Home > Introduction > Articles > Pearl Chin > Politics of the $3.7B...
Politics of the $3.7B + $849M
By Pearl Chin - Managing General Partner, Seraphima Ventures
|
|
President George W. Bush approved S189, also known as the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, on December 3, 2003. Starting in 2005, this Act will provide $3.7 billion over the following four years for federal nanotechnology programs, and reorganizes government and research communities under a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO). Bush has requested $849 million for fiscal year 2004.
The bill calls for the president to establish a national program to undertake long-term basic nanoscience and engineering research. Emphasis will be on potential breakthroughs in materials and manufacturing, nanoelectronics, medicine and health care, computation and IT and national security. It also creates the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) from industry and academia to help articulate short-term (1-5 years), medium-range (6-10 years), and long-range (10+ years) goals and objectives and to establish performance metrics for the already established National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which is a collaborative initiative of 13 federal agencies. The bill provides a structure for coordination of research across agencies. Under the legislation, the advisory board will submit an annual report to the president and Congress regarding nanotechnology progress, and a review on funding levels for nanotechnology activities for each federal agency.
Funding from S189 starts October 2005, the beginning of the government's next fiscal year. Nanotech funding has increased 83 percent since 2001, according to the White House. It is estimated that a whopping 95 percent of the $3.7 Billion authorized will go to scientific research and development -- roughly 60 percent for academia and 35 percent for government labs. It also emphasizes interdisciplinary research, seeks to address concerns raised by nanotechnology, and requires outside reviews of the programs. After stating some of the bill's major details, this article will discuss the politics of the nanotech bill.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act started in the office of Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2001, until it was derailed by the events of Sept. 11 and shelved. In 2002, Sen. George Allen, Sen. Ron Wyden and House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert picked up the mantle.
The signing of the bill by President Bush makes nanotechnology the highest federally funded basic science and technology effort since the space race. Funding that in the past was at the discretion of the president is now mandated. The bill ultimately promised jobs and economic development, and in the short term deliver research projects to government labs and universities in potentially every Congressional district. That's a powerful combination to an elected official.
The reasoning behind that last statement is because of the role of the new National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and National Nanotech Advisory Panel (NNAP) (an appointed group of academics and industrial leaders) who will together assess, guide, and allocate nanotechnology research spending and reports directly to the President and Congress. This advisory board potentially could have much influence over government spending policy and thus have the potential of becoming very powerful and influential.
NNAP will replace the current Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (NTAG) charged with providing technical information on nanotechnology to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). As part of NTAG, PCAST has formed three Task Forces in the following areas: Materials/Electronics/Photonics; Energy/Environment; and Biology/Medicine/Societal Issues. NTAG consists of experts representing a range of disciplines, such as bionanotechnology, drug delivery, biosensers, MEMS, sensing, chemistry, physics, business, commercial and government. NTAG is made up of academics and industrial players. The TAG shall expire September 30, 2005 when NNAP takes over in October 2005.
How will the members of the newly created and politically influential NNAP be best chosen? The question is important because of the existence of factions in nanotechnology, in particular, between the non-profit nanotechnology organizations themselves. The problem is that it is from these competing non-profit organizations that members of these advisory panels and offices may often be drawn from. There is a lot of money at stake here so it is no surprise that people are fighting for a piece of the pie. More interesting is if you examine the current NTAG group closely, the 40+ members invited and included are also heavily represented by one of the non-profit organizations. Where are the members supported by the other groups? In order for NTAG and NNAP to be objective and fulfill their responsibility to the American public, NNAP needs to include other notable nanotechnology experts that aren't favored by any one particular non-profit organization that may happen to have more political influence.
The formation of the NNAP should offer the opportunity to bring in new members that have been in or just entered the nanotechnology community, and who can provide additional and fresher perspectives. It would be prudent to include members capable of discussing the sociological impact of nanotechnology and technology trends in general. If the members of the NNAP group are not diverse enough in support and opinion, then the purpose for their creation and existence becomes moot. Otherwise, they become a political tool and our tax dollars aren't allocated appropriately, nor to the areas which would benefit citizens the most.
Most people have no idea the degree of politics, egos and power plays within the nanotechnology community, and shenanigans are not confined to the U.S. players, which makes sense because nanotechnology - like all advanced technology - is global. Some of you are familiar with the Drexler-Smalley debate surrounding the potential of Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT). MNT got its one-time feasibility study deleted from the bill in the final stretch. I will not go into specific details surrounding MNT , since many other articles cover that debate, and that information is easily accessible on the Internet. Unfortunately, similar to stem cell research and cloning, MNT will likely become more advanced in other countries that will support and fund it. MNT advances will eventually come out of some place like China when it is found to be truly feasible. It just takes time. Since MNT lost out in the nanotech bill, members of the opposing camp may see it as a "win" for them in the short term. However, it is a "loss" for everyone else in the long term when potential is stifled early on and not given a chance to prove itself one way or another. (See Omission in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act for more.)
The idea that two notable scientists are battling it out publicly while the debate degenerates to name calling and emotional arguments is unfortunate and typical of the Reality TV culture we've become. If this debate was to stimulate thought and brainstorm, then the value of a public debate is a good thing. However it becomes clear that there are motivations other than this for this public display, which is indicative of the loss of scientific objectivity. This behavior among the scientific community is particularly distressing because it diminishes credibility of both sides in the eyes of the general public.
Both Drexler and Smalley camps have good points from a scientific perspective, but there is no definitive proof yet that one is more right. Which scientist can honestly say they know better than the other? Can they both be right? Of course. Can they both be wrong? Of course. Science, and in this case, Nanotechnology, is not one of those areas where who is right is determined by the majority of supporters. It will be via research and discovery of the facts to answer the basic questions that will determine who is more right.
Even the scientific community, which includes the nanotech community, needs to remember that before theory, comes hypothesis. A hypothesis is not yet proven to be a theory. So is there potential for MNT? There is no answer unless we fund the feasibility study. It's a circular argument. Neither Drexler and Smalley nor others are equipped to really know the answer to this right now, before it is studied. However, looking more closely, certain non-profit organizations have thrown their support behind one figure or another in this debate.
The best of us falls victim to the lure of power, influence, money and ego. Although Eric Drexler and Richard Smalley have achieved a pinnacle in their careers, the founders of these organizations probably have not. Unless this debate is for more constructive purposes, it is beginning to look more like a battle of egos. Of course, one can always argue how much more could a Nobel Prize physicist and famous published nanotechnology visionary want after achieving so much already. My experience is that sometimes, unfortunately, there is always more to want. The motivations of such non-profits and their organizers behind the debaters need to be examined if you want a clearer picture of why some people's profiles are promoted and why others aren't.
Read the entire article - Sign up now for our MONTHLY PREMIUM NEWSLETTER, or buy a single issue.
Stay tuned for next month's article.
|
Dr. Pearl Chin has an MBA from Cornell, a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from University of Delaware's Center for Composite Materials and B.E. in Chemical Engineering from The Cooper Union.
|
This is another monthly column contributed by Dr. Chin to Nanotechnology Now. The full article appears in our April 2004 Premium Newsletter, along with other outstanding pieces by leaders in the field.
Read all her articles.
Stay in touch with the rapid-fire changes brought about by advances in nanotechnology. Sign up now for our
MONTHLY PREMIUM NEWSLETTER
