77, 78, 80, 89, 91, 92, 98, 124, 128, 131, 132, 142, 143, 144 communication, 40, 49, 51, 54, 63, 64, 80, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106, 129 communities, viii, 3, 9, 57 community, 12, 37, 54, 63, 77, 83, 90, 95, 110, 112, 141, 146 competency, 94 competition, 58, 133 competitiveness, 47, 57, 60, 63, 110, 125, 127, 142 complement, 15, 84 complexity, 9, 102 components, 5, 51, 138 composites, 76 composition, 7, 65 compounds, 66, 86 computer science, 50 computing, vii, 50 concentrates, 111 conductance, 105 conduction, 76 conductive, 39 confidence, 102 confidentiality, 88 confusion, 84 Congress, 38, 39, 51, 90, 91, 98, 103, 119, 120, 124, 132, 135, 139, 148 Connecticut, 67 consensus, 66, 68, 82, 88, 91, 94, 122 conservation, 76, 140 construction, 110 consumer goods, 79 consumers, 16, 66, 70, 79, 83, 134 contaminant, 85 contamination, 85 control, 49, 76 convergence, 90

151

conversion, vii, 50 copper, 74 corporations, 63, 84 cost-effective, 66, 99 costs, 140, 141 Council on Environmental Quality, 82, 96, 122 country of origin, 134 coverage, 65 covering, 111, 114 credibility, 12, 13 credit, 70, 72, 73, 75 critical infrastructure, 65 cross-fertilization, 92 culture, 116 Curcumin, 26 curiosity, 90, 102 curricular materials, 111 curriculum, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116 customers, 91 cycles, 78 cytotoxic, 27 Cytotoxic, 29 Czech Republic, 18

D Dallas, 137 danger, 14 data collection, 68 data set, 84, 92 database, 13, 15, 17, 35, 36, 84, 124 dating, 38 decisions, 11, 111, 113, 114, 115, 123 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 74 definition, 98 Delaware, 33 delivery, 24, 30, 71, 86 dendrimers, 72, 73 Denmark, 18 Department of Agriculture, 97 Department of Commerce, 68, 96 Department of Defense, 96 Department of Education, 96, 103

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

152

Index

Department of Energy, 57, 74, 96 Department of Energy (DOE), 57 Department of Health and Human Services, 96 Department of Homeland Security, 96 Department of Justice, 96 Department of State, 96 Department of Transportation, 96 deposition, 74 desorption, 75 detection, 72, 106 Detoxification, 28 developing countries, 88 diesel, 88 diffusion, 11 diodes, 140 discipline, 59 discourse, 57 Discovery, 98, 143 distribution, 72, 94, 140, 145 diversity, 120 division, 94 DNA, 27, 30, 71, 72 doctors, 138 DOT, 96, 100 draft, 5, 105, 120, 123, 132, 133, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144 drug delivery, 68, 76 drug toxicity, 73 drugs, 57, 72, 86, 87 duplication, 48, 92, 94, 128 duties, 51

E ECM, 30 economic competitiveness, 141, 144 economic development, 93, 131 economic disadvantage, 87 economic growth, 132 economic indicator, 102 economics, 65 ecosystem, 40, 93

Education, 14, 22, 25, 28, 35, 42, 53, 57, 65, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 103, 109, 111, 117, 134, 138 educators, ix, 4, 16 EEG, 26 electric charge, 142 electricity, 39, 74 electrochemistry, 72 electrodes, 76, 87 electron, 19, 39 electron microscopy, 19, 39 EMG, 26 emission, 76 employers, 86 energy, vii, 39, 46, 50, 57, 69, 74, 76, 87, 106, 120, 124, 126, 133, 138, 139, 140 energy efficiency, 133, 140 engagement, 12, 78, 93, 99, 110, 140 enterprise, ix, 3, 14 entrepreneurs, 48, 93, 128 environment, viii, ix, x, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 45, 46, 54, 64, 79, 81, 83, 84, 99, 115, 125, 126, 132, 134, 147 environmental effects, 84 environmental impact, 10, 18, 36, 83, 101 environmental issues, 83 Environmental Protection Agency, 10, 82, 96, 104, 122 EPA, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 64, 82, 85, 90, 92, 96, 100, 104, 122 equality, 47, 127 ethical concerns, 47, 54, 79, 88, 127 ethical issues, 87, 88 ethical principles, 88 ethics, 54, 65, 88, 95 EU, 17, 18, 36 Europe, ix, x, 3, 15, 45, 57, 76, 125, 133 European Union, xi, 9, 18, 46, 60, 126 examinations, 114 Executive Branch, 96 Executive Office of the President, 96, 97 Executive Order, x, 37, 39, 45, 51, 125 expenditures, xi, 46, 80, 126, 138 expert, x, 9, 45, 82, 122, 125

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Index expertise, 11, 16, 46, 47, 50, 53, 54, 72, 78, 88, 92, 94, 95, 103, 124, 126, 127, 141, 146 exploitation, 102 exposure, 18, 23, 46, 52, 69, 70, 79, 80, 83, 86, 99, 126, 146, 147

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

F fabric, 87 failure, vii, 2 FDA, 10, 11, 32, 69, 71, 82, 85, 86, 92, 96, 97, 104, 105, 122 fear, 114 fears, 95 February, 34, 81, 82, 122 federal funds, 142 federal government, viii, ix, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 15, 123, 140, 141, 147 feedback, 54, 82, 122 feeding, 74 fiber, 39 film, 74 financial resources, 112, 146 Finland, 18 firms, 67, 68 flexibility, 124, 139 flow, 11 fluorescence, 72 focus group, 16 focus groups, 16 focusing, 10, 111, 114, 147 folate, 72, 73 Folate, 72 folding, 6, 139 folic acid, 72 food, 57, 85, 86 Food and Drug Administration, 10, 82, 96, 104, 122 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 10, 82, 104, 122 Fox, 42 France, 62 frying, 7 FS, 100 fuel, 74, 75, 140

153

fuel cell, 74, 75, 140 fullerene, 60 Fullerenes, 22 funding, viii, ix, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 35, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 80, 82, 84, 90, 98, 102, 116, 123, 124, 135, 138, 141, 143, 147 funds, ix, 3, 10, 13, 103, 114, 140, 141, 143

G gallium, 74 gauge, 102 GDP, 139 gene, 76 general knowledge, 10 generation, 11, 18, 64, 98, 146, 147 genome, 139 Georgia, 39, 42, 67, 143 Germany, 18, 62 global climate change, vii, 1 global competition, 133, 135 global economy, 80, 110, 134 GLP-1, 29 goals, viii, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 47, 53, 64, 98, 101, 102, 103, 113, 120, 122, 125, 127, 134, 138, 142 gold, 66, 71, 72, 82, 86, 92, 122 gold nanoparticles, 66, 71 governance, x, 4, 16 government, viii, ix, x, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 35, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 63, 64, 69, 76, 81, 82, 84, 112, 116, 120, 122, 125, 126, 128, 133, 140, 141, 142, 146, 147 Government Accountability Office, 51 GPO, 103 grades, 110, 116 graduate education, 102 Greece, 18 gross domestic product, 139 groups, 4, 47, 50, 51, 64, 72, 90, 91, 101, 127, 131 growth, vii, 1, 5, 55, 57, 64, 73, 84, 102, 131, 132, 139 growth rate, 55, 84

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

154

Index

guidance, 83, 86, 124 guidelines, 54, 81, 84, 111, 124

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

H handling, 34, 83, 91 hands, 134 harm, viii, x, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 45, 125 Harvard, 27 harvesting, 39, 140 hazards, 70, 134, 147 health, viii, ix, x, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 34, 36, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 64, 69, 70, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 99, 101, 103, 105, 106, 115, 120, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 145, 147 Health and Human Services, 96 health care, 133, 138, 139, 140 health care costs, 140 health effects, 52, 79, 82, 83, 86, 101 healthcare, 85, 86, 120 hearing, 4 heart, 74, 86 heart valves, 86 HHS, 90, 97 high school, 109, 114, 134 high-level, 49, 53, 119, 124, 129 hip, 86 Hispanics, 111 Homeland Security, 96 House, v, vi, 1, 4, 8, 14, 34, 35, 109, 116, 119, 131, 137, 141, 145 HSC, 21 human, x, 4, 7, 9, 17, 45, 49, 52, 69, 71, 73, 74, 79, 81, 83, 86, 87, 99, 105, 125, 139, 146 human genome, 139 humans, 83 hurricanes, 139 hybrid, 106 hydrogen, 74, 75, 105, 107

I IBM, 75, 76, 77, 138, 140 ice, 14 id, 73, 115 Idaho, 31 identification, 10, 40, 91, 104, 111, 138, 139 Illinois, 43, 67 imaging, vii, 27, 49, 72, 140 immune response, 73 implants, 86 implementation, ix, 3, 9, 12, 38, 40, 51, 52, 66, 91, 144, 147, 148 impurities, 76 incentives, 110, 114, 115 inclusion, 139 Indiana, 143 indication, 62 indicators, 102 indium, 74 industrial, 14, 65, 85, 131, 146 industrial application, 14 industrial sectors, 131 industry, viii, ix, x, 3, 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 38, 40, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 76, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85, 86, 93, 95, 106, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146 inert, 69 information exchange, 105 information processing, 64 information technology, 139 Information Technology, 88 infrastructure, 39, 46, 47, 53, 55, 57, 60, 64, 65, 78, 90, 99, 101, 103, 124, 126, 127, 146, 147 initial public offerings, 60 injection, 73 innovation, 5, 40, 48, 55, 57, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 77, 78, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 101, 102, 128, 137, 141, 143 Innovation, 23, 51, 65, 67, 97, 133, 141 institutions, 38, 131 instruction, 111, 114

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Index instructional materials, 113, 114 integrated circuits, 64, 96, 142 integration, 99, 115 Intel, 140 intellectual property, 11, 78 interaction, 52, 90 interactions, 10, 18, 75, 98 interdisciplinary, 10, 53, 57, 64, 78, 89, 93, 101, 102, 103, 112, 113, 114, 138, 147 interface, 98 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 55, 96 international standards, 48, 92, 128 invasive, 140 inventions, 62 inventories, 34, 35, 36 inventors, 62 Investigations, 29, 32 investment, ix, x, 3, 9, 10, 12, 17, 45, 46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 64, 66, 67, 78, 82, 89, 98, 102, 103, 125, 126, 133, 142 iPod, 75 iron, 7 ISO, 64, 92, 96 isolation, 13

J January, 36, 40 Japan, 62, 76 job creation, vii, 1 jobs, 102, 110 jurisdiction, 82, 122

155

language, 142, 144 large-scale, 54, 64, 124, 132, 133 law, 51, 77, 137, 138 laws, 104 lead, viii, ix, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 18, 48, 75, 80, 84, 89, 92, 94, 102, 122, 127, 133, 140 leadership, viii, ix, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 38, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 64, 88, 90, 116, 125, 135, 137, 139, 144 learners, 110, 113, 114, 115 learning, 109, 110, 112, 113, 116 legal issues, 65 legislation, 65, 120, 123, 125, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142 Life Cycle Analysis, 23 life-cycle, 84 light-emitting diodes, 140 likelihood, 83 limitations, ix, 3, 13 links, 104 literacy, 111, 116 lithium, 76 liver, 71, 73 liver cancer, 71 local government, 52, 141 location, 141 Lockheed Martin, 41 locus, 91 long-term, 13, 52, 53, 74, 102, 103, 112, 114 low power, 142 low-level, 71 lymphocytes, 27

M K Kentucky, 67 kidneys, 73 killing, 71 Korea, 62

L

magnetic, 72, 75, 104 mainstream, 146 maintenance, 85 malignancy, 71 management, x, 38, 40, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 65, 82, 88, 91, 99, 103, 125, 127, 129 Manganese, 25 manufactured goods, 14 manufacturer, 66

labeling, 69

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

156

Index

manufacturing, vii, 13, 50, 51, 53, 66, 76, 81, 83, 86, 87, 99, 100, 101, 104, 132, 142 mapping, 60, 139 market, 6, 11, 34, 50, 55, 57, 62, 65, 66, 68, 76, 85, 89, 91, 93, 105, 133, 134, 138, 139 marketing, 66, 85 Maryland, 67 Massachusetts, 67 matching funds, 143 materials science, 50, 58 mathematics, 38, 110, 115 measurement, 98, 138, 142, 147 measures, xi, 46, 60, 126 mechanical energy, 39 media, 72, 146 medications, 85 medicine, 46, 57, 58, 71, 126 memory, 57, 75 MEMS, 33 metal oxide, 66, 69, 70, 92 metal-oxide-semiconductor, 64, 96 metals, 74 Mexico, 33, 67 mice, 26, 73 microarray, 72 Microbial, 22 micrometer, 29 microscopy, 7, 19, 39, 73 Microsoft, 43, 44 Minnesota, 67 misleading, 12 missions, 10, 12, 46, 56, 88, 89, 91, 94, 120, 126 Missouri, 67 MIT, 27 modeling, 139 models, 14, 21, 74, 75, 88, 102, 113, 115, 141 molecules, 49, 72, 74, 75, 105 money, x, 10, 11, 45, 52, 125 moratorium, 69 movement, 39 MRI, 27 multidisciplinary, 47, 54, 55, 90, 93, 102, 127

N Nanocomposites, 30 Nanocrystal, 32 Nanodiamonds, 28 nanoelectronics, 39, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 nanomaterials, x, 4, 6, 7, 13, 17, 18, 19, 36, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53, 64, 65, 66, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 92, 93, 94, 98, 102, 104, 123, 125, 126, 128, 139, 146, 147 nanomedicine, 57 nanometer, 6, 7, 49 nanometers, 49, 72 nanoparticles, 17, 18, 30, 34, 36, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 104, 135, 139 nanoscale materials, 69, 76, 79, 84, 85, 86, 87, 99, 105 nanoscale structures, 98 nanoscience, 18, 19, 80, 102, 103, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 nanostructured materials, 98, 99, 140 nanostructure, 20, 23, 31, 32, 66 nanotechnologies, viii, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 64, 81, 95 nanotechnology, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 111, 112, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 nanotube, 69, 74, 75, 82, 84, 92, 96, 104, 107, 122 nanowires, 31,39, 66 NASA, 97, 100 nation, 111, 113, 114, 115 national, 38, 39, 48, 57, 63, 68, 78, 92, 102, 112, 113, 114, 116, 124, 128, 133, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Index National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 97 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4, 10, 34, 97, 105 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 57, 97 National Institutes of Health, 35, 57, 97 National Research Council, 49, 53, 97, 101, 105, 116, 129, 147 National Science and Technology Council, 4, 37, 47, 50, 97, 105, 106, 123, 127 National Science Foundation, 10, 57, 74, 97, 140 national security, 139, 140 natural, 137 NCL, 97 ND, 32 nerve, 6 nerve cells, 6 network, 97, 104 neurons, 24 New Jersey, 67 New Mexico, 33, 67 New York, 35, 67, 105, 116, 143 NGOs, 5, 13 NIH, 10, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 57, 90, 93, 97, 100 NIR, 24 NIST, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 48, 74, 75, 82, 85, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 100, 122, 128, 140, 141, 142, 143 nongovernmental, 38 nongovernmental organization, 38 North Carolina, 68 Notre Dame, 143 NRC, 49, 53, 65, 97, 101, 105, 129

O objectivity, 90 occupational, 4 occupational health, 4 OECD, 12, 15, 17, 35, 36, 47, 48, 55, 64, 66, 68, 83, 85, 92, 93, 97, 127, 128, 147

157

Office of Management and Budget, 82, 97, 98, 103 Office of Science and Technology Policy, 38, 39, 41, 97, 98, 106 Ohio, 68 Oklahoma, 68 OMB, 97, 98 Oncology, 27 onion, 7 online, 77, 103, 104, 105, 106 on-line, 17 optical, 72 optical imaging, 72 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 47, 55, 97, 127 organization, 5, 9, 13, 14, 17, 70, 84, 146 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 12, 15, 35, 147 organizations, 5, 13, 14, 38, 84, 92, 93, 145 OSTP, 45, 82, 97, 98, 106, 122 oversight, viii, ix, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 13, 51, 54, 64, 65, 78, 81, 82, 83, 89, 122, 124, 146 oxide, 39, 64, 69, 70, 96

P packaging, 57 paper, 9, 82, 104, 122 paradigm shift, 46, 126 particles, 6, 7, 69, 85, 86 partnership, 142 partnerships, ix, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 53, 103, 131, 140, 141, 147 Patent and Trademark Office, 61, 97 patents, xi, 46, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 105, 126 pathways, 78 PCA, 56, 64, 97, 99, 100 PCR, 71 pedagogical, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115 peer, 84, 85 Pennsylvania, 68 Peptide, 30 perception, 54, 62, 95, 146 perceptions, 79 performance, 85, 86, 87, 98, 120, 139

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

158

Index

permeability, 24 personal, 15, 39, 111, 124, 146 petroleum, 87 pH, 26 pharmaceuticals, 85 photovoltaic, 74 physical sciences, 103 physicists, 138 physics, 58, 74 piezoelectric, 39 planning, 78, 82, 88, 89, 120, 121, 123, 144, 145 platforms, 140 play, 53, 66, 75, 85, 93, 139, 142 PN, 64 policy makers, 6 policymakers, 95 Polling, 16 pollution, 14 polymers, 71, 72 poor, 7 population, 87, 115, 140 portfolio, 123 postsecondary education, 15 poverty, vii, 1 powder, 7 power, 133, 142 president, ix, 4, 16 President Bush, 37, 38 pressure, 52 prevention, vii, 50 printing, 74 prior knowledge, 114 priorities, 9, 47, 54, 64, 81, 84, 123, 124, 127, 147 privacy, 47, 88, 127 private, ix, x, 3, 13, 14, 15, 37, 38, 45, 46, 52, 55, 57, 60, 78, 81, 82, 89, 102, 112, 122, 125, 126, 131, 133, 142 private investment, x, 45, 52, 125 private sector, 37, 38, 46, 52, 55, 57, 60, 78, 81, 102, 112, 126 proactive, 79, 81, 86, 89 probe, 72 producers, 145

production, 48, 59, 74, 87, 123, 128 productivity, 139 professional development, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116 professions, 110 program, ix, x, 3, 10, 15, 38, 39, 45, 47, 51, 52, 57, 64, 80, 82, 86, 88, 89, 93, 95, 97, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 134, 138, 139, 143 promote, 48, 101, 110, 113, 128 property, 11, 78 prostate, 71 prostate specific antigen, 71 protection, 62 protein, 6, 71, 106, 139 protein folding, 139 proteins, 71 protocol, 53 protocols, 85, 102, 147 prototype, 132 PSA, 71 public, ix, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 38, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 60, 69, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 89, 90, 93, 95, 99, 102, 104, 105, 128, 131, 132, 133, 142, 146 public awareness, 90 public domain, 39 public health, 82 public opinion, 49, 128 public policy, 133 public relations, 80 public support, 102 public-private partnerships, 13, 14, 15, 131 purchasing power, 133 purification, 139

Q quality of life, 5, 132 quality research, 83 quantum, 60, 74, 142 quantum dot, 60 quantum state, 142 quantum well, 60

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Index

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

R R&D, ix, x, xi, 3, 15, 18, 25, 36, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 57, 60, 66, 78, 82, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 120, 123, 125, 126, 128, 137 race, 14 radiation, 97 Raman, 26 range, vii, 46, 48, 49, 50, 54, 58, 65, 72, 74, 79, 120, 126, 128, 129, 138, 140 raw material, 66 RC, 53 reality, ix, 3, 4, 9, 15, 66 recognition, 76, 85 reduction, 10, 70 redundancy, 146 refining, 87 regional, 78, 140, 143 regular, 51, 54, 81, 83 regulation, 7, 10, 14, 48, 81, 128, 135 regulations, 46, 126 regulators, 9, 79 regulatory oversight, 83 relationships, 53 relevance, ix, 3, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 34, 35, 36, 94 remediation, vii, 29, 50, 57, 87 renewable energy, 74 Republican, 4 research, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 110, 113, 114, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 research and development, vii, viii, ix, x, 3, 10, 12, 37, 38, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 68, 78, 95, 97, 98, 99, 104, 120, 124, 125, 128, 132, 133, 135, 141

159

Research and Development, viii, x, 2, 8, 38, 45, 51, 88, 104, 111, 112, 114, 125, 132, 138 research funding, 16, 17, 123, 141, 143 researchers, 5, 11, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 90, 94, 95, 102, 133, 143 reservation, 85 resources, ix, 3, 10, 11, 16, 48, 81, 83, 94, 96, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 127, 133, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146 responsibilities, 46, 126, 147 revolutionary, ix, 3, 55, 57 Revolutionary, 76 Rhode Island, 68 rice, 35, 84 risk, viii, ix, x, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 34, 35, 36, 40, 46, 47, 48, 53, 65, 66, 70, 79, 82, 83, 85, 91, 94, 95, 99, 102, 126, 127, 128, 141, 147 risk assessment, 40, 48, 85, 91, 99, 102, 128, 147 risk management, 40, 82, 99 risks, viii, x, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 34, 35, 40, 45, 46, 52, 69, 70, 77, 80, 85, 86, 88, 93, 94, 95, 99, 103, 125, 126, 132, 134, 147 roadmap, viii, 2, 8, 9, 147 runaway, 66 rural, 111 rural areas, 111 Russia, 133 rutile, 70

S S&T, 124 safeguards, 5 safety, viii, ix, x, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 34, 36, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54, 64, 66, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 99, 103, 105, 106, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 132, 134, 135, 145, 146, 147 sample, 69, 116 Scanning electron, 39 scholarship, 48, 95, 128

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

160

Index

school, 15, 99, 109, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 134 science education, 38, 109, 112, 113, 115 science educators, 110 science literacy, 111, 116 science teaching, 110 scientific progress, 58 scientists, ix, 4, 15, 16, 48, 74, 78, 93, 102, 110, 128, 137, 138, 146 search, 59, 60, 62, 84, 105, 106 secondary school students, 15 security, 138, 139, 140 seeding, 78 Self, 32 self-assembly, 99 SEM, 39 semiconductor, 64, 68, 96, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144 sensing, 57 sensors, 140 separation, 47, 127 serum, 71 services, 145 shape, 7, 76, 85 sharing, 11, 59, 78, 79, 133 short-term, 9, 112 shoulder, 11 side effects, 73, 85 signs, 7, 14 silicon, 74 silver, 66, 92 siRNA, 24 skills, 48, 113, 115, 128 skin, 69, 106, 110 sleep, 26 solar, 66, 74, 140 solar cell, 66, 74, 140 solar panels, 74 solid tumors, 24 solutions, 4, 8, 133 spectroscopy, 32 spectrum, 78, 89 speculation, 80 speed, 139, 140 spin, 8, 104, 142

stages, 78, 89 stakeholder, 12, 80, 131 stakeholder groups, 131 stakeholders, viii, ix, x, 2, 3, 9, 12, 14, 45, 49, 78, 79, 85, 88, 91, 93, 95, 125, 129, 132, 138, 146 standardization, 53, 59, 64 standards, 40, 48, 64, 65, 66, 77, 91, 92, 99, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 128 Standards, 48, 91, 92, 98, 100, 111, 117, 128 statutory, 51 storage, vii, 50, 57, 74, 75, 76, 107, 140 strategic, viii, ix, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 38, 64, 84, 90, 101, 133, 135, 138, 141 strategies, 8, 9, 15, 111, 112, 115 strength, 75, 76, 88 stress, 113 students, 15, 48, 78, 102, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 128, 134 substances, 85 substitutes, 29 summer, 137 sunlight, 74 sunscreens, 69, 70, 104 superiority, 142 surface area, 85 surface chemistry, 85 susceptibility, 95 sustainable development, 80 sustainable economic growth, vii, 1 Sweden, 18 switching, 105 Switzerland, 18 symmetry, 64, 96 synthesis, 98 systems, vii, 27, 50, 53, 98, 99, 100

T Taiwan, 59, 60, 61 talent, 102, 142 targets, 72 task force, 90 teacher preparation, 110

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Index teachers, 15, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 teaching, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 technology, vii, ix, x, xi, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 37, 38, 40, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 64, 69, 71, 74, 78, 79, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 102, 103, 106, 110, 112, 114, 116, 119, 120, 125, 126, 128, 129, 132, 138, 139, 141, 142, 147 technology transfer, x, xi, 40, 45, 46, 48, 51, 54, 64, 78, 125, 126, 128, 142 teeth, 39 Tennessee, 68 tensile, 76 tensile strength, 76 testicular cancer, 71 testimony, 5, 9, 109, 116, 120, 138 Texas, 68, 137, 140, 142, 143 textbooks, 112 textiles, 57 theory, 74, 102 therapeutics, 18, 88, 124 therapy, 71, 86 thinking, ix, 4, 8, 15, 112, 147 Thomson, 67 threshold, 80 time, 52, 53, 57, 61, 68, 71, 78, 87, 88, 101, 110, 120, 132, 138 time frame, 138 TiO2, 23 TIP, 133 tissue, 29 Tissue Engineering, 28 titanium, 7, 69, 70, 74, 75 Titanium, 20, 21, 23, 69, 74, 107 titanium dioxide, 7, 69, 70 title, 59, 62 T-lymphocytes, 27 top-down, viii, ix, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, 99 toxic, 72, 73 toxic side effect, 73 toxicities, 69 toxicity, 6, 18, 21, 69, 70, 73, 84 toxicological, 52 tracking, 47, 103, 127

161

tradition, 38 trainees, 60 training, 53, 54, 64, 65, 78, 91, 93, 99 training programs, 64, 78 transfer, x, xi, 11, 40, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 54, 64, 78, 124, 125, 126, 128, 142 Transgenic, 21 transistor, 140 transition, 74, 138 transition metal, 74 translation, 138, 144 translational, 132 transparency, 12, 15, 17, 35 transparent, ix, 3, 8, 12, 13, 17, 69, 81 transportation, 74, 120 travel, 138 trend, 133 trial, 73 trust, 12 tumor, 26, 71, 73 tumor cells, 71, 73 tumor growth, 73 tumors, 24, 71, 73, 86 Turkey, 75 two-way, 49

U U.S. Department of Agriculture, 97 U.S. economy, 80, 103, 139 ultraviolet, 97 Ultraviolet, 30 undergraduate, 15, 99, 102, 110, 114, 116 undergraduate education, 15, 110, 114, 116 undergraduates, 115 United Kingdom, 18 United States, v, viii, x, xi, 1, 2, 34, 35, 38, 45, 46, 52, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 64, 76, 80, 89, 91, 101, 102, 105, 111, 119, 125, 126, 131, 133, 134 universities, 39, 46, 64, 87, 113, 126, 140, 141, 142, 143 university education, 93 updating, x, 45, 113, 114, 125 urine, 73

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science

162

Index

USDA, 22, 25, 29, 86, 90, 97, 100 Utah, 68 UV, 70

V vaccine, 30 vacuum, 74, 76 variables, 142 VC, 66, 67, 68 vehicles, 71 vein, 8 venture capital, 57, 60, 66, 67, 77 vibration, 39 Vice President, 43 VIP, 24 visas, 134 vision, viii, 2, 98, 102 voice, 132

wear, 110 web, 112 White House, 39 wind, 39 Wisconsin, 68 wisdom, 135 withdrawal, 69 workers, 46, 59, 66, 86, 93, 126, 134 workforce, x, 15, 38, 45, 51, 53, 54, 78, 80, 91, 99, 101, 103, 110, 115, 125, 132 working groups, 47, 50, 51, 91, 101, 127 workplace, 4, 11, 46, 52, 79, 81, 83, 86, 105, 123, 126 Wyoming, 68

X X-rays, 32

Z

Copyright © 2009. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

W water, 5, 139 weapons, 140

zinc, 21, 39, 70 zinc oxide, 39, 70

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Assessment and Recommendations : Assessment and Recommendations, Nova Science